ESPN Lays Off Ed Werder

[theebs]

Good maybe we'll get back to just Sports Center and Australian Rules Football

When I actually enjoyed the channel

way back when I used to come home from elementary school and watch awa wrestling on espn at like 3 or 4 o clock everyday! I remember it looked so cheap and sad. They also used to show all the nfl films highlights in that afternoons before sportscaster back then also.

 

[TwoDeep3]

But you will take the same information from a man that's never played the sport?

No, I discount the talking heads that are the moderators of these shows. And for the most part, when you see the guys on NFLN, Rich Eisen may offer an opinion, but the people doing to real analysis are the former players and coaches. Same with Fox and ESPN and all the majors who host football. The "host" of the show is a broadcaster for the most part. They give opinions occasionally, but are there to move the shows direction and stay on point. I don't listen to them. That is normally my cue to channel surf.

I didn't believe this position would be popular with all. Frankly, I don't care.

To turn this down a different rabbit hole, I would like to see a show broadcast with coaches and players talking about the game in general and doing essentially a football 101. Breakdown the offense and defenses so the fan can have a greater understanding of the nuances of the game and how they change.

 

[88sAndHeartbreak]

So you guys are making fun of hundreds of people with families getting fired. Specifically a person who held the same job for 17 years................. ok.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

So you guys are making fun of people with families getting fired. Specifically a person who held the same job for 17 years................. ok.

Yup. It's comedy relief we all need.

 

[dogunwo]

No, I discount the talking heads that are the moderators of these shows. And for the most part, when you see the guys on NFLN, Rich Eisen may offer an opinion, but the people doing to real analysis are the former players and coaches. Same with Fox and ESPN and all the majors who host football. The "host" of the show is a broadcaster for the most part. They give opinions occasionally, but are there to move the shows direction and stay on point. I don't listen to them. That is normally my cue to channel surf.

I didn't believe this position would be popular with all. Frankly, I don't care.

To turn this down a different rabbit hole, I would like to see a show broadcast with coaches and players talking about the game in general and doing essentially a football 101. Breakdown the offense and defenses so the fan can have a greater understanding of the nuances of the game and how they change.

Can you give an example of a female analyst so that I more understand your point? Every example I can think of falls into the category of show host, or reporter, which you are OK with.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Good point.

For some reason I still like highlights. Especially, for keeping up with baseball, a game I don't watch on tv much. I also watch NBA gametime everyday via dvr. The NFL network shows about 4 plays from the game then runs their stupid mouths for 10 minutes on Mondays after games. Those four morons are nobody's to the game. I can't imagine that's appealing to anyone. However, if they show highlights, at least, I'll watch.

I think it's a programming mistake to not show them.

I understand that. I love to watch highlights when the team I am rooting for wins. I tend to avoid them when they lose. At least for a day or so.

 

[cej757]

way back when I used to come home from elementary school and watch awa wrestling on espn at like 3 or 4 o clock everyday! I remember it looked so cheap and sad. They also used to show all the nfl films highlights in that afternoons before sportscaster back then also.

Yeah... I remember those good ole days. The days when you could hear that ESPN Dial tone when the Commercials were about to come on. Lol

 

[TwoDeep3]

Can you give an example of a female analyst so that I more understand your point? Every example I can think of falls into the category of show host, or reporter, which you are OK with.

That is exactly who I mean. The show hosts. Where I work they have a big screen on ESPN in the break room. I stand there and watch as these women at 6am attempt to give their "analysis" on all things sports. They fail.

But this goes further than just the sports shows. Think of the sidelines "reporter" at the end of games asking the player of the game questions. it is almost cliche the first question asked is, "How did it feel to throw the winning touchdown."

That is a question that has no purpose. "Well, Sylvia, it felt like crap. I was really wanting to lose this game because I had money riding on it in Vegas." What the heck is the guy going to say.

I'd much prefer something along the lines of, "Rodgers, how did the play develop for you to throw that pass and get in field goal distance to beat the Cowboys? Was that by design, or did it organically unfold?"

And watching sports evolve, men are starting to ask these "feeling" questions instead of asking something specific about the game, and the chess match that caused your team to win.

Frankly, I could wax on about this for a while because I have put a great deal of thought in how sports events/ TV production has changed since the early sixties. I find the element of the uninitiated hosting these shows, or interviewing the players to be the diluting of the games periphery. I don't walk around roiling inside about this. But have seen the changes over the decades and believe the producers either believe the people watching are stupid, or they are pitching to the lowest common denominator. Somewhat the way the military trains the average GI.

Just my opinion.

 

[Longboysfan]

Espn has an agenda and laying off white men fits it perfectly.

Bingo!!

No They got rid on one hack reporter.

 

[Satchel89]

I don't like Werder that much but the fact that guy is safe is indicative why I don't care what ESPN does. It is complete trash and has been for the last decade plus.

It is so bad. You're right. It's unwatchable. I don't mind Mike And Mike, It's not a must see but it doesn't annoy me like the rest of their shows. Just can't stand most of the people on that network.

 

[Satchel89]

Fire Steven a Smith next please

I know. They have to keep the guy who yells and hates the Cowboys. He has 7 favorite teams and he doesn't know anymore about football then you and me. I could do a show for 2 hours everyday and talk about how much I hate the Eagles, Giants and Steelers.

 

[tyke1doe]

First, I can't understand how people rejoice over others losing their livelihood, especially if they're gainfully and respectfully employed. I can't rejoice over someone losing their job - no matter who it is. I'm the same way when people get killed doing something they shouldn't have been doing, even in the process of committing a crime. Yes, they get what's coming to them, but, personally, I can't rejoice over it.

Second, I don't watch ESPN anymore and not because of politics. I don't understand that either. Did ESPN author shows that dealt with politics? Do they include politics in their Sports Center shows?
I don't watch ESPN because it is no longer the only option we have for sports. I watch the NFL Network now. If I want to get my pro football information, I'll tune into the NFL Network. If I want college information, I'll check out my local sports channels or visit a website. I no longer have to wait for Sports Center to cycle through its news lineup to get the information I'm looking for.

And that's likely the main driver in ESPN going down the tubes. I don't think it's mainly because it has become more "liberal" - although that may be a minor factor. I think it's more that there are just more venues from which to get information. You're not limited to ESPN and Sports Center anymore. You're not subject to ESPN's time schedule. There are so many more places you can get sports information.

 

[tyke1doe]

Espn has an agenda and laying off white men fits it perfectly.

No, they're laying off top salary people. Besides, white men likely make up the majority of the employees at ESPN. Of course, they're going to feel the impact the most, especially if they're at the top of the salary chain, and they don't have a brand identity.

 

[tyke1doe]

Stephen a, Michael smith and jamelle hill can't be fired

HR would be called immediately.

Stephen A. Smith has a brand. Whether you like it or not, he makes money for ESPN. He just moved his Sirius radio program from Mad Dog (I think that was the station) to ESPN. He's making bank and making the network bank - something ESPN needs to offset its losses.

Michael Smith and Jamelle relate to the younger crowd, and they don't look stiff doing it.

ESPN got rid of Calvin Watkins, Jean Jacques Taylor and Mike Trico also.

It's not just about race.

 

[MWH1967]

 

[ChronicCowboy]

Stephen A. Smith has a brand. Whether you like it or not, he makes money for ESPN. He just moved his Sirius radio program from Mad Dog (I think that was the station) to ESPN. He's making bank and making the network bank - something ESPN needs to offset its losses.

Michael Smith and Jamelle relate to the younger crowd, and they don't look stiff doing it.

ESPN got rid of Calvin Watkins, Jean Jacques Taylor and Mike Trico also.

It's not just about race.

Keep telling yourself that. Now go watch SC6.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Anybody who thinks the layoffs were about race or politics is kidding themselves. Take off the tinfoil hats and come out of the basement.

BTW, Andy Katz was another one of those canned. I'm a CBB fan, and he is really good.

 

[tyke1doe]

Keep telling yourself that. Now go watch SC6.

Well, as one who has been laid off by the media and whose fellow reporters tried to use the race angle (but for the fact that some of the black reporters were also retained as others - such as myself - were let go), I know a little bit about this situation.

The fact of the matter is, this is a salary-cutting, brand-strengthening cleansing with a sprinkle of older, high-salary talent retention to keep it out of court.

Mike and Jamele are young. They have a following. They have a brand. They're not going to be cut because they're likely not making as much money as some of the old heads.

 

[Vintage]

Well, as one who has been laid off by the media and whose fellow reporters tried to use the race angle (but for the fact that some of the black reporters were also retained as others - such as myself - were let go), I know a little bit about this situation.

The fact of the matter is, this is a salary-cutting, brand-strengthening cleansing with a sprinkle of older, high-salary talent retention to keep it out of court.

Mike and Jamele are young. They have a following. They have a brand. They're not going to be cut because they're likely not making as much money as some of the old heads.

Most people can see this isn't political, but rather, budgetary.

Well... I think most people can see that. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Floatyworm]

Anybody who thinks the layoffs were about race or politics is kidding themselves. Take off the tinfoil hats and come out of the basement.

BTW, Andy Katz was another one of those canned. I'm a CBB fan, and he is really good.

I honestly can't believe people are this naive. Must be a millennial thing. Guess I better get used to people not being able to read through the lines.

Anyway...back to more important things.... like the draft.