ESPN gutting Hockey department

[I-90 W]

Eh I didn't even know that ESPN even covered hockey at all at this point. I only watch it durring college football season.

[sabills]

Eh I didn't even know that ESPN even covered hockey at all at this point. I only watch it durring college football season.

 

On TV they didn't really, but Burnside and LeBrun are solid hockey writers. I'll miss them.

[GASabresIUFAN]

They want to change their image from TMZ to what they once were, a reputable and entertaining sports show? Am I misreading what you're saying?

Yes, I think so.  I have a friend who is a producer for them and there have been no changes behind the camera yet

[Sabel79]

On TV they didn't really, but Burnside and LeBrun are solid hockey writers. I'll miss them.

LeBrun will still be easily available on the long series of tubes.  Burnside... meh. 

[WildCard]

Yes, I think so.  I have a friend who is a producer for them and there have been no changes behind the camera yet

Eh I'm no so sure. Not doubting you have a friend there, but their moves say otherwise. Werder, Burnside, Bucci, and LeBrun are actually reputable reporters. Throw in the fact that Sam Ponder is being pushed to a bigger role and Karl Ravitch is the one being tossed aside for it, and it all just says to me they want a TMZ, social media image rather than an actual sports news one.

[josie]

Bloody disgrace. I hate to see anyone lose a job that way. 

Buuuut maybe some of them'll band together and we'll get something awesome. Lord knows ESPN didn't give a crap about hockey. I mean, come on, middle of the playoffs, draft coming, new franchise opening up, and they gut the department? Screw 'em. Here's hoping it's a positive change in disguise. 

[North Buffalo]

ESPN must be in real financial strife... Disney is gutting good programming and is losing market share wash rinse and repeat.

[North Buffalo]

Wish I had some cash, think there has to be a cost effective model to make a new sports communications model, maybe online?

[WildCard]

Wish I had some cash, think there has to be a cost effective model to make a new sports communications model, maybe online?

Blogs, twitter, youtube. All free, all easy to do. Companies have been made on them

[North Buffalo]

yeh except you need to pay cameramen, announcers and analysts so that would be the rub and to generate ad dollars.

[NNYSABRESMAN]

ESPN has doomed themselves with their political undertones. I watch sports as an escape from the every day world of political B.S. that we are bombarded with. Sports is still one past time that can unite despite any of our political beliefs.

 

ESPN never did hockey justice anyway so who cares.

[WildCard]

ESPN has doomed themselves with their political undertones. I watch sports as an escape from the every day world of political B.S. that we are bombarded with. Sports is still one past time that can unite despite any of our political beliefs.

 

ESPN never did hockey justice anyway so who cares.

Yup

[Doohicksie]

yeh except you need to pay cameramen, announcers and analysts so that would be the rub and to generate ad dollars.

 

But who among us really sits there and watches them talk?  More and more, people are just following twitter feeds and reading stuff online.  No cameras necessary, no talking heads necessary.

[WildCard]

But who among us really sits there and watches them talk?  More and more, people are just following twitter feeds and reading stuff online.  No cameras necessary, no talking heads necessary.

ESPN was designed for highlights. There still isn't a good avenue to get highlights like they used to show. Instead they went on to become analysts and entertainment. There is a massive void in the market for just sports highlights, and I can't understand why they just don't go back to it. ESPN will never match the analysis of websites and the like that do it 24/7 for free, tailored to your team and your sport. And yet still they try.

Edited April 26, 2017 by WildCard

[North Buffalo]

But who among us really sits there and watches them talk? More and more, people are just following twitter feeds and reading stuff online. No cameras necessary, no talking heads necessary.

True but I used to listen to ESPN radio on certain days midday in NYC area, Steven A is on and I cant listen to him. Check FAN out sometimes but they are only about NYC

Edited April 26, 2017 by North Buffalo

[Rasmus_]

Is it really that shocking, I get my news from other formats than ESPN.  Screw them when it comes to Hockey.

[WildCard]

Love how they kept Melrose though. 

[North Buffalo]

ESPN was designed for highlights. There still isn't a good avenue to get highlights like they used to show. Instead they went on to become analysts and entertainment. There is a massive void in the market for just sports highlights, and I can't understand why they just don't go back to it

Exactly... again there has gotta be a market for it but needs to be more inclusive of all sports imo. Just not sure how to effectively do it on today's platforms. NHL seems to a decent job on its platform, but a more all incompassing hockey network would be nice. Maybe do it by sport.

Edited April 26, 2017 by North Buffalo

[Sabre fan]

at least TMZ is funny as hell

[Doohicksie]

ESPN was designed for highlights. There still isn't a good avenue to get highlights like they used to show. Instead they went on to become analysts and entertainment. There is a massive void in the market for just sports highlights, and I can't understand why they just don't go back to it. ESPN will never match the analysis of websites and the like that do it 24/7 for free, tailored to your team and your sport. And yet still they try.

 

Yeah, and MTV was designed to play music videos.  And Discovery Channel used to present real science shows.  And History channel used to air history documentaries.  All the cable specialty channels went after the easy buck and got away from their core specialty missions.  It's a damned shame.

 

The internet is a better platform for replays anyway.  If you're interested in only certain teams you go right to their highlights on the league's web site and watch what you want, without having to sit through the stuff you don't want to see, or possibly missing the highlights you want cuz you had to go to the john or something.  Highlights are better in an on-demand setting.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Doohickie

[WildCard]

Yeah, and MTV was designed to play music videos.  And Discovery Channel used to present real science shows.  And History channel used to air history documentaries.  All the cable specialty channels went after the easy buck and got away from their core specialty missions.  It's a damned shame.

I don't get it really. History channel used to be awesome too

[mjd1001]

I read an article talking about ESPN needing to cut costs due to decling revenues, it was about a month ago..the article was from a financial publication (Forbes, WSJ, Marketwatch..one of the big ones)

 

The main point they had is that, as 'younger' people subscribe to cable less and less, they are getting less revenue.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but for every subscriber Cable TV has, they pay ESPN something like $25....whether that person wants ESPN or not...so of course the Cable companies force everyone with an kind of extended channel package to get ESPN. Well, less of a percentage of people under 30 years of age have cable now than any time in the future, so their revenue isn't growing.

 

Now, a rep from ESPN said they aren't worried, as the 'younger people' are going to things like Sling TV, Playstations TV service, or other streaming packages....where ESPN is often included so they are still getting there $25 a month per subscriber.   HOWEVER, the write of the article went on to say there are a lot of those younger people who say they would subscribe to those packages instead of cable...but they aren't doing that BECAUSE they do not want to be foced to pay for ANYTHING they don't use.

 

A lot more people under 35 are refusing to even buy a bundle of channels (Cable or streaming) unless they can pick and choose each channel and ONLY pay for them.....Yet ESPN is holding on with a deathgrip to ensuring the get their fees from EVERYONE who subscribes to ANY package whether they want ESPN or not.

 

It looks like ESPN is losing that battle slightly right now...and may lose it a lot more clearly in the next few years.

[darksabre]

It's because most people are massive bores and cable TV is mostly for them now.

[WildCard]

Their insider articles are absolute garbage. Not only that, but I can get good analysis for free elsewhere.

[Doohicksie]

I read an article talking about ESPN needing to cut costs due to decling revenues, it was about a month ago..the article was from a financial publication (Forbes, WSJ, Marketwatch..one of the big ones)

 

The main point they had is that, as 'younger' people subscribe to cable less and less, they are getting less revenue.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but for every subscriber Cable TV has, they pay ESPN something like $25....whether that person wants ESPN or not...so of course the Cable companies force everyone with an kind of extended channel package to get ESPN. Well, less of a percentage of people under 30 years of age have cable now than any time in the future, so their revenue isn't growing.

 

Have you seen the future?  Who won the war with N. Korea?