What if ESPN failed? What's the sporting landscape like today?

If ESPN had failed, major pro sports would have remained on USA Network. NHL, NBA, MLB were all on USA before they were on ESPN, along with early rounds of Masters golf, MISL, some college hoops, and tape-delayed college football. Masters golf is still there.

 

Whilst I can't comment too much on the US/ESPN side of the equation. I do believe that in the UK with out the advent of ESPN the proliferation of Sky sports and Sky sports news channels doesn't happen nearly as soon. The consolidation of so many sports under one umbrella means that so many fringe/cult sports have gotten more interest as a result of the armchair fan who is watching for Soccer ends up watching angling or motor racing just because it happens to be on after wards. Without a consolidated sports network the exposure we all as individuals have to so many different sports globally does not happen.

Do Tony Hawks, Matt Hoffman, or Dave Mirra mean anything outside of the US without ESPN or EXPN? I don't think so and they certainly don't become multi millionaires.

In the UK the influence of dedicated sports channels has on revenue generation is enormous. Just next year the EPL has a new TV deal in place whereby the team that finishes last in the league will receive prize money of GBP 30mm or approximately US$52mm. To put that in perspective that is the same money paid to last years champions!

As for the effect on print journalism in the UK I think in the main the effect if it can be linked to TV at all has been somewhat positive. There are so many more people interested and involved in various sports now that there is more demand sought for written review and opinion, a third eye perspective. There are more column inches given to sports in the UK press now than at any time in history. Highly regarded print journalists even have a TV persona now because of the many discussion shows which Sky broadcast.

 

I think TBS and WGN broadcasting every Braves and Cubs game across the cable nation in the 1970s, as well as USA covering many events, pretty much awakened the concept on nationwide sports coverage all the time, instead of settling for the Saturday Game of the Week on NBC. ESPN, or something like it, was inevitable.

 

John Carlos. You might have confused the name with Lee Evans, another one of the stars of the greatest track team ever assembled -- the '68 U.S. Olympians.

 

Yes, I stand corrected. The point remains: The Fab Five didn't alter anything, didn't innovate anything -- except they pushed the world record for money accepted by college athletes from professional gamblers into the stratosphere.

Seniors in high school now were three years old when the Fab Five was doing their thing.

Legends in their own minds, and no place else.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

Smith and Carlos were pioneers -- but black gloves didn't become a fashion statement in sport, let alone pop culture. Erving (and Magic's Lakers) were Showtiming -- but college and prep and youth players weren't imitating their swagger running back down the court after making a basket. Russell was a superstar -- but nobody was buying his jerseys left and right.

I'm not arguing that the Fab Five were the first or the best. I'm just saying that the cultural impact was there with them, where it wasn't with others in the past. They DID change the game -- by marketing, by image, by timing, by whatever bullshit that was there.

But they DID have that effect, not only on sports but on popular culture.

 

Without ESPN we would not have the X Games or possibly the mass appeal of "extreme sports."

We also would not have had the expansion of major collegiate athletics -- I think Louisville owes much of its football success to ESPN, and many of the mid-majors in basketball owe them similar thanks as well. ESPN gave these schools a national audience they would not have received on CBS, NBC or ABC.

We also would not have had the proliferation of dunks, home runs and deep passes. ESPN, for better or worse, has transformed not only how and when we watch games, but it's also transformed the games themselves.

 

If ESPN failed, there would have been another all-sports network invented a year or two later.

 

My guess is that Ted Turner would have started an all-sports channel to go along with CNN. At one time CNN's version of Sportscenter was very competitive with ESPN's when they were both 30 minute shows at 11 p.m. every night.

 

MTV was a much bigger risk.
Music videos -- as mass entertainment -- were an entirely new form of media. As someone said earlier, if it wasn't ESPN, it would have been something else as cable TV expanded.

 

Folks, we are forgetting something that coincided with the Fab Five: The Dream Team. Both came on the scene in the same year.

 

Correct. The mass introduction of cable television into homes was the turning point. After that, a channel with a national sports niche became inevitable. To say sports followed ESPN is like saying porn followed Midnight Blue. These shows weren't leaders as much as they were the early entrees within inevitable cable niches.