ESPN Layoffs

[Jockey]

I wonder how many of the complainers here also complained when Time darkened OJ to make him more menacing on their cover.

I think the answer is pretty easy to figure out.

[jsglow]

I wonder how many of the complainers here also complained when Time darkened OJ to make him more menacing on their cover.

I think the answer is pretty easy to figure out.

Unfair too.  But he still did it.

[MerrittsMustache]

I think it makes a lot more sense than the alternative.  That the higher ups in Bristol ordered a graphic designer to make him look better because he is a high level athlete.

There would be much simpler ways to do that.  For instance, don't show the mug shot at all.

Exactly. If ESPN was really attempting to protect Tiger, they easily could have shown any smiling headshot of him instead of his mug shot.

[MU82]

ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.

On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.

Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.

So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.

[mu03eng]

ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.

On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.

Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.

So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.

I get it and don't disagree, but I think the majority of the "stick to sports" crowd is about escapism. There is a lot stuff going on in the world but sometimes you just want to get away from it.

[rocket surgeon]

  "So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well."

  i do not think this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off from espn.  this was not only news, but sports news.  i did not see much of how it was represented however. now,  if they leaned editorializing, and i'm just saying from the standpoint of what turns people off, then people get turned off.  next up, people want to see the perps get caught and properly punished.  now onto our plays of the day...

btw, weren't there any cameras in the vicinity to catch any suspicious activity?

[jsglow]

ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.

On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.

Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.

So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.

I thought that was a big story and was appropriately reported.

[MU82]

Bumping this to report that all is not lost for TV sports ...

Game 5 was watched by more than 25 million viewers, wrapping up the most-viewed series since Michael Jordan's last title in 1998. The Warriors' victory on Monday night peaked with 29.5 million viewers and was an increase of 20 percent from the 20.9 million who watched Game 5 last year.


ABC, like ESPN, is owned by Disney. I think the numbers are pretty impressive given the blowouts in Games 1 and 2, which one might have thought would lead some viewers to bag the series.

I guess all it takes is two compelling teams that feature the best player on the planet, the second-best player on the planet and several other stars.

[Tugg Speedman]

Bumping this to report that all is not lost for TV sports ...

Game 5 was watched by more than 25 million viewers, wrapping up the most-viewed series since Michael Jordan's last title in 1998. The Warriors' victory on Monday night peaked with 29.5 million viewers and was an increase of 20 percent from the 20.9 million who watched Game 5 last year.


ABC, like ESPN, is owned by Disney. I think the numbers are pretty impressive given the blowouts in Games 1 and 2, which one might have thought would lead some viewers to bag the series.

I guess all it takes is two compelling teams that feature the best player on the planet, the second-best player on the planet and several other stars.

Yes, the NBA is a star driven league. And as long as the stars are bunched into a couple of superteams the play each other over and over again, the league ratings will do well.

But should the league ever see parity, it will suffer. As I noted in the other thread, the league is best with five or six teams that have a shot at winning the title and 20 teams that play the role of the Washington Generals.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Yes, the NBA is a star driven league. And as long as the stars are bunched into a couple of superteams the play each other over and over again, the league ratings will do well.

But should the league ever see parity, it will suffer. As I noted in the other thread, the league is best with five or six teams that have a shot at winning the title and 20 teams that play the role of the Washington Generals.

Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.

[warriorchick]

Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.

I agree with this analysis.

[Tugg Speedman]

Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.

I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.

[Skitch]

I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.

What about last year...and the year before?

[GGGG]

What about last year...and the year before?

The NBA Finals usually outdraws the NCAA championship.

[Skitch]

The NBA Finals usually outdraws the NCAA championship.

He said the last time the NBA finals had the most star driven teams were during the Jordan years. I'm saying the last 2 years have been the same as this year (minus Durant)

[MU82]

I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.

In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.

In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.

In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.

From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.

[GooooMarquette]

Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.

I'm totally with you on this, Chitown. 

[Pakuni]

In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.

In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.

In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.

From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.

Before the Bulls' run, the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy) or Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish) won 8 of the previous 11 championships. In 10 of those 11 years, at least one of those teams made the Finals.
It's almost as if a team needs multiple star players to win a championship.

This business about the league having "star-driven teams" teams has been the case in the NBA pretty much always, with only a handful of exceptions.

[MU82]

Before the Bulls' run, the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy) or Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish) won 8 of the previous 11 championships. In 10 of those 11 years, at least one of those teams made the Finals.
It's almost as if a team needs multiple star players to win a championship.


This business about the league having "star-driven teams" teams has been the case in the NBA pretty much always, with only a handful of exceptions.

Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.

Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.

Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.

I actually don't know about that Lakers team, sure Kobe was probably the best player in the league during that time and Shaq was up there, but Payton and Malone were long past their prime. Hell, Malone only played in half their games.

[MU82]

I actually don't know about that Lakers team, sure Kobe was probably the best player in the league during that time and Shaq was up there, but Payton and Malone were long past their prime. Hell, Malone only played in half their games.

The great Bulls teams had one super-duper-star, one perennial All-Star and a bunch of role players. Horace Grant in the first 3-peat and Rodman in the second were excellent role players, but that's all they were. Was Grant more of a "star" than, say, Ginobili on the star-driven Spurs?

The claim was that the Bulls were a star-driven team that repeatedly made the finals, and that there hadn't been another star-driven team to repeatedly make the finals until these Warriors and/or Cavs - explaining why this was the first series with ratings comparable to the Bulls.

But as many of us agree, there have been several other examples of star-driven teams who have made multiple finals. 

[Eldon]

Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.

Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.

I would go so far as to say that there has only been one truly superstar-less (i.e., no hall of famers) Champion in NBA history (in recent memory at least), and that is the 03-04 Detroit Pistons.

[Eldon]

I think that it is possible to win an NBA championship without multiple superstars if you have good chemistry, a solid bench, and great coaching.  IMO, since the retirement of David Robinson, the only true superstar that the Spurs had was Tim Duncan (and what a superstar he was).

Rather than relying on pure star power, I think the Spurs success comes down to team chemistry, and every player playing their respective role, i.e., Bowen as a defensive specialist, Parker as a pass-first point guard, etc. And, IMO, the fact that Pop is a great coach who the players respect.

I like LeBron James, but I think his biggest shortcoming is that he doesn't truly respect any of the coaches that he has had.

[Tugg Speedman]

In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.

In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.

In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.

From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.

82, all correct

Just trying to say that the worst thing that could happen to the NBA is they get an NFL level of parity.  And the worst thing that could happen to the NFL is they get an NBA level of unbalance.

[MU82]

I think that it is possible to win an NBA championship without multiple superstars if you have good chemistry, a solid bench, and great coaching.  IMO, since the retirement of David Robinson, the only true superstar that the Spurs had was Tim Duncan (and what a superstar he was).

Rather than relying on pure star power, I think the Spurs success comes down to team chemistry, and every player playing their respective role, i.e., Bowen as a defensive specialist, Parker as a pass-first point guard, etc. And, IMO, the fact that Pop is a great coach who the players respect.

I like LeBron James, but I think his biggest shortcoming is that he doesn't truly respect any of the coaches that he has had.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Duncan, Parker and Ginobili all will end up in the Hall of Fame, so I guess it depends upon how one defines "superstar." And Popovich, of course, will be in the Hall. And maybe Leonard by the time he's done, although it's far too early to say that.