More Cuts at ESPN

You remain a moron

 

No, that is exactly what I did not say, but which you read into. I said, "who decided it was s winning formula?" It was a question. Not a declarative statement.

 

Has anyone else noticed that this thread has devolved from an old-school, big-event Olbermann SportsCenter into a particularly dumb episode of SAS/Bayless First Take?

 

Right. No intent there at all. Just asking questions.

 

Guessing you were an alternate on the debate team

 

The vigilantes are all master debaters.

 

There is no way quality and content of programming have no effect on decisions like cord-cutting.

The people making the counterargument have moved the goal posts so many times on this subject that it's tough to keep track. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying it was a "golden age of TV," etc. Some of the shows representing that claim are available outside of traditional cable, but I guarantee many people are still using traditional cable to get those shows or to DVR them and watch them later.

Another component outside cord-cutting is whether a network channel even survives. Pivot and Esquire Network bit the dust just in the last few months. Radio had a report on how few viewers tune in to channels like MTV Classic and ESPNU. Again, cord-cutting certainly had an effect, but plenty of people have traditional cable and apparently aren't watching those channels.

 

Half the country is still working when The 6 is on so ratings aren't gong to be all that great to begin with.

 

And by "working," you mean messing around on social media, right ?

 

That's the thing. Every cable subscriber was paying for ESPN, whether they watched it or not.

ESPN could lose no audience, but still lose millions of dollars a month is subscriber fees due to cord cutting.

Live sports (and to some degree cable news) is the one thing you really need cable for.

There are tons of other options for other kinds of programming, and that -- along with high rates -- is what's driving cord cutting.