Summer of No ESPN
by dgcambridge on May 14, 2010 12:34 PM EDT
Email
Print
I realized last night that I no longer need ESPN in my life. I'm done with it, certainly for the near future.
I get better, more specific baseball coverage from MLB, both online and on tv. The analysis is better, the access to highlights quicker.
I have no interest in what happens in basketball or hockey at this point, though I'll hear enough from people around me. What? Lakers and Celtics again? Yippee.
Don't want to read Simmons again, who I grew up on, but who no longer has anything in common with sports fans. Gammons is gone, Reilly is unnecessary, Stark is trivial. Law is a weak reflection of the BP guys, and how far can you trust a guy who doesn't think that payroll is an actual advantage. Olney is...well, I like Olney best perhaps...but he's pay anyway.
Sportscenter is a huge time suck, and besides, we watch the Backyardigans and Curious George around here in the mornings. If there is some amazing sports highlight now, it'll get passed around online. If I just need to chill for a half hour, my DVR, like everyone else's, has a huge backlog of shows.
Took it off my blackberry, removed it from my listed TV channels. Direct link to the fantasy baseball page (point for you, ESPN). This may need adjustment once real football games are actually shown, but if I'm curious about the Browns or college news during the summer, I'm not going to sit through another discussion of McNabb/Tebow/Favre/Manning for a 20 second piece on Colt McCoy.
I need a little space ESPN, just some time to think things over, but don't hold your breath. I know we're in the third decade of our relationship, but you just don't do it for me anyone. I've seen all your tricks.
What's that? You want me to stop by and watch a world cup match? We'll see. Let me check the Spanish station first.
99 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Same. A few years ago I dropped Sportscenter and was pretty much own to PTI. As my schedule has changed the past couple of years PTI got dropped. Baseball Tonight obviously took itself out of the rotation a long time ago.
I haven’t watched in seven years. ESPN.com has good baseball content (Neyer, Law) but mostly Sportscenter quality stuff (Olney, Stark). If you’re a regular around here, you’re probably an internet regular. And if you’re an internet regular, you get the full story any time you want, rather than the superficial “highlights” at the end of the broadcast (if we’re talking Tribe highlights).
I did it the summer they did “Who’s Next”—and this was before MLBN. I didn’t miss it one bit. I went back for football, but until then, you’ll never know it’s out of your life.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 14, 2010 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Who’s Next was one of the worst ideas of all time.
by Buckeye Brad on May 14, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
This smacks of hyperbole … and yet it isn’t.
by Jay on May 14, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think the Who’s Now is what you meant to pan which was the running segment on Sportscenter, and yes it was awful.
Yeah, that’s the one. Good call.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 15, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
World Cup is going to be tough. And you’ll be back first weekend in September for football.
But it’s a good idea and I wish you luck.
Yeah, soccer is the only thing I use ESPN for anymore.
by Gradyforpresident on May 14, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
doesn’t fox have a channel completely dedicated to soccer?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 18, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll be back for the World Cup and Roland Garros. But for now, MLB Network has really been the thing that lets me go days at a time without watching ESPN. There’s just no need for it.
Based on the response here, you have to wonder if MLB network and the NFL and NBA versions (which I’ve watched less) are making a significant dent in the worldwide leader.
They have to, but they also are likely to make ESPN coverage dumber. Siphoning off the most hardcore fans of each sport leaves ESPN to deal with increasingly more casual and unsophisticated fans of every sport.
I think the other issue (possibly), is that the internet is just plain faster if you’re trying to find a highlight or the outcome of a game for a specific team. With the arrival of our 3rd child, I have very, very limited time to keep up with my teams and there are just more time efficient ways for me to do that than watching ESPN. Unlike Dave, I didn’t make a deliberate decision to stop watching ESPN. But it’s happened anyway.
-Erik
This is where I’ve been for a couple of years now. Waiting to sit through an episode of SportsCenter or BBTN hasn’t happened in a long time with other, smarter outlets out there that I can cater my tastes to. I may catch a PTI if I happen to be around a TV, but I’m not going to sit through the inanity of the talking heads that know less and less as the talking heads are recycled just to search for one pearl of wisdom that isn’t coming or a highlight that I can find elsewhere.
My tastes don’t include ESPN because of that dumbing down that Jay refers to and I’m fairly certain that it’s not going to change anytime soon.
by The DiaTriber on May 14, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I suspect you guys will identify with this … ESPN used to be background noise for me. It was often on while I worked or made dinner or checked e-mail, whatever. Now, not only is there MLB Network … there’s Sprout.
That’s exactly right.
6 AM to 8 PM – kid’s shows take precedent over anything Dad wants to watch.
8 PM to whenever – Tribe games or MLBN.
by The DiaTriber on May 14, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
This is it, with some HGN mixed in. With my two year old demanding baseball anytime I had basketball on recently.
Grady was prescient.
You’ve inspired me. The background noise thing rings true for me, too, though I don’t have kids and they aren’t coming anytime soon, either, but I’m going cold turkey tomorrow. MLBN only for the remainder of the summer, at least.
I would consider an actual game to be non-ESPN viewing, if that makes sense. I’ll be happy if I quit, but am not going to be upset if I watch every minute of World Cup I can squeeze in this summer. It’s like when I quit MTV in college; I just quit the crap. When they actually had music videos on (and not merely TRL), I’d leave it on for background.
Il faut d'abord durer.
I have a really hard time watching tennis on ESPN. British commentators are just so much more knowledgeable. Does anyone watch Chris Fowler on the college football show? Does he know anything about that sport? Because he is completely ignorant when it comes to tennis.
Is this the whale section?
Where do you get British commentators from? The ESPN guys are all I know. I love Cliff Drysdale, and it’s a shame that he gets bumped for Dick Enberg anytime there’s a big match on.
Chris Fowler is really good for college football — he and Herbstreit doing GameDay are fantastic (Lee Corso is annoying). It’s one of the best things ESPN does.
by Buckeye Brad on May 14, 2010 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Calling Herbstreit great is a long stretch. As an Auburn fan, GameDay is generally pretty worthless, even when they are in Auburn.
by Chief Wahoo on May 14, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm, that’s interesting. I’ve heard many people praise Herbstreit’s football analysis, and I’m not just talking about Buckeye fans but national writers and bloggers. But to each his own, I guess.
by Buckeye Brad on May 14, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s ok. Just far from great. And I like Fowler as well, but only because he is always so composed and professional. His analysis and what-not is decent, but nothing spectacular, in my opinion.
I guess what I’m trying to say is they are no better than average, like most other ESPN personalities. GameDay is fun because of the atmosphere. And the signs.
by Chief Wahoo on May 14, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right, what I meant to say that GameDay was fantastic, because of the atmosphere on the campuses as you said. Fowler is nothing special as the host, but he’s good. I do think Herbstreit’s a really good analyst, though, and probably the best college footbal guy ESPN has. I really like him and Musburger doing the Saturday night games the past couple seasons. They’re a great announcing team.
by Buckeye Brad on May 14, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll agree with you there. I enjoy him as an announcer much more than as an analyst.
by Chief Wahoo on May 14, 2010 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Frankly, I could watch Musberger call a chess match.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 15, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Yup. Some people don’t like him, but I think he’s fantastic. He’s the best college football announcer on TV right now.
by Buckeye Brad on May 15, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m done as well. However, there are still some good people there that are largely overshadowed. Gonna try and watch World Cup online. I like watching Matthew Berry and his assistant on ESPN news or ESPN blurbs. That’s it.
MLB Network was an awesome addition that makes ESPN look like the Access Hollywood of sports programming.
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
I’m glad ESPN brought some real soccer (EPL, UEFA, World Cup) to basic cable, but you’re right, the rest of the programming is pretty bad. Sometimes I’ll catch some college basketball on there, but flipping to ESPN because you love sports is like flipping to MTV because you love good music.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 14, 2010 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
Great analogy. And I didn’t want my piece to be “ESPN Sux!” or standard web complaining. They do plenty of things well, and they’re the top dog. But with newer, better, more focused choices, I just think it would be better without them. For me, and evidently, for many here. And that surprised me a little.
by dgcambridge on May 14, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
MLB At Bat has really killed any interest in ESPN for baseball stuff.
I actually almost enjoy listening to baseball rather than watching it, that is, if the announcers are up to snuff.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I love listening to Mike Shannon call Cardinals games at night. You can literally hear him getting drunker as the game wears on.
by Chief Wahoo on May 14, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I watch Mike & Mike in the Morning on TV and listen on the radio on my way to work. They’re usually pretty good. They speak more to the casual fan and don’t do a lot of in-depth analysis but they usually have good discussions of the current topics in sports. And neither of those guys are idiots like most sports talk radio guys. They have good chemistry together, and I like hearing the perspective of both a former athlete and a fan.
If you want to here some really good sports talk radio, check out the Scott Van Pelt show in the afternoons on ESPN Radio. I always liked him as a SC anchor and he makes an excellent talk show host. He hosts the show along with Ryen Russilo and they generally sound like most of us would talking about sports. They have a really good perspective on the issues and try to stay away from the overreactions and idiocy that permeates much of sports talk radio. They’re on from 1 to 4 eastern and I would recommend them to anyone looking for good sports talk.
Also, I don’t have the MLB Network (thank you Dish Network) so I’m pretty much stuck with ESPN for all my baseball highlights.
This. But I realized recently that I don’t watch PTI for the sports analysis, which actually isn’t that good. I just watch it because those guys make me laugh.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on May 15, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I am a really big fan of PTI. I also like Around the Horn. Both shows are pretty funny.
LGT's resident Beer Advocate.
by LGT Patrick on May 15, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I just watch ESPN for the soccer coverage.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on May 15, 2010 1:08 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Well you know I might watch it for the Wimbleton results too and NASCAR, yeah, when I wanna know who the NASCAR points leader is I flip on ESPN. Oh and America’s Cup, can’t wait to get the ESPN America’s Cup coverage. And curling, don’t forget curling – it’s hot with all of the Wall Street jocks, don’t cha know.
Jeez joe, wants your rho? 7 or 8?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Well, what are the units on 7? I feared that you might’ve been making fun of my resistivity. We’ll stop now.
Good stuff, but I thought everyone on this board made this decision years ago. It’s like giving up smoking.
Good analogy. Bad for you in general, but it’s hard to kick the habit.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And then years later, you try it again and recoil … “Good Lord … that is disgusting! How did I ever do that for 15 years?”
by Jay on May 15, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Unlike cigs, Sportscenter may have actually been healthy in the early 90s when those dudes were actually funny.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Still ESPN with Berman etal beat CNN with Charles and Hickman.
Entertainment beats competence in America every time.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
When ESPN and SportsCenter were new (you know, when we actually watched Aussie Rules Football because the idea of round-the-clock sports programming was so awesome), Berman was entertaining. He hasn’t changed his shtick since Reagan was president, but back then it was funny.
I would still watch Aussie Rules Football if it were on for no other reason than the fact that it IS awesome.
Marte = Victory
by woodsmeister on May 17, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
ESPN3.com has it.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on May 18, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Chris Berman sucked when he was 12 years old.
by odradek on May 18, 2010 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
This closely mirrors my own thoughts. I have FSN and GOL for soccer, MLB for baseball, NFL for football, and the little red button if I just want a score. ESPNNews is occasionally useful, but I fear that’s about it. I am glad that ESPN is big enough that they could pull a name like Martin Tyler for the World Cup coverage, that’s the benefit to an expansive and excessive empire.
I’m going to be on holiday in the US for the first week of the World Cup. As I’m staying in a rented villa I’ll assume that they won’t have any subscription channels, therefore, do I have any hope of seeing any of the games? England v the US is clearly the big one, and I was hoping that at least might be on a major station.
Am I going to be reduced to internet streams?
by LondonTribe on May 18, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I think ESPN owns the broadcast rights to at least some of the games in the US, so you should be able to keep up with your boys okay.
Come on, four billion!
Thanks – as an England fan I only need to be worried up to the quarter finals.
by LondonTribe on May 18, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Back to the point that MLBN has made ESPN obsolete when it comes to following baseball, um…
In its first month of being rated by Nielsen, MLB Network is averaging less than 100,000 viewers in prime time, making its viewership more comparable to channels like Logo and Military Channel than to ESPN or Versus.
…..
The network’s prime-time and total day viewership place MLB Network behind other single-sport channels like Speed, Golf Channel and NFL Network. Of the Nielsen-rated sports channels, only Fox Soccer Channel averaged fewer viewers in prime time and single day in April.
Interesting. You know what baseball fans watch during prime time from May until October? Baseball games. That doesn’t really apply to Speed, Golf, or the NFL.
Also, many people, like myself, still don’t have the MLB Network.
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
But 50 million people can. There’s a few things to keep in mind, however. First, unlike many other cable networks, MLBN’s revenue stream is not limited to subscriber fees and advertising. They partnered with the cable companies and DirecTV. Second, viewership for the shoulder programming increases dramatically when MLBN shows a game, and one presumes this fact is not lost on the suits at MLB. Finally, a better comparison would be to look at MLBN vs Baseball Tonight on non-game nights, which gets pretty bad ratings itself.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
