ESPN to continue move away from live sports to shows/movies.

[SirFozzie]

Why not make a "Sports Show channel" if you're so gung ho on getting away from SPORTS?

They
Just.
DO NOT
GET IT.

They want to be MTV. They don't realize we crap on MTV, because it's NOT MTV anymore. ESPN-Live Sports=CRRRAAP.

Link to Article

Less hockey and baseball. More original movies and series.

That's one big equation on the mind of Mark Shapiro, executive VP of programming and production for ESPN, who's gung ho about broadening the audience for ESPN by reaching beyond the stereotypical potbellied sports nut, stretched out in his undershirt on a Barcalounger with a can of beer in one hand and a remote in the other.

ESPN and ESPN2 aimed the National Hockey League games it carried from 1999 through 2004 squarely at this viewer, but Shapiro says the NHL's ratings had fallen to such a depressed state by the 2003-04 season (a labor dispute obliterated the 2004-05 schedule) that he won't pay cash license fees anymore.

And Shapiro is negotiating a new contract with Major League Baseball but says, "I'm not interested in carrying five games a week unless I get full network exclusivity," a concession baseball seems unwilling to grant except for the traditional ESPN game of the week on Sunday night.

And that's where scripted programming comes in. Shapiro says one of the reasons ESPN's scripted series about Las Vegas poker players "Tilt" failed to find an audience earlier this year is that the only free night not saturated with live sports commitments was Thursday, where, at 9 p.m., the show had to go up against such strong series as "CSI" on CBS, "Will & Grace""Will & Grace" on NBC and "Extreme Makeover" on ABC. Against those odds, "Tilt" never really had a chance.

By contrast, ESPN's other scripted series "Playmakers," a warts-and-all look at the members of a fictional pro-football team, fared much better with audiences in 2003's late summer and fall because the network was able to carve out a weekly primetime slot on Tuesday, where the competition was not so fierce.

Despite solid ratings, "Playmakers" got a reluctant cancellation notice after its first 13-episode season, falling victim to the hostility of the National Football League, most of whose owners hated the portrayal of some athletes as drug users, wife beaters and other unsavory types.

The mistakes ESPN made in shepherding "Playmakers" and "Tilt" onto the schedule have only reinforced Shapiro's goal of coming up with one or two hit series in the next few years and with at least four highly exploitable original movies a year, starting in 2006.

The man who created "Playmakers," John EisendrathJohn Eisendrath, is working on an untitled drama pilot set in the world of boxing, which is slated as ESPN's next series.

Shapiro says he has 30 movie projects in the works, with two in production: "Four Minutes," a docudrama about Roger Bannister, the first athlete to run the four-minute mile, and "The Code Breakers," a script based on the 1951 West Point scandal in which the school expelled 83 Army cadets, including most of the football team, for cheating.

Sports-media consultant Kevin O'Malley applauds Shapiro's push to get ESPN into scripted movies and series.

"These shows are already getting more women and younger men to watch the network," O'Malley says.

Getting different kinds of people to watch ESPN, says Neal Pilson, a sports consultant and former president of CBS Sports, will help to pump up the network's advertising revenues.

Kagan Research says ESPN already harvests more ad revenues than any other cable network, projecting a record $869.2 million in 2005, a 9% gain over those of last year.

ESPN should look at the example of MTV, says David Carter, a principal with the Los Angeles-based Sports Business Group.

"MTV became an integral part of the pop culture," he says, "by morphing from a musicvideo network to a channel carrying a wide range of programming."

However, Mike Trager, former head of Clear Channel Entertainment, says ESPN "has to walk a fine line between reaching out for new viewers and alienating its core audience."

Or, as another sports analyst puts it: "Women may watch an episode of one of the series, but that doesn't mean they're going to abandon Lifetime to become devotees of the NFL and the NBA on ESPN."

[Lathum]

I don't disagree with you, but ESPN is in the buisness of making money and if this is going to get them more viewers which in turn makes them more money then you can't really fault them.

[NYFAN]

They key is that last point they make... they're going to lose a lot of viewers if they go too far... everyone i know likes ESPN because well, it's nonstop sports... if they start making it more TV shows, they're going to lose a huge part of their audience, and hardly make it up with the newcomers.

[SelzShoes]

ESPN has what, 6 24-hour networks to fill schedules for (ESPN, 2, News, Classic, U, Deportes)--that's alot of programming to make/find. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an ESPNMovie, ESPNAction, and a new network that just carries sports--like ESPN used to.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I would watch hockey or football on ESPN. I may watch Sportscenter. I would watch NFL Tonight or NFL Prime Time. That is all.

[Ksyrup]

I don't care. I buy the sports packages I want and see the games I want. I would hate for baseball to give exclusivity to ESPN for anything but Sunday night.

Bottom line...as long as I still have a place to go for sports, I don't care if it's not ESPN. Just like I got over MTV when they dumped headbangers ball. I haven't been back to that channel since, but I've found my music elsewhere.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't care. I buy the sports packages I want and see the games I want. I would hate for baseball to give exclusivity to ESPN for anything but Sunday night.

Amen. This is the only line in the article that agitated me. I hope baseball doesn't give in. I pay good money for Extra Innings to see the games I want. There are enough damn blackouts already.

[Subby]

I am all for more original programming. Sportscenter is unwatchable and the regional networks carry all the games I want to see. More original programming is the next logical step.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Amen. This is the only line in the article that agitated me. I hope baseball doesn't give in. I pay good money for Extra Innings to see the games I want. There are enough damn blackouts already.

Don't even get me started on blackouts. I live in Tallahassee - 5 and 7 hours from Tampa and Ft. Lauderdale, respectively. Most nights, both games are blacked out - which would be fine if I lived anywhere near those cities and got to see the local broadcast. But no, I've only got FSN FL and Sunshine Network, and they only show games maybe 2 or 3 times a week, at most. So I get blacked out for 2 teams, neither of which I can see locally. Pisses me off. I got lucky last night that the D-Rays/Yankees just happened to be on Sunshine, or I would have missed the 8th inning slaughter.

[Greyroofoo]

I've already stopped watching ESPN, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter anymore

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Don't even get me started on blackouts. I live in Tallahassee - 5 and 7 hours from Tampa and Ft. Lauderdale, respectively. Most nights, both games are blacked out - which would be fine if I lived anywhere near those cities and got to see the local broadcast. But no, I've only got FSN FL and Sunshine Network, and they only show games maybe 2 or 3 times a week, at most.

This is just laziness on MLB's part. The NBA Season Pass is great on this issue. They take care to detect what games are on locally. If the Hornets are on cable here locally, they're blacked out. If they're not on local TV, you see the game on Season Pass. But MLB just declares two teams as "local" and blacks out all their games no matter what.

So, until last season, you had all that PLUS ESPN blacked out Wednesday nights. Then you have Fox's Saturday blackout as well. Frankly, if ESPN gets their way here, I'm going to very very reluctantly cancel Extra Innings, even though I love it. It's just too much.

I hope ESPN goes the shows/movies direction rather than doing this. I hardly ever watch the channel anyway.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I've already stopped watching ESPN, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter anymore

With ya, with the exception of the live sports they seem not to be interested in anymore. Less live sports = less me watching.

[rexallllsc]

I bet they're going to become a not as bad version of what MTV has become.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Put all of the movies and series on "The Ocho."

[weinstein7]

Hey, anything that gets Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless off the air is OK with me!

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

Hey, anything that gets Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless off the air is OK with me!

That will get you an amen.

Obviously it's a money making situation. If ESPN drops expensive sports programming, they need something else that will pull in sizable viewers that still fits the demographics of the network. Makes sense.

I don't really care about the movie and series programming. But it's not going to work if the product is horrible. Tilt's problem wasn't timeslot -- Tilt's problem was that it was a creative meltdown. Hustle and Season on the Brink were notable only for the low-quality of the hairpieces worn by B-rate stars cashing checks.

Some of the above storylines and movies are promising. I think historical-esque movies that could bring untold stories would be a hit with a lot of viewers. So far ESPN movies have been on topics that have been beaten to death.

The original series, I'm not sure about. Sports already has serial stories -- it's called the season. I'll watch a sports-related TV series if it's good, but I won't watch it just because it's about sports. I think that's where they miss right now.

[bronconick]

Figures. The one channel I want to see "reality" tv on (live sports), I get scripted television, and get reality tv (crap) on the channels that I want to see scripted television.

If it isn't Sportscenter (and that's if I'm out of the loop for scores) or actual sports, my tv is on a different channel. If I want drama, I'll watch TNT.

[Suicane75]

Havn't watched ESPN in years, will continue to not watch.

[Easy Mac]

I think its sad they don't realize why people didn't watch Tilt. No one watched it because it was shit. Its just like the MPAA blaming poor box offices on movie pirates and not on making shitty remakes.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

Hey, anything that gets Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless off the air is OK with me!

Damn straight.

The onyl shows I watch on ESPN are Around The Horn and Pardon the Interuption (they both get bumped constantly for other things). I also used to watch 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... on ESPN2, but they stopped playing them now.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Some docudrama and documentaries would be nice but not to the extent where 14 or more hours of the day is devoted to them.

[ISiddiqui]

You know, it's kind of funny. Instead of thinking about the REAL reason "Tilt" got bad ratings (IT SUCKED!), they have to come up with the timeslot argument (didn't help, but the show was baaaaad). Why did "Playmakers" have a better audience? Not because of the timeslot, but because it was better! (Like Easy Mac said)

The final comments are correct. I don't know the ratings of MTV, but I don't know anyone that watches it anymore and I'm in the 'key' demographic.

Now, on the other hand, I'll watch VH1's shows (especially their 'lists'), but then again, VH1 didn't have to worry too much about alienating 'core' fans.

[weinstein7]

I think it's safe to say that most people here hate what's happened to ESPN in the last five years or so, and Sports Center in particular. I'm sure we could have a nice long thread bitching about how they ruined that show (actually, that thread has probably happened already). So my point is this: have their ratings actually improved?

I haven't bothered to look at ratings, but it certainly seems to me as if the show no longer has the cultural significance it did back in the late 90s.

A related question: has anyone ever met anyone who actually enjoys Stuart Scott? Their decision to make him the centerpiece of the entire network baffles me, as to me (and I know I'm not alone on this), he represents everything thats wrong with ESPN.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Instead of thinking about the REAL reason "Tilt" got bad ratings (IT SUCKED!), they have to come up with the timeslot argument (didn't help, but the show was baaaaad). Why did "Playmakers" have a better audience? Not because of the timeslot, but because it was better! (Like Easy Mac said)

Oh, I am certain the timeslot hurt "Tilt"'s ratings. I was crazy for big time poker at the time, watching anything poker related I could find, but did not even give this a chance because it competed with "CSI", at the time the only network show I watched regularly. I know that is anecdotal evidence, but I cannot have been the only one.

It may never have gotten huge ratings because it sucked, but going against the #1 show on television is bad for ratings, regardless of the quality of programming you are presenting.

[SelzShoes]

This is a Slate story from 2002 that deals with this topic When did ESPN stop Doing Sports?

When Did ESPN Stop Doing Sports?
Around the Horn and other talk shows are ruining the network.
By Robert Weintraub
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2002, at 3:41 PM PT



Kellerman: all wrong for the job

Tucked in among the football highlights on Sunday's edition of NFL Primetime was a very revealing statement. In discussing the guarantee of victory made by Cincinnati coach Dick LeBeau, ESPN analyst Tom Jackson blurted, "It doesn't matter what he said, it only matters what we say he said." A similar arrogance has convinced ESPN it can air a steady stream of talk shows that insult viewers accustomed to quality sports programming. It's one thing to try something new and produce a movie based on the vulgarity of Bobby Knight or a show revolving around the dubious talents of Jay Mohr. It's another to give every single (male) sports columnist in the country a televised forum. On the same subjects. At maximum decibel level. This ugly trend reaches its nadir with Monday's heavily promoted offering, the debut of Around the Horn.

Full disclosure time: I worked at ESPN in production full-time in the early '90s, when there was just the lonely single channel, rather than a family of networks. I continue to work for ESPN on an occasional basis, most recently this past June on World Cup soccer coverage. I have the greatest respect for the creative talents of the overworked, underpaid staff and fully understand the challenge of feeding the gaping maw of programming time.

Around the Horn is ESPN's latest addition to the white noise of nonstop sports commentary, joining Pardon the Interruption, another show featuring sportswriters shouting opinions; The Sports Reporters, featuring sportswriters shouting opinions; and The Sports Reporters 2, featuring you know what. And then there's Focus Group, which lets fans throw half-baked opinions into the mix, not to mention NFL2Night, NBA2Night, NHL2Night, Baseball Tonight, College Football GameDay, NFL GameDay, NFL Primetime, Monday Night Countdown, and approximately 700 hours of SportsCenter, all of which feature five minutes of "analysis" and "debate" for every 30 seconds of actual sports action.

Like another cable giant, MTV, ESPN seems to have forgotten its original mandate. Remember when you could tune in to ESPN and actually have a good chance of seeing sports? Sure it might be bowling, or rodeo, or Australian-rules football, but at least it was action, competition, well-trained athletes giving their all for the sport they love. Now, thanks to an unfriendly economy, punishing rights fees, and a programming department led by one Mark Shapiro, who apparently thought the debate team counted as a varsity sport in high school, ESPN is far more interested in showing you people talking about sports rather than the sports themselves. The network has become the Worldwide Leader in Hot Air.

Even for the most obsessive geek, Around the Horn is pointless noise pollution, the ThunderStix of sports programming. Its host, Max Kellerman, is excellent talking boxing on Friday Night Fights, but his wise-guy persona and shrill voice are unsuited to moderating a show dedicated to bombast. At least The Sports Reporters (Version 1.0) featured the late, inimitable Dick Schaap, who managed to lend an air of grace to the proceedings. He would be appalled to know his legacy was a raft of second-rate rip-offs, each one trying to top the next in words per second.

Then there's Kellerman's panel of sports columnists, beamed in from four newsrooms around the country. In addition to Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe, who may be a loudmouth but is at least a funny and knowledgeable one, there are T.J. Simers of the Los Angeles Times, Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Woody Paige of the Denver Post. (The Dallas Morning News' Tim Cowlishaw will rotate in.) They spout off on the news of the day, giving opinions that will no doubt change by this time next week. You'd be hard-pressed to find men who have more carefully cultivated images as jerks, both in print and in person.

Kellerman's job is to award or deduct "points," based on whether or not he agrees with the panel's weighty assessments. (Sample: "Curb Your Enthusiasm is better than The Sopranos.") As if four attention-starved nitwits shouting at the same time wasn't confusing enough, the viewer is supposed to process pinging sounds indicating points scored or detracted. Each point then translates to a second of "face time" at the end, where the writer gets off one last scripted bon mot while his bosses gleefully add up the free advertising their newspaper is getting. About the only good feature is the mute button, which Kellerman occasionally busts out to silence one of his unruly panelists. You'll likely find the one on your remote control more useful.

Around the Horn undercuts the show immediately following it, Pardon the Interruption, with a similarity bordering on outright thievery—although after Horn's half-hour, PTI hosts Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon come off like MacNeil and Lehrer. Both shows breathlessly give judgments on issues like whether or not Yao Ming is a bust (after all, he's played three whole games). Both incorporate the show rundown into the screen (Horn boldly puts its rundown on the bottom, rather than along the side). Both shows use graphic icons meant to brand the program in corporate packaging. Both shows are even produced at the same Washington, D.C., studio.

One difference—PTI devotes five minutes of its show to an interview, usually with an actual athlete or coach who is otherwise mere fodder for the unending blather. Monday's subject was Grant Hill, who is not only an incredibly gifted athlete but on all accounts a well-rounded human being. Hill effortlessly projected a dignity and wisdom that was jarring when juxtaposed with supposedly learned, experienced writers hurling playground insults at each other. If only ESPN could get back in the business of showing such athletes doing what they do best.

[Flasch186]

theyve already lost a number of viewers to the NFL network and the trend will continue...I NEVER watch MTV anymore. And if TILT and the like were on 24/7 I would never watch ESPN.

[Daimyo]

If they replace hockey with shows that no one watches does it really even matter? Either way no one is watching.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't really agree with the articles, because I loooooove the sports pundit shows. It's kind of like dignified (well, somewhat) talk radio without the silly callers. They are talking about actual sports however and not some false world.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Oh, I am certain the timeslot hurt "Tilt"'s ratings. I was crazy for big time poker at the time, watching anything poker related I could find, but did not even give this a chance because it competed with "CSI", at the time the only network show I watched regularly. I know that is anecdotal evidence, but I cannot have been the only one.

It may never have gotten huge ratings because it sucked, but going against the #1 show on television is bad for ratings, regardless of the quality of programming you are presenting.

I tried it and thought it was just a horrible show. I have friends that swear by it but I thought it was total schlock.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Tilt really didnt do it for me. I akso hate all the hours of WSOP. If it weree up to me Id bring back RPM tonite and try to bring back NASCAR.

[rkmsuf]

I don't mind the poker but I do mind the endless reruns of the poker. All channels do that. It's annoying.