More Cuts at ESPN

Here's the way you really have to think about that: Let's say Werder or Stark made $200K at ESPN. Put whatever number out there you want, the fact remains that they're being laid off because they're no longer worth that amount to ESPN. Which means, in all likelihood, that they're not worth that amount to any other outlet, either.

 

Not one hot sideline chick.

 

Its ok for Stephen A to say Phil Jackson has got to go, and say it loudly, angrily and so emphatically it sounds personal? But for a consumer of the ESPN product to bemoan some firings and put it in context of Stephen A keeping his job sounds a bit defensive coming from Ms. Hill.

Sports opinion has always centered around who should be hired, fired or cut. And the merging of sports and sports coverage has made the distinction between the athlete/coach/owner and the reporter almost non existent. The journalist is as much the celebrity as the athlete. More people know of Cowherd, Bayless and Stephen A as they do 85% of the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL rosters. Beat reporters were the Everyman, asking the the educated questions. Now reporters (audio/visual not print) are the celebrity hosts asking the softball questions or the click bait questions.

 

I don't know if that's true. Maybe other outlets aren't stuck by these exorbitant rights fees and are trying to be aggressive in adding rather than reactive in cutting. But I see your point.

So, they work for $150,000. Or $125,000. Pay cuts are OK too.

 

Could ESPN potentially offer similar positions back at 50 percent of the cost? If some on-camera talent is making 150K, I'm sure ESPN would have no problem finding a suitable replacement who'd take 50-75K. Same with print.

If newspapers/websites ever tried to run their companies like a good NFL team does, I truly believe the product would be better.

 

ESPN became the 1980's early 90's Steinbrenner Yankees and the NFL and NCAA was represented by Scott Boras. The Yankees bid against phantom teams, really bidding against themselves. ESPN overpaid for product, that in hindsight, had no where else to go.

What is to stop the NFL from putting 5-6 National games on their own network each week (Thursday Sunday Monday) and selling packages or individual games on line or directly to the consumer on cable or dish. Cut out the networks, keep the advertising and the subscription fees less a percentage to the carrier who does knowthing more than supply the bandwidth? THe NFL network and its online presence can completely cut out ESPN. Own the raw material, make the product and distribute it. The perfect vertical monopoly

 

Stark will get snatched up by MLB in a blur.
Same with Mr. Ed at NFL.

 

Van Pelt should be interesting tonight.

 

If that's how you feel, Jemele, then why not just STFU and tweet nothing for a day--easiest way of all to avoid the "nonsense."

I've no clue what is the point of these tweets, they express no condolences, don't actually say anything of substance, it's like she was really just concerned that a day might pass with no twitter attention to herself. God forbid.

 

Nearly all baseball teams televise all 162 games nowadays. When I was in high school, the Giants televised maybe 50 (as noted, all road games), and about half of those were against the Dodgers and Padres. But I used to have to explain to young reporters that one of the perks of being sports editor of my college paper is you got an electric typewriter.