Everyone else called him out, at least. That’s his role to play on the show, though. I actually wish they’d bring Bayless back so the two could pit fight to death over the Pats.ESPN analysis this morning: Pats get all the calls, the hit on Gronk was a good football hit.
Max Kellerman: The Jags were robbed by the refs. Max butchering the rules on the DPI call and refs gave the Pats a make up for the Gronk hit. That call changed the whole game. Jacksonville got robbed.
Kellerman really is the worst; he's ruined HBO boxing for me too. The only way I could respect him less is if he hit his girlfriend. Oh wait....Everyone else called him out, at least. That’s his role to play on the show, though. I actually wish they’d bring Bayless back so the two could pit fight to death over the Pats.
I don't know what ESPN analysts you're citing, but Riddick and Clark both said it was correctly called a penaltyESPN analysis this morning: Pats get all the calls, the hit on Gronk was a good football hit.
Real thing. Jonathan Coachman works there now from WWE.I noticed a WWE Raw recap on ESPN.com today. Is ESPN covering WWE a real thing now, or was that a one off?
Lots of crossover now. Spots on SportsCenter and on the .com.I noticed a WWE Raw recap on ESPN.com today. Is ESPN covering WWE a real thing now, or was that a one off?
I remember when Bob Ley was the only actual journalist at ESPN. Sigh....This kind of nonsense is just so irresponsible and pathetic. "I'm not saying these conspiracy theories about the refs favoring the Patriots are true, but here's an extensive recapping of them."
There's a 6 pm sportscenter? I guess I'm not paying attention to the TV in a bar or the gym at that time of night, so I never noticed.What, no mention of Jemele Hill leaving the 6pm Sportscenter?
Jemele asked for the reassignment and explained that “the heart wants what it wants.” I don’t think many will be surprised, and her departure is not controversial. Or shouldn’t be.What, no mention of Jemele Hill leaving the 6pm Sportscenter?
I’m guessing here to some degree, but reports have her making $1M/yr, under contract. How does one finesse its employer into leaving a role slotted at 1M to go work in a part of the company where the writers likely make less than $75K/year. How does that work exactly? I’d like to be paid 10+ the salary my position is slotted for because “the heart wants what it wants”. It only works if your employer wants that and is non-controversial enough to let your first story in your new role be your press release on your reassignment.Jemele asked for the reassignment and explained that “the heart wants what it wants.” I don’t think many will be surprised, and her departure is not controversial. Or shouldn’t be.
Espn has fired dozens of on air talent in the last 18 months, many of whom make as much ch or more than Hill and are still being paid. As was stated above, espn didn’t want to deal with the media fallout of firing her, so her heart will go on randomly on shows no one watches until her contract runs out.If true, we should be upset about that?
If she has a contract at $1 million a year, ESPN has to honor it if they fire her. She could have said, go ahead and fire me; she would have all the leverage, as there is no basis for a for-cause dismissal. And we know that because when she issued her controversial tweets, they choose to give her a time out rather than fire her, and she has done nothing even arguably wrongful since.
We don't know they didn't have cause, we just know that they didn't choose to fire her for cause even if the grounds existed. I think either way, with/without cause, they didn't want to deal with any media fallout.If true, we should be upset about that?
If she has a contract at $1 million a year, ESPN has to honor it if they fire her. She could have said, go ahead and fire me; she would have all the leverage, as there is no basis for a for-cause dismissal. And we know that because when she issued her controversial tweets, they choose to give her a time out rather than fire her, and she has done nothing even arguably wrongful since.
My assumption is that a great deal of the content on WatchESPN (basically anything not airing on the cable channels) makes its way behind the ESPN+ paywall. ESPN+ is going to be like HBOGo or other subscription-based apps for cord-cutters who don't have cable.Wait, so what am I missing here? You can already watch ESPN channels on the WatchESPN app if you have a cable subscription, but the app is free. Why would I pay $5/month for ESPN+? Just to watch 30 for 30 and some niche sports that they don't wanna put on TV? I don't get it.
Except ESPN+ won't include any of the regular ESPN content. So people who only have ESPN+ wont be able to watch MNF for example.My assumption is that a great deal of the content on WatchESPN (basically anything not airing on the cable channels) makes its way behind the ESPN+ paywall. ESPN+ is going to be like HBOGo or other subscription-based apps for cord-cutters who don't have cable.
My guess is that ESPN+ is basically replacing ESPN3, in other words they are charging for all the online only content that we used to get included in our subscription.What about Sunday/Wednesday night baseball? If everything that airs on ESPN and ESPN2 is off limits to ESPN+, then like I said, it feels like it'll just be for niche sports. And if it also dilutes WatchESPN, then the whole thing just sucks. For instance, currently, you can watch every single TV court during the tennis grand slams with WatchESPN, which is nice because sometimes the matches they decide to show on TV are the worst ones. Does that go away and become ESPN+ only?
That article is a hard read. It says in one sentence you will be able to access live espn and espn2 then later states you went be able to access those channels unless you're a paid subscriber from traditional methods. And it also says you will only see love events on those channels that normally aren't seen. It lost me thereHeres an article I saw about it yesterday https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/06/espn-plus-details-pricing/
I imagine there will be considerable appeal for the competitive sex league content, although since it will almost certainly be limited to 'the mainstream' I won't be all that interested...That article is a hard read. It says in one sentence you will be able to access live espn and espn2 then later states you went be able to access those channels unless you're a paid subscriber from traditional methods. And it also says you will only see love events on those channels that normally aren't seen. It lost me there
I think they eventually will have all their live content on the app, but it will be a while before some of their existing deals can be re-worked to include the streaming rights for a paid app. Just using Sunday Night Baseball as the example, I don't think MLB would think much of them moving the game to the paid app since they themselves have a paid app for streaming that at the moment doesn't include the SNB game because it is available for free on WatchESPN. But something will probably be negotiated in the future to allow it.They still have to find a way to incorporate their TV content into the app, though. I know my cord cutter dad would love to have this, but he'd be expecting to watch Sunday Night Baseball. I guess if they have a good number of other games on it could still work, but wake me up when you can watch ESPN on their app without a cable sub.