QBR must vastly overrate running by the QB, as Dalton did outrush Brady (and had a TD). But also according to QBR:According to ESPN's QBR, Andy Dalton had a better game yesterday than Tom Brady.
ESPN's mass-audience business model won't let them become a sophisticated outfit, but getting rid of hacks like Bayless and Broussard is a step in the right direction.
ESPN does not share how QBR is calculated which makes it an entirely useless metric to me.QBR must vastly overrate running by the QB, as Dalton did outrush Brady (and had a TD). But also according to QBR:
Tyrod Taylor-17/26 for 179 yards, 2 tds, no ints, PLUS 8 carries for 68 yrds-QBR of 75.8
EJ Manuel-0/2 for 0 yards, plus 3 carries for 11 yards-QBR of 90.9
Does no one look at this and say "this doesnt work right"?
And because it is a black box it raises suspicion that they are changing criteria over time which further calls into question validity and usefulness of the metric.The problem with QBR is the black box -- nobody knows what it's measuring.
Fox Sports 1 Topped ESPN in Ratings Last Week For the First Time in Its History
For the first time since it launched in August 2013, Fox Sports 1 drew higher ratings than ESPN over an entire week. Sports TV Ratings reports that not only did FS1 beat the perennial market leader, it dominated them by a margin of 1.5 million total viewers in primetime, and nearly 400,000 in the advertiser coveted 18-49 demographic. That was enough to give the upstart network a 70,000 viewer victory in total ratings over ESPN. (Although ESPN did prevail by 53,000 viewers in the 18-49 demo.)
Lots of good info in that articleAnd for more good news...
ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
This is spot-on:At 74 million subscribers -- Outkick's projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6.2 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees at $7 a month. At $8 a month, assuming the subscriber costs per month keeps climbing, that's $7.1 billion in subscriber revenue. Both of those numbers are less than the yearly rights fees cost.
Uh oh.
It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.
Sure, advertising money and ESPN2 and ESPNU have to be factored in as well, but you'd also have to add in every other cost that ESPN has to run multiple networks, employee salaries, technology, everything that a major corporation with thousands of worldwide employees has to keep up. And, importantly, you also have to factor in this, ESPN's Monday Night Football contract expires at the end of 2021.
I too am an acolyte of the notion that market pressures have pushed live event broadcasting rights (i.e. sports) into an insane bubble that is ripe for bursting. In a worst-case scenario all of the major leagues will have to go through major rounds of labor strife to correct payroll bloat. Out of everyone I definitely think ESPN and the NFL are the biggest, dumbest behemoths least prepared to cope with what happens post-burst. So far, Disney has shown no signs of allowing ESPN the kind of red ink on their balance sheet that it would take to keep the bubble intact.This is the biggest contract to watch in sports, will ESPN bend to economic reality or will Disney let the worldwide leader in sports spend money it doesn't have?
If the NFL isn't making the same money it always made in the past, everyone in sports is screwed.
I've been writing about the sports rights bubble for years. Most recently doing the math to point out that the NBA's insane new television deal from Turner and ESPN means that every single cable and satellite subscriber in the entire country is paying a jawdropping $30 a year for NBA games. I believe the NBA's TV contract represented the actual peak of the sports rights market.
I'm not against ESPN -- or certainly FS1 or NBCSN or CBSSN or any other sports cable channel -- I just see the collapse of the cable and satellite bundle as the biggest sports story that most in the sports industry are ignoring. When the bubble officially pops -- and it may well have already popped without most realizing it, check out the NFL ratings collapsing this fall -- it's going to change everything about sports -- team revenue and player salaries will plummet and the way that average fans consume sports will change rapidly.
We disagreeAssuming that's geared towards Cubs fans, most of them probably think it's accurate. Verdict: Allowable.
And for more good news...
ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
I mean, does it really matter? It's money that ESPN has spent that won't end up coming in.Does that really mean anything other than that people are cutting the cord or switching to skinny bundles? ESPN seems to be an inviolate part of the basic cable package. IOW, this seems to be driven by the desire to avoid large cable bills in general, and not about ESPN in particular.
The sports network had 90 million subscribers in September, Disney reports citing Nielsen data. That’s a drop of 2 million, or 2.2% from 2015.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-another-555-000-subscribers-per-nielsen-112916So if we're very conservative and project that ESPN continues to lose 3 million subscribers a year -- well below the rate that they are currently losing subscribers -- then the household numbers would look like this over the next five years:
2017: 86 million subscribers
2018: 83 million subscribers
2019: 80 million subscribers
2020: 77 million subscribers
2021: 74 million subscribers
At 74 million subscribers -- Outkick's projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6.2 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees at $7 a month. At $8 a month, assuming the subscriber costs per month keep climbing, that's $7.1 billion in subscriber revenue. Both of those numbers are less than the yearly rights fees cost in 2017. (Remember that these yearly rights fee costs will keep rising in the years ahead too).
Uh oh.
It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.
That and regional sports networks. I'd pay for NESN for example, but not ESPN if I could pick and choose. I guess I'd lose Sox games on Sunday Night Baseball, and Monday Night Football games the Pats were on. All the other live sports on there I don't really care about enough to pay for. I think I could live like that pretty easily.I'm pretty sure that ESPN is the most expensive network included with standard cable packages. It is an obvious candidate to get cut.
It's probably still the most watched though. Even DirecTV Now's base package includes ESPN and ESPN2.I'm pretty sure that ESPN is the most expensive network included with standard cable packages. It is an obvious candidate to get cut.
It had the NFL division leaders, but had the NFC teams in the wrong divisionsNothing there. What did it say?
The ESPN fears are hurting Disney’s stock, which is down 5% this year, even as other media stocks have rallied. The stock slide explains the interest in separating Disney and ESPN. Some investors think that an ESPN-free Disney would jump in value.
The idea was raised by media mogul John Malone last month. Today, analysts at RBC Capital expanded on the idea. “The power of Disney isn’t in its sports,” analyst Steven Cahall wrote in a note to clients on Monday.
Every other network that carries the NFL -- NBC, CBS, and Fox -- has their playoff games or the Super Bowl, which rotates between NBC, CBS and Fox each three years, included within their yearly rights fee. Except for ESPN, which pays an extra $100 million for one crappy wild card game.
But, wait, it gets worse.
ESPN can only make around $25 million airing this wild card game.
So ESPN will lose $75 million televising one playoff football game.
Does having it also on ABC help defray the costs a little or is it already figured in?
I would assume that helps some, although I have no clue. It just amazes me how much ESPN bends over for the NFL and they are continually rewarded with shit games and a terrible playoff game, all while shelling out more for the right to air a playoff game. At some point, they will have to stop being submissive to the NFL.Does having it also on ABC help defray the costs a little or is it already figured in?
Submissive is an understatement.I would assume that helps some, although I have no clue. It just amazes me how much ESPN bends over for the NFL and they are continually rewarded with shit games and a terrible playoff game, all while shelling out more for the right to air a playoff game. At some point, they will have to stop being submissive to the NFL.
I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.Didn't see this posted - Mike Greenberg re-upped for $6.5 million a year, making him one of ESPN's highest-paid personalities.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/mike-greenberg-now-one-of-top-paid-personalities-at-espn-according-to-jim-miller.html
This almost certainly has to mean that the rumors are true of Greenberg likely fronting a new ESPN morning show (think a sports version of Good Morning America) to replace SportsCenter - he's not getting paid that kind of money for another four years of Mike & Mike. I could see Greenberg moving up and Mike Golic Jr. joining his father on the radio show.
It's not my cup of tea, but Golic Jr. was decent the few times I heard him filling in for his father on Mike & Mike. Golic & Golic could actually be an Ok show (as national ESPN radio shows go) if they stuck to sports and dropped the tired act of playing off Golic Sr.'s weight and status as a former athlete vs. Greenberg's metrosexual ways and supposed lack of athletic ability.I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/18413458/chris-berman-leaving-espn-nfl-host-role-remains-network-new-dealBerman, a six-time National Sportscaster of the Year honoree, will remain as ESPN's host of NFL Primetime highlights after the NFL championship week games and the Super Bowl, and will have a role on Monday Night Countdown, offering opinion and perspective on historical events in the NFL. He will also call an MLB division series for ESPN Radio, and be part of the ESPY awards.
Berman will also make appearances on-air in other capacities and serve in other public-facing roles for the company, ESPN said in a statement. He will no longer host the NFL draft or Major League Baseball's Home Run Derby.
Golic & Golic? No no no. The ad wizards are salivating at calling it "The All New Mike & Mike™".I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.