ESPN Is Pathetic
- Thread starter Lose Remerswaal
- Start date
I'm on SSI, I'm in subsidized housing. I get shit on. I read memes shitting on people like me daily. I see other people in my position being shit on daily.
I just did not see SSI and TANF making an appearance here and wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Also I ain’t touching a V and N topic so there you go.
I assume Burr went with it because he was doing his normal thing of making a contrarian point and then backing it up with whatever he can pull together that’s funny. Not because he was a member of the secret Chicago School of Economics anti subsidizing pro sports division. NEXT TARGET the premier league and any NBA team paying the luxury tax
My point is you’re trying to have this both ways: acting like this is a reasonable position to hold but also having no insight into why it is reasonable.
if this is your position, you should explain yourself. If it’s not, I don’t get why you’re pushing back when people are incredulous.
I didn't say it was reasonable. I said it was their position and that quite a lot of people have it. That's why Bill Burr is doing a skit on it.
You are talking to someone with ASD and I really have no clue what your point is. You are asking to me explain why a position is reasonable even though I never said it was reasonable.
Am I supposed to explain why it's not surprising so many people have this view point? Probably because they are mimicking the likes of Bill Burr that they hear on Joe Rogan. The vast majority of them are Kyles.
I think you’re just facing some pushback because you’re saying there’s a widespread dislike of the WNBA for a really idiosyncratic reason (as applied to pro sports lots of pro sports is subsidized) and essentially no one else has heard people make that argument against the WNBA.
Someone literally linked a well known comedian doing a brand new act about the topic on a new Netflix release.
And I literally had never heard the argument before roughly 745 tonight. It’s just surprising.
And to be fair Burr isn’t making the argument you say an argument of Kyles is making. He’s noting that the WNBA is subsidized as evidence that it isn’t popular and thus not lucrative - not as a reason to dislike the WNBA.
Fair enough. Bill Burr probably isn't SoSH friendly either. SoSH is "woke." I thought his new stand up was more offensive than funny.
Posted some thoughts in the WNBA II thread, but wanted to say something here. Let's bear in mind how much other sports and sports leagues struggled in their first several decades before thriving. The NBA is just one such league - ask Bob Ryan. Am I saying ohhh the W will equate the NBA or Soccer in the US or whatever? No, I cannot predict the future. All I know is that it suffers much from what other sports and leagues suffered from in getting off the ground - newness, lack of youth leagues and youth support (getting on the W for not being very popular at its inception is really something!), lack of funding, lack of advertising, lack of tv/radio contracts, etc.
I knew you people were taking my hard earned tax dollars for your weird perversions!
The people actively hating the WNBA are failed athletes jealous that others with superior talent get a spotlight. Boo hoo.
Leaning into identity stuff isn’t the worse idea. It’s an inferior product so its impossible to market. There aren’t even gimmicks I don’t think like the xfl or usfl or arena league where people can excuse watching an inferior product because there are built in extras.
So, how do you market an inferior sports product? Look to college sports. Why do people care about college sports? Tradition and tribalism. So, go for tribalism, I guess?
It should also be noted that girl's basketball was half court only until 1971 so many of the first W players grew up with that as their model, if they were watching, which of course they weren't because it wasn't televised anyways.
EDIT: It's like a history of females in sport suffered from sexism and we can still see its effects today.
EDIT: It's like a history of females in sport suffered from sexism and we can still see its effects today.
My theory on the increased viewership is that it coincides with the rapid spread of legalized gambling. The league’s attendance had been on a gradual decline year over year since its inception. Personally, I don’t hate the product. As others have said, I’d prefer it over SL and G-League but that is admittedly a very low bar. It will be interesting to see how the NBA utilizes gambling to help promote this product that hasn’t taken off in this country.
Lower the rim would make the game different from the NBA product but I guess that's a very touchy subject. Plus, the rest of the world uses a 10 ft rim. Play 4 against 4 on smaller courts. Make the game different from the NBA game.
Another problem for the WNBA is that it's not even the best women's basketball league in the world. A comparable amount of Americans watch MLS. If the best soccer league in the world was in the US, I'm guessing more Americans would watch. They also can't offer comparable wages though the new CBA helps.
The other women's basketball league in the USA has some pretty interesting rules. I guess a lot of the WNBA players take part. It's an option for them to stay stateside instead of going overseas to make more money. I'd might watch that if I had any idea how. I'd be afraid of the whole hero ball, but what would hero ball even look like?
edit: Though some say it's also sexist to make the game different. I can buy that argument but out of all the sports, it's hard to see the gender gap in basketball close that much.
As should be noted tonight, I am a W Stan. But that said there is little doubt that gambling has increased interest in the W and probably will in Women's College Basketball this winter. But, yeah, especially the W. For one, the books treated it as an afterthought for the past couple years until tightening up in July. But then tonight they got blown away again because it's still too new for them. They set these lines like they were NBA game ones with the 1 and 2 seeds playing. Eventually, the books will catch on to everything and tighten up everywhere.
I think you're saying this but we cannot underestimate how many non-NBA men in America think they're good enough to make a W team. I'm sure some could no doubt but most of the ones doing the complaining would struggle to make my girls varsity team.
We’re members of a board where dudes who probably can’t touch their toes post “I could’ve had it” while watching professional athletes. Nobody’s underestimating
I don't care that the WNBA is subsidized--hell I'm in favor of it--the NBA is too rich. I do get really annoyed about the pay equity stuff though. It's one thing in the world of quasi public enterprise like the national teams, but in a private enterprise it makes no sense, for all the reasons everyone knows.
I also think Burr has a fair point that it's not like women are enthusiastically supporting the WNBA. A lot of people yelping aren't buying the product either.
That said, I'm thinking about starting to follow the Mystics, at least some, I've got a four year old girl, they're a local team where I have no conflicting loyalty, they're generally pretty good, and tickets are cheap.
I've watched some college women's hoops with my wife in the last couple of years, and the quality of play really has increased enormously from the last time I gave it a fair shot, say 10 years ago.
I also think Burr has a fair point that it's not like women are enthusiastically supporting the WNBA. A lot of people yelping aren't buying the product either.
That said, I'm thinking about starting to follow the Mystics, at least some, I've got a four year old girl, they're a local team where I have no conflicting loyalty, they're generally pretty good, and tickets are cheap.
I've watched some college women's hoops with my wife in the last couple of years, and the quality of play really has increased enormously from the last time I gave it a fair shot, say 10 years ago.
Minor league baseball is subsidized by MLB because they perform a valuable service for MLB teams by developing their prospects, getting them ready to contribute at the major league level. Same thing with NFL Europe. It was kind of like a minor league for the NFL, and it was also an investment in growing the international market for American Football. Both of those things benefit the NFL.
How does the existence of the WNBA benefit the NBA?
Unless you're an NBA owner, "who cares?" is the right question. However, I do think there's value for the NBA to investing in other parts of the basketball ecosystem. A richer basketball culture benefits everyone in basketball, and certainly the NBA which sits at the top of that ecosystem. And at $226M (if that's accurate) across 26 years across 30 NBA owners, it's a pretty modest investment.
This is exactly right. The NBA is in a great position to not only grow the game amongst youth leagues, but to open the game up to adult women as well. The nature of the sport allows for a women's league played almost exactly the same fashion as the men's game. Same court, same basket, etc. Whereas baseball and football could dump a boatload of money into supporting women's franchises and the game would not come close to resembling the men's version. If those leagues were in the same position to potentially pick up thousands more fans of the sport through a women's division, they'd probably jump on an investment. It is not an empty investment either, as the WNBA drew over 1 million fans throughout the league this season.
Small point that should be somwehat obvious. While the NBA subsidizes the WNBA, NBA owners who own the arenas benefit from having WNBA events because they get additional events with concessions parking etc on nights they'd likely otherwise be dark. Covid has messed things up but in NYC the liberty were getting about 10k a game for years, which I imagine is a pretty good tuesday in August for the team owners.
EDIT: Just looked it up, pre covid the WNBA average attendance was consistently 7000 a game or more, so while the Burr they're playing in front of 2-300 people line is funny, not particularly true. I'm guessing that the ten million subsidy from NBA to WNBA is, from the team owner perspective, more
EDIT: Just looked it up, pre covid the WNBA average attendance was consistently 7000 a game or more, so while the Burr they're playing in front of 2-300 people line is funny, not particularly true. I'm guessing that the ten million subsidy from NBA to WNBA is, from the team owner perspective, more
Last edited:
Why would women's baseball be all that different than men's baseball?
Edit: I'd also argue the WNBA isn't really anything like the NBA. The NBA is played above the rim.
Edit: I'd also argue the WNBA isn't really anything like the NBA. The NBA is played above the rim.
Because women don’t play college baseball. Or football. So there is no pipeline of quality players with years of experience growing up with the game like there is with women’s basketball in the US.
Yeah but if MLB invested a boatload of money into it, I don't see why the game of baseball would be any different. Is switching from softball to baseball a huge hurdle?
For the athletes, I'd say yes. A diamond with 60 foot base paths is different from a diamond with 90 foot base paths. Pitching over-hand from 60 feet 6 inches is different from pitching underhand from 43 feet. It would take at least a generation, if not longer, to have a viable pipeline of women's baseball talent to fill a pro league.
If MLB did invest in a women's baseball league, would that be the death of softball? It does look like women's baseball is gaining popularity though. Apparently, 6 women played in college last year and 8 this year.
First, it probably says something about the state of the Red Sox that after 20+ years of lurking, my first post is about ESPN's treatment of the WNBA. And Jose, I'm replying to you because I've always liked your posts, and I respect your nuanced take on this.
1. WNBA rollout was terrible from the beginning, because it didn't give people a reason to care. There have to be three SOSH threads a year on players versus laundry, and laundry wins, every time. There still would have been sexist comments, but a Lakers Women versus Celtics Women would have gained relevance so much more quickly. Alternately, the league could have been created around teams of UTenn alums, UConn alums, Stanford alums, etc. The in between quasi-affiliation with NBA teams was the worst possible idea. (Laundry issues impact new mens' leagues, too; MLS undoubtedly wasn't helped by the fact that no one cares about an Earthquake, a Crew, or a Revolution).
2. I'm glad you see the progress. I don't watch much basketball, but in soccer, the technical improvement just from the last Women's World Cup to this year's Women's Euros was stunning. The athletic spectacle level of women's team sports is somewhere between there and very nearly there. They just need to figure out how to get past the laundry/why should I care point (especially at club level, national teams seem to be able to fill stadiums).
Why?
who the hell asked for this?
who the hell asked for this?
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/espn-nba-stephen-smith-alternacast-1235409418/
Who cares?
Who asked for I Love Lucy? Nobody. Still, it was a true classic sitcom. Nobody asks for anything but, somehow, a lot of things keep happening.
at least Lucille Ball had tallent, SAS "tallent" is yelling like a crazy person on TV,
SAS is literally one of the best of all time at what he does.
I don't watch him often, (usually on mute in my office on my 3rd TV) but he talks for 8 hours a day, every day. Maybe 0.000001% of the population would be able to do that and continue to thrive. Most would die of exhaustion or just fall flat in two weeks.
At lunch I considered starting a thread about SAS based on this news. I was and remain completely perplexed by ESPN’s decision to make him their featured star personality.
This isn’t like Chris Berman or Matt Lauer at NBC before the sexual misconduct – a middling-to-nonexistent personality who could work with a wide range of people and guests across platforms on virtually any subject. Nor is it like Tucker Carlson on Fox News, a hottake machine who has built abrasive opinion-making into a brand and loyal following. Instead it’s a guy who covered a single sport, has no real fanbase I know of and is an immediate channel change for what I imagine is a sizable portion of his network’s audience.
What fucking gives with the Continuing Ascension of Steven A. Smith at ESPN?
Your channel change assumption is wildly off. They would not keep promoting him if that were the case given it is a very easily measured metric.
Yeah, unfortunately, people obviously like him, or they wouldn't plaster his bad takes all over their website every day and continue to give him more airtime. I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about anything he says, but people are stupid.
People like him in part because they enjoy his entertainment value and like making fun of him. They are not looking for great analysis when they turn on First Take, they are looking for outrageous takes and over-the-top reactions to current event, which is what he provides.
He's basically a selfie version of a Candid Camera victim. "Why should that Funt guy make any money. I'm gonna make myself look stupid."
What SAS does he does better than everyone for way longer and much harder.(phrasing) What he does is nearly impossible.
Sure, him being a hot take machine can be tiring, but he's the best at what he does and he's given the time AND the money because of it. He certainly doesn't look stupid to me. And he makes 1 million dollars a month to talk about sports.
I have no idea WTF this means or if this is parody.
I don’t mean to suggest that nobody likes SAS or that everybody immediately changes the channel. There’s obviously some entertainment value with him and some people clearly like him. That’s what ESPN is banking on with all this exposure they’ve given him.
But in politics there is such thing as “high negatives” and without looking at the data (which none of us are btw) I have little doubt that he has the media personality equivalent. He is absolutely a guy that for every viewer he attracts to ESPN drives a certain number away.
I also wouldn’t give ESPN anything close to the benefit of the doubt here as sports networks generally have been struggling with falling subscriptions and rising costs. ESPN is known to fudge ratings. They laid tons of people off during the pandemic (multiple times) and tried to spend their way out of it by paying through the nose for a boatload for talent. They’ve also gone through a ton of senior staff shake ups.
All of which is to say, there’s no reason to believe that The Ascension of SAS is likely anything more than a gamble on a big personality who some new-ish executive sold to his bosses as a way to turn around a ton of long-term trends that are all terrible for the network. That they are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down by turning the network into a place where you see his face (and HEAR HIS VOICE) 24/7 is not proof that he is ratings gold – rather that somebody in senior management is desperately hoping he is.
Why does ESPN's internally fudging of numbers have anything to do with this? To fudge numbers you presumably need to know the real numbers. Occam's Razor suggests the programs he is on do better across all relevant channels (TV, social, etc.) when he is on them vs. not on them and that is why ESPN is doubling down on him. It's not like he's an unknown or new quantity. The above reads like starting at a conclusion and coming up with a rationale and dream narrative after the fact. Ratings are also relative so his ratings could be going down but less compared to others personalities, other programs, etc.
I think if you enjoy hot takes about sports, and lots of sports fans don't, SAS is fine. Sometimes great.
He gets some good guests, plays off them pretty well, and can be funny. Some of his bits seem way overplayed, like the Cowboys stuff*, but whatever.
*Not counting the stuff with Michael Irvin. Those bits are great.
He gets some good guests, plays off them pretty well, and can be funny. Some of his bits seem way overplayed, like the Cowboys stuff*, but whatever.
*Not counting the stuff with Michael Irvin. Those bits are great.
No doubt he's good at it. We disagree what "it" is (beyond attracting eyeballs and advertisers), which is fine. It's not much different than music or any other form of art or entertainment.
Stephen A. Smith's appeal is simple. He's a bottom feeder.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GKgHjYHzK0
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GKgHjYHzK0
You’re starting at a conclusion as well: assuming that SAS’s ratings must be good because ESPN keeps promoting him.
What I’m saying is that ESPN has been a dumpster fire for a bunch of years now. While they still generate a fair amount of revenue, they have been flailing around trying to figure out how to keep eyeballs in a cord-cutting, app watching environment.
So it’s not surprising—particularly in an environment that rewards sharable video clips—that they go with the loud, brash hot take artist who may be predictable but is rarely boring. In the near-term, it may even work giving him more and more places to yell, provoke and rant about women. I just don’t think it’s remotely sustainable and the more they spread him across the entire platform the
more quickly the returns will diminish.
My guess is that ESPN actually knows this but is in full whistling past the graveyard mode and just doesn’t have many good alternatives.
No I am not. I see that they are promoting him (actual event) and saying Occam's Razor is because he is driving measurable things ESPN values, like ratings and impressions (conclusion). I don't care enough to look into it but your suggestion of my order of operations is wildly wrong.
It's official. Everything that Richard Jefferson says is fucking stupid. What Kyrie needs is to be educated.