Might be watching CBS sports coverage more often once Leicester gets relegated again.

I wonder how much the Wrexham effect played into this.

There is a headline in the Washington Post today that reads:

"At ESPN, everything revolves around Stephen A. Smith and Pat McAfee"

That is Exhibit A as to why, outside of live, actual sports, I never ever turn on ESPN.

I do not understand the appeal of either of those two guys.

I haven't listened to any sports talk radio outside occasionally the fantasy sports channel on Sirius, in probably 8-9 years.

I like the local afternoon sports talk radio guys here in Detroit, but other than that all of my sports listening intake is via podcasts.

I rarely watch ESPN outside of live content.

Last week, during US Open qualifying, one of the ESPN channels was televising some of the matches. Since there was nothing good to put on as background while I worked, I put it on. I didn't realize it was only for a couple of hours, and I got busy with work and didn't pay much attention to what was on, but when I did look at the TV, I saw the Pat McAfee Show.

And up at the top and in a couple of other places on the screen, I was a bunch of references to PMS Live!

And I thought to myself, that's exactly the kind of guy Pat McAfee appeals to - the guy who sees "PMS" and thinks it's hilarious!

Not saying you are one of them but I feel like a lot of people claim to not watch ESPN but do even if it is a hate watch. I would say McAfee's audience is mostly people who hate watch the channel but enjoys McAfee shitting on the network and the people that run it every chance he gets.

That observation is based solely on every other clip I see on Awful Announcing is McAfee shitting on the network and the people that run it and not on any consumption of the McAfee show. YMMV

I've never even watched enough of him to know he does that. My uninformed opinion of him is that he ought to be co-hosting a show with someone like Clay Travis.

Speaking of people not watching ESPN...

Just a moment...

Fucking what the actual fuck......

DirecTV needed to do that with Fox News.

Interestingly the WaPo had a “ESPN is basically McAfee and Smith” article today.

Honestly, if we weren’t going to finally drop DTV for cost reasons, I’d probably be able to work around it. Seems like half the time their biggest games are on ABC now anyway.

That is using leverage to a point at which it might backfire. Although if sports fans react like they usually do to contract negotiations when they give owners a free pass while blaming the players for work stoppages, then ESPN probably feels like they're the owners and DTV is the players.

If anyone hears an explosion from the jersey shore it’s my wife going thermonuclear when she learns she can’t watch the bachelorette finale tomorrow.

Do a free trial of YouTube TV or something similar

We should be able to get it on Hulu or something the next day but if this drags on I may. Thanks for the idea BTW, great call

My plan for the first Monday Night Football game is a free trial to youtube tv, the 2nd is a free trial to Hulu. If it drags into the 3rd then that is when my plan renews with Directv Stream and I guess we will be going back to Comcast at that point.

Last year at the start of the football season had this same shit with Directv and the local CBS channel so we moved to Youtube TV full time for a couple of months. Youtube is basically the same but it's hard during baseball and basketball season when they have none of our RSNs.

I'm at the point in my life where I don't care about cost (I'm not going to have two TV providers though, that's insane). I just want to be able to watch what I want to watch.

I suspect Disney is using the Monday night opener, and the bachelorette finale, as leverage and something gets worked out before too long.

I can’t believe they fired Zach Lowe.

I can. It's one of the things that saved me about 10 years ago when my boss and our boss above him were both let go by my former employer in a large cost-cutting move - you want to make good money, but not so much that you become a target for cutting the fat. At that point, it doesn't even matter how good the work product is, it's just the savings they are after. The low and mid-level grunts will fill the void, and the company gets to reap the monetary savings.

Just read the Athletic article about Mike Pereira. I had no idea what he went through with his back issues, surgery, everything he went through and that he missed the entire 2023 season. I really only watch Red Zone on Sundays and the only full games I'll watch are Sunday and Monday nights, so I'm not aware of (or think about) announcers and certainly not the officiating experts each network employs. I didn't even realize he wasn't there.

Semi-related but I think putting ex-officials on TV and referencing the active refs by name on TV encourages them to make as many calls as possible & rewards the squeakiest wheels.

Interesting move. Apparently caught MLB completely by surprise.

Diamond Sports Group to Drop All MLB Teams Except Braves

I thought MLB has already taken over the broadcast rights or was that the NBA and/or the NHL?

That's MLB's end goal, but having nearly half the league tied up with Diamond/Bally has made it tough to accomplish.

And, honestly, I'm not sure how into that the teams really are either.

I think that's one reason MLB wants the Diamond deals to fall apart. That would put teams rights on the open market (in theory) where they'd find out that local stations aren't going to be as inclined to pay them stupid sums that can't possibly be made back by the stations

This is still in the negotiations via court phase. Diamond/Bally had made offers to MLB to keep the rights (at a significant paycut), and to get ahold of the digital/streaming rights (which MLB wants no part in granting).

This is Diamond Saying "If we don't get what we want (the digital rights), we'll just walk away and let you deal with half your league trying to find new TV contracts"

and MLB replying

"That might be better then giving you the rights we think are really valuable (streaming/digital)"

So we lost NBC Sports Chicago here which carried Bulls, Blackhawks, and White Sox games. It's been replaced by Chicago Sports Network which isn't on Xfinity but apparently can be accessed OTA. Weird times.

Also available on Astound (?), U-Verse, and DirectTV.

(Not like it's only OTA is all I'm sayin)

Yeah, I just meant I'm surprised it's OTA. Never thought I'd see that again.

They aren't the only ones doing that in the latest shuffling.

Panthers, Kraken, Stars have all done it. Avalanche & Nuggets both doing 20 games each OTA as well

Is that just because the regional sports thing has crashed? I'm kind of lost how we went from teams getting truckloads of cash 10 years ago by cable channels to now offering the games up free.

That seems to be what's happening. I'm all for RSNs crashing but I worry for cheap teams affected like the Reds and Twins.

If I remember correctly, Bally Sports was in debt and Diamond Sports Group swooped in to buy them. Then, rather than resolve the debt, Diamond Sports did a shitload of stock buy backs and filed for bankruptcy.

Baseball Prospectus did an article when it was going on about how shady the whole deal was and how it shouldn't have come to where we are now.

Some fairly significant news yesterday that Disney is buying Fubo and planning to merge it with Hulu. This is significant because (a) presumably it paves the way - or at least makes it easier - for the Fox/ESPN/Warner joint venture, sports-only streaming service Venu to launch; and (b) it gives ESPN an additional distribution arm (in combination with its upcoming ESPN-only streaming service) to stop the bleeding in the decline of its subscriber base through cable and other streaming services due to cord-cutting.

It looks like in the near future, we will have multiple ways (and price points to pay) for watching sports. Stick with the standard cable/streaming service bundle that includes your sports as part of an $80ish/mo cost, unbundle and just pay for ESPN at $30/mo, or go with Venu for around $50/mo.

Well this is an interesting turn. The news of the Fubo settlement seemed to pave the way for Venu to launch soon, but it's been called off by the parties. Curious what the sports media observers say about this development.

CNBC take, fwiw

MLB and ESPN mutually terminated their agreement 3 years early, effective at the end of this year. I think that's, on balance, a positive for MLB. ESPN has cut back on non-game coverage so much thst it's hurt the game. Go find a couple partners that want to promote your game.

Apple Tv. The new home of MLB. It will suck, but you will be stuck with it.

Would revolutionize the way I'm not watching.

Well I get the MLB package for $75 through MLBPAA and get MLB Network, so that gives me about what I need. I don't get locals so I miss Reds games but that's about it. My teams are the Phillies and Tigers anyway.

Yeah but that's not how it works and this seems quite bad. I remember when the NHL got fed up with being behind the NFL and NBA (and MLB) in ESPN's pecking order and cut ESPN out of their TV deals, which led to next to zero hockey coverage at all on ESPN until they were added back in as a broadcast partner. MLB is really gonna chase that streaming dragon and it will lead to much less general baseball content making it to the masses, ESPN still drives the sports zeitgeist and they do not push sports if they are not broadcast partners with them. I'm sorry ESPN is telling you the market is lower after your other major broadcast partner just went belly up and you've struggled to monetize all those local rights deals, but they're absolutely correct on the market.

Yeah. But that doesn't affect me in the least. If I was a huge hockey fan way back when, I could still watch all the games I wanted. I am really not concerned with how much money the owners, players or league is making.

Baseball is a niche sport and I'm saying that as a fan.

MLB has decided that they don't care who watches, or even IF anybody watches as long as they get rights fees.

If fans stay home, problem will solve itself in a few years.

I know the numbers are from the league so take them with a grain of salt, but I believe actual game attendance numbers were up in 2024. And I believe I saw - at least at some point last summer - that viewership numbers were increasing as well.

You mean before they go to a largely PPV model.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, their future is what I was referring to.

edit to add: or rather, a future that could be. I think there's probably enough people sucker enough to keep paying whatever is asked to keep them afloat, that's certainly what they're counting on.

Broadcaster Al Trautwig, 68, dies from complications of cancer - ESPN

A damned good one, or more accurately really, a great one.

Rest in peace.

Stephen A. Smith inks $100m deal with ESPN, per report

Congrats to Stephen A. as long as this is the case.


I encourage ESPN to force him to use all of his non First Take time to appear on non-sports programming. I don't watch First Take or the Stephen A. Smith show.

I haven’t watched any non live sports on espn in a decade. Who are these people watching him scream at them?

I do see him occasionally on general hospital. That’s always fun.

I see him on General Hospital. My wife watches and he's got a small recurring role. That's the only time I've seen him on TV other than if I accidentally turn on ESPN's pre-game or halftime NBA coverage.

Coincidentally, that's also the only time I see or hear Mike Greenburg anymore, too.

Most of their talking head stuff after the morning shows draw around 500k audience, give or take. Not as good as PTI at its peak, but pretty much average. It beats some Sportscenters, loses to other Sportscenters, depends on the day/time.

The audience has always been heavily male (hardest demo to reach with TV), I imagine it's fairly passive with a lot of background viewing going on. It outdraws stuff like the team golf thing, that 3-on-3 women's basketball stuff, motocross, etc. It also does -- in daytime TV -- numbers close to what AEW gets in primetime for Dynamite on TBS, often doubles what AEW collision gets (just thinking about male-dominant audience stuff).

Those ratings on total viewers, if treated like they were there own "network" would be a top 20 cable network -- somewhere in the upper teens/low 20s with networks like Hallmark, Bravo, Lifetime, USA, Food Network, etc.

edit to add: None of that means it's actually good ... but most of the stuff I mentioned in comparison isn't good either. "Good" doesn't really have much to do with what gets on the air anywhere.

The same people who want to scream at other people when discussing sports?

I don't think there is a chance of it happening but I would love to see one of those shows go head to head with a sports opinion show that was more... uh... nuanced. That may not be the exact word but I think everyone knows what I mean. I have a feeling the ratings would be similar to when they used to have a "good/positive" newscast at 5:30pm when I was a kid. Supposedly the audience craved a newscast that focused on all the good that was done in the community instead of the negativity of the 6pm news. I think the positive newscast lasted about six weeks due to low ratings.