July 6, 2005
Good news, kiddies.More crap is on its way to your television.Just when you thought that ESPN couldn't put any more garbage on its network, the self-proclaimed "worldwide leader in sports" takes it to another level.That's right, ESPN is [cutting back on sports.][1]Currently, the all-sports cable network is planning an overhaul of its content. Gone is hockey, and Major League Baseball will also be scaled back. In their place will be the three words that viewers hate the most ESPN Original Programming.I hope you enjoyed the unwatchable Season on the Brink movie. That's because ESPN has more than 30 original films in the works. Also, keep your eyes out for more sleep-inducing dramas such as Tilt.Welcome to the sports network of the future.The saddest part of ESPN's latest transition is that it moves the network one step further from its proud roots. Journalism is no longer a mission at the worldwide leader. It's something to do when Woody Paige isn't babbling on Cold Pizza, an annoyance squeezed in between Stephen A. Smith's rants.It's tragic, really.My generation of sports fans was raised on ESPN. From "the big show" on Sunday nights with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann to daily doses of Up Close, ESPN was locked into my viewing habits. Now, it's just an afterthought.Somewhere along the line, the network lost its way. It was doing a stellar job of telling stories and giving out-of-town highlights. I don't know when that stopped being good enough.There are the ESPY awards and the Budweiser Hot Seat. And when ESPN is out of further programming "ideas," it just creates more time for newspaper writers to scream at each other.The new programming will be gradually introduced in the coming year. I'll be forced to watch at some point. After all, ESPN is the evil monopoly of all-sports networks.But when I do tune in, my mute button will be handy.You never know when Stephen A. Smith will start his next rant. [1]: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/cgi-bin/news/newsbrief.plx?id=2238937692&fa=1
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
DavidRose (anonymous) says...
Yeah, but I'm sure dirt poor losers and sleazy jerks everywhere are absolutely delighted to hear ESPN will be adding to their 250 hours per week of World Series Of Poker programming!!
July 6, 2005 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cornwellius (anonymous) says...
of all the things that a sports network doesn't need to cover more its the World Series of Poker. When ESPN orignally started welcoming orignal programing I took it as a new spin to try to get younger viewers (i admit i got absolutely hooked to playmakers) but now its just obvious that their trying WAY to hard to get more ppl for the wrong reason. i'm pretty damn sure ESPN should have figured that their not gonna get crap for ratings if they run a sports related drama on their network. if anything I figured that would have fuled them more to run their one program to see if they can get more ppl.
This on the other hand is possibly the worst idea that this network can come up with. I'd rather watch the World's Strongest Man competition from 1995 than watch new orignal programming that their probably gonna run in primetime
July 7, 2005 at 1:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lazz (anonymous) says...
I've heard friends in the cable TV business rant many times over many years about the prices ESPN is charging for its product. I know none of this first-hand, but apparently ESPN's rates and demands are by far the highest and most outrageous in the industry, and are largely responsible for the rates increases passed on to customers. This while the quality is descending at an equally rapid clip.
ESPN has changed the face of sports -- and the country, in fact -- and not for the better. It is beyond time for the post-pubescent male audience to grow the F up and leave the ESPN pacifier behind. Put the damn thing back in its place -- an occasionally worthy outlet for sports news and game coverage -- and knock it off its societal and cable-pricing throne.
One man's opinion.
July 7, 2005 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bwoodard (Bill Woodard) says...
And, in related news, The Food Network announced it would be scaling back food-related programming to bring viewers more auto repair-related shows.
The news was not taken well by some of the network's stars.
"I'm gonna find whoever made this crackhead decision and kick them up a notch----there's plenty of places in the bayou to dispose of the evidence," said a red-faced Emeril as he brandished a pepper mill and garlic press.
"Regardless of the backlash from our core audience, we feel this is the best strategy for diversifying our audience. We believe we've ignored and, to some degree alienated the gearhead demographic," said a network executive, who declined to be identified out of fear for his life.
July 7, 2005 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cvillehawk (anonymous) says...
I stopped being addicted to Sportscenter when my son was born - just didn't have time for it at first, and now my morning TV is kid-oriented. I find I don't miss it all that much.
And as far as the Food Network - don't you mean the Rachael Ray Network? They are just as surely abandoning the low-rent (and interesting) programs they started with and going for personalities and gimmicks instead of.... um... food.
July 7, 2005 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bwoodard (Bill Woodard) says...
cvillehawk: I agree that Food Network was more fun when the shows had a homier, low-tech/high-info quality, but they're still nowhere near the drek that ESPN has become. I can barely tolerate watching SportsCenter anymore, let alone the "original programming" crapola. The analogy to MTV is spot on, by the way. How many music videos do you see on that POS nowadays? Sounds like it'll be the same fate for ESPN.
July 7, 2005 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says...
About the only thing worth watching on ESPN on a regular basis in the past year has been Outside the Lines. Stuff like the "stump the schlep" or whatever that show is called, and "Dream Job" and anything else that tries to make Stewart Scott seem cool flat-out suck. That network is killing me, and I've lost major interest in it.
Their movies are brutal. Their shows are brutal. They need to stick to sports. ESPN Classic is still good, but that's about it.
July 7, 2005 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Irateirish (anonymous) says...
A few stream-of-consciousness thoughts: (1) Stuart Scott is the biggest butt-kisser this side of Ahmad Rashad; (2) ESPN's self-importance has become larger than the events that it covers, as evidenced by SportsCenter anchors' on-air references to other anchors (i.e. "and next up for Maryland will be Stuart Scott's North Carolina TarHeels") and reminding the audience that a particular highlight is a "Top Ten Nominee," as if anyone cares; (3) the ESPY's and the ESPN SportsZone restaurants are tributes to the corporate ego at the "worldwide leader;" and (4) this is a network that has employed Rush Limbaugh, Stu Scott, the Schwab, and Rob Dibble. Enough said.
July 7, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ichikuo (Hanluen Kuo) says...
I've been getting sick of ESPn for about a year now. Seriously, they are becomming MTV and it's sickening. The only good news I can make of this is that hopefully this gets NBC a step closer to reclaiming the NBA. I miss Costas and John Tess' music in the background.
:(
July 7, 2005 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tater (anonymous) says...
Four Words To Describe The Downfall of ESPN
Hot Dog Eating Contests
I'm surprised they didn't pull a Stephen A. rant on that.
"But at the end of the day, the man just didn't have the stomach for that last hot dog and that is why he lost."
July 7, 2005 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dracul (Bill Chapman) says...
While I must admit that I rarely watch ESPN, I must also admit to truely HATING all the DREK and B.S. on ESPN. If I wanted to hear 5 dozen former pro players of various (and sometimes unrelated sports) giving their opinion on someones' play - I just turn to ESPN.
I am very tired of listening to "guest players" giving opinions on sports they don't even play! The damn network allready has enough blah blah blah - - they need to show what the network was first created for - sports games WITHOUT excessive comentary and breaks away from the game. I WANT TO WATCH MY SPORTS GAMES - NOT HEAR ABOUT THEM FROM SOME DAMN PROFESSIONAL "PRETTY HEAD" ANNOUNCER.
July 8, 2005 at 4:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fritz (anonymous) says...
I don't mean to interrupt the usual "Back in my day" gripes, but the reason ESPN was so successful is because their offered something that didn't exsist: wall-to-wall sports. 25 years ago, if you wanted out-of-town sports news, you had to get a subscription to that town's paper. And most papers didn't have a sports section, the had maybe 2 pages of sports, and it was mostly recaps of area games. Smaller towns had one guy covering everything. If you wanted to see highlights on TV that weren't local, it was "This Week In Baseball" (Twib notes, anyone?) or "George Michael's Sports Machine" on Sunday nights ("Let's go to the tape!")
Basically, everybody followed the money that ESPN started making, and the result is saturation sports coverage. C'mon, you've got to admit that you've flipped aroud to eight different stations after a big Jayhawk game to see what their highlights are. That wasn't possible even fifteen years ago. So now that ESPN's product isn't unique (and now that sports host "personalities" aren't cheap, the core product is about ten times more expensive to make) they have to find a new way to hold and build audience. Admittedly, I think that the direction they are taking is a bad one, but does anyone have any other ideas? Don't say "Make it like it was" because that ain't gonna happen. We're swimming in sports coverage out here (an all-KC sports network? Are you kidding me?) and the market is just too diluted.
July 8, 2005 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hanny (anonymous) says...
this just in: ESPN solves all programming woes by hiring Billy Packer. Press conference to follow as soon as Billy gets done berating someone for not knowing who he is.
July 9, 2005 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lazz (anonymous) says...
Interesting, Tom_Foolery, thanks for the info.
I've long had a notion that ESPN's influence is far disproportionate to the actual size of its audience. Thing is, its regular viewers are so readily identifiable as a group that they become overly powerful -- sort of like a advertiser's version of a politician reaching out with both hands to seniors because they vote in such heavy numbers ... So, because ESPN can more or less guarantee delivery of 80 percent (a guess?) of 15- to 35-year-old American men, then that group of American men control the cable universe ... as opposed to the Food Network, say, which surely attracts a majority audience of women, but also does well with lots of men and across many age groups ... but identifying that audience as a single, clustered group is impossible ...
ramblings ...
July 9, 2005 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cvillehawk (anonymous) says...
I'm just disappointed that cable never delivered on its promise of providing "niche programming" for people who wanted it. Or, it never lasted very long when they did. As I've said - I liked Food Network and ESPN and even MTV and VH1 back in the day, but now each channel has a huge corporate parent, and they all tend toward the middle path: find a couple of "sure thing" cult hits, cross-promote them on the parent network, and make over everything else in the same image. It's just bloody boring.
July 11, 2005 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )