|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Jul 15, 2007 1:00:57 GMT -5
With recent discussions focusing on ESPN going downhill and the outrage of Sidney Crosby being cheated out of a victory against Derek Jeter, I wanted to make it the center for Debate #29.
It seems like ESPN has a monopoly on sports coverage, but does it?
Points to Debate:
-Does ESPN have a monopoly on sports coverage? -Is it possible for an alternate company to come in and challenge them? -What would that company have to do to gain popularity?
Go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Jul 15, 2007 21:54:23 GMT -5
I don't see any company challenging ESPN as far as sports coverage IN AMERICA goes. ESPN doesn't have a monopoly per say, other sports channels are around and survive (in NY we have SNY, YES, FSNY, VS, etc.) and most of them broadcast local games - not ESPN.
I don't think an alternate station will ever challenge ESPN, because of simply the name ESPN. Asking people around the street and you'll hear a lot more people who know ESPN's channel than FSN's channel. That's simply because ESPN has been around a lot longer, and is talked about a lot more when it comes to sports.
For another channel to come in and give ESPN a run for its money, they'd need to produce their version of SportsCenter. As far as I'm concerned, SC is what made ESPN and is what keeps ESPN going. When talking about the whole population and demographic age groups, SC is what people will watch either when they wake up in the morning or right before they go to sleep. You don't see working individuals running home at 5 to catch the tail end of ATH or PTI. Nor do you see them watching Baseball Tonight, every night. Right now, I don't see any nationwide broadcasting company with a Sports Center. Until someone puts one out there with charismatic anchors and humor, I don't see anyone even trying to challenge ESPN.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jul 19, 2007 17:48:28 GMT -5
Keep the responses coming guys. There's plenty of creativity that can be used in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Jul 20, 2007 13:14:18 GMT -5
I don't think this will ever happen, ESPN has been the king sports channel for as long as I can remember. Any challenger wouldn't last long. If they were to be successful, they would need fun and exciting analysts and personalities like Stuart Scott, Chris Berman, and Kenny Mayne, and they would have to have more money to broadcast different sports. Neither of which I can see happening.
NYI is right about Sportscenter, It is so popular that when wives here sportscenter in the morning, they know they won't be watching TV anytime soon. You can watch SC 5 times in a row (which some people do) and not get bored of it. They would also need great broadcasters to develop a quick friendship, and be able to have fun and be entertaining during games. Joe Morgan and Jon Miller are the prime example of that, and that won't be easy to duplicate.
This ESPN challenger also would probably need to steal some guys from ESPN. Which also involves more money. For instance, everybody knows Chris Berman. If he were to be persuaded to go to this new Sports Station, people would watch it more. They would also need to have the fun Sports Shows that ESPN has, like Around the Horn, Mike and Mike in the Morning, NFL Live, and Baseball Tonight. Making their own movies would work too, or even a continous series like ESPN's "3", "The Bronx is Burning" "Tilt" and "Playmakers". It would very be difficult to get people to watch this new sports station without thinking that it is an imitation, because it is, and people usually don't give imitations much credit, because all they did was copy ideas. In order to avoid that, they have to have a special twist to their shows, that people will like. For instance, when the company Pepsi came along, they didn't just copy Coca-Cola, they made their soda taste sweeter and more appealing for soda drinkers, and they also introduced distinctive tasting sodas such as Mountain Dew, and 7up. It's the same type of thing.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jul 22, 2007 17:51:26 GMT -5
Could a station possibly sign all of the people fired or let go from ESPN? Renolds would be a great start. There are personalities who we haven't seen in years, and I for one, would want to see them again if they were on a different station.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Jul 22, 2007 21:00:06 GMT -5
Could a station possibly sign all of the people fired or let go from ESPN? Renolds would be a great start. There are personalities who we haven't seen in years, and I for one, would want to see them again if they were on a different station. That depends, they must have been let go for some reason, and if ESPN doesn't want them, I don't see why they would be wanted by any other sports station.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jul 22, 2007 21:08:20 GMT -5
You live in Philly, so I'll use 610 and 950 as examples. As you probably know, 610 is the major sports talk station, but 950 has recently come in as a rival.
950 is employing Jody Mac, who was fired from 610. Many people tune into 950 (including me) just to hear his voice again.
Besides Reynolds, there's Michael Irvin, Trey Alberts, and Jason Whitlock, amongst others.
Then there are people around the globe who are just independent writers, bloggers, or radio personalties.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Jul 22, 2007 21:22:05 GMT -5
You live in Philly, so I'll use 610 and 950 as examples. As you probably know, 610 is the major sports talk station, but 950 has recently come in as a rival. 950 is employing Jody Mac, who was fired from 610. Many people tune into 950 (including me) just to hear his voice again. Besides Reynolds, there's Michael Irvin, Trey Alberts, and Jason Whitlock, amongst others. Then there are people around the globe who are just independent writers, bloggers, or radio personalties. I don't listen to a whole lot of AM radio, but I know what your saying. Like I said, it depends, I don't know the situation behind the firing. But apperantly it wasn't bad enough that he would never be hired as abroadcaster again, because he was.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Jul 22, 2007 22:28:38 GMT -5
Im gonna go on the opposing side and say that a channel will one day beat out espn for the best sports station. Its almost a fact that nothing stays around forever. Here's an example:
Comcast was awesome between their internet and cable. I remember thinking that nobody would be as good as them, but here comes verizon fios that is starting to become huge and it might even be beating out Comcast.
Now dont get me wrong. I love ESPN, but I have seen a small decline. Although ESPN has all kinds of popularity and recognition, there's gotta be a channel out there or coming that can beat them out. I think that games that ESPN broadcasts aren't very good. I am not a huge fan of John Miller with baseball, Tony Kornheiser with baseball, etc. If a channel was able to become like an NFL Network type of channel except with all sports and actually a cable channel, I think it would crush ESPN. The programs that they have on NFL Network are awesome. They have classic games, good broadcasters for games, good people on their talkshows, and tons of other great programs. On the other hand, besides Sportscenter, Around the Horn, and PTI there aren't that many good programs on ESPN. So to make a long story short, a sports station will eventually beat out ESPN for the top dog in sports programming.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Jul 23, 2007 14:31:15 GMT -5
Could a station possibly sign all of the people fired or let go from ESPN? Renolds would be a great start. There are personalities who we haven't seen in years, and I for one, would want to see them again if they were on a different station. People who were fired from ESPN were fired for a reason. Harold Reynolds is gone because he sexually harassed female coworkers. Do you want to start a new company off in that direction and expect to get far? Some ex-anchors though would be a start if they can be lured in. The one's who didn't leave on a bad foot . Rich Eisen, Dan Patrick, etc. SF508: Was comcast ever the leader in internet service? Post-56K there's always been Optimum Online Cable, Verizon DSL, and many other alternatives that were very popular. The problem is no one WANTS to beat out ESPN. Who has the money to back such a project? Who has the money to broadcast all those games, hire all those reporters who travel to every sports city, hire all those writers, web designers, anchors, analysts, statisticians and we haven't even touched the camera or production crew. Disney had the money to start up ESPN when it did and take the losses in the beginning before the profits were rolling. I don't see anyone else who really wants that responsibility and risk all those dollars. ESPN covers sports on so many levels, instantly. The Magazine, the website, the radio, SportsCenter, the bottom line (which is even on the bottom of this page probably). Who is willing to spend the resources just to compete with that?
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Jul 25, 2007 15:19:38 GMT -5
SF508: Was comcast ever the leader in internet service? Post-56K there's always been Optimum Online Cable, Verizon DSL, and many other alternatives that were very popular. ESPN covers sports on so many levels, instantly. The Magazine, the website, the radio, SportsCenter, the bottom line (which is even on the bottom of this page probably). Who is willing to spend the resources just to compete with that? They may not have been the top internet providers, but they were probably the top cable providers as well until Verizon Fios came out. You are helping me prove my point because no matter how big a company is, there is always going to be someone better or somewhere along the lines someone will come out with something better. It may seem now that ESPN is the best, but you wait and see. Im sure, no I guarentee somewhere down the lines, there will be another company that will be as good as if not better than ESPN. Nothing lives forever.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Jul 26, 2007 20:30:20 GMT -5
Any retort NYI?
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Jul 28, 2007 23:33:23 GMT -5
This a tough one to judge. All three of you came up with great arguments and I see flaws in all of them. However, I'm picking the underdog and giving Sportsfan508. His last post does the job. Because he's right. There will be a day when someone with enough money and resources truly does challenge ESPN. And remember, the question did not center around whether or not a company could come in and take over the top spot. It was just a challenge. Good debate SF508: Get a new topic up by tomorrow
|
|