That's the point. I'm just shocked that anyone would acknowledge that men are superior at sports. That's dangerous thinking.
I don't buy that programming and politics aren't a major cause for this. ESPN wants to control sports and how people think about sports. This isn't breaking news. Overpaying for rights to NFL, NBA, MLB, and college comes out of that philosophy. They use the live events to cross pollinate and promote everything and their philosophy. And look at the people they let go. The ones I am most familiar or semi familiar usually didn't play into that. So please, no. It's at the heart of it. May not be the decision itself, but it's their philosophy.
No, that's sexist. Certain men are better than certain women. If a single women is better than any single man, it isn't a fact that "men" are better. You are struggling with plurals, and generalizations. Saying something wrong, and then claiming it to be a fact is stupid commentary. And now you've bled it into two threads.
Follow along better. May be time to change usernames again. You've made this one a laughingstock like the last one.
No, it isn't. It's simple business. There is more money going out than coming in. Seriously, you guys, what is the first thing that gets cut when any business starts losing money? Labor. This is not a new concept. Not everything HAS to be political. Now, programming, that's part of it, albeit small when compared to cord cutting.
Disney is running this one, not ESPN. They've been bloated for a long time, and Disney is tired of carrying extra baggage. Even when things were the way everyone here wanted them to be, ESPN was carrying extra baggage that a company that wants to run trim isn't going to want to carry.
Don't think that's possible. I believe it comes with the most basic of packages. ESPN has negotiated that in their contracts w/ cable companies.
If it exists through cable, I haven't seen it. Goes back to what Clay said a year or two ago that cable subscribers subsidize sports packages. Give them the ability to not do that, and the cost of sports packages goes way, way up. ESPN has been living on subsidies for a long time, and Disney has been dealing with it for a long time. And still not happy with where they are.
And why is a large part of that money going out? Because they pay way more than they should in rights fees to make sure they own the product, so they can control sports. Their business plan and model has come back to bite them in the ass.
Which is a solid argument against anyone that thinks on air anything had something to do with this. The vast majority of cable subscribers do not watch sports. And still pay for ESPN. ESPN took that to mean they had a dedicated income no matter what they did, and if they did something their viewers didn't like, who cares, their viewers are the smallest minority. Thus they tried to own all sports, and over paid, thinking their base payers, those that didn't even watch sports, were always going to be there. And it turns out, that is false. Cable isn't necessary. ESPN could not lose a single viewer, and still be hemorrhaging money because their entire base is built on people that don't give one whit about them.
I hardly watched NFL this fall and never turned ESPN on that I remember. Also watched incredibly little college ball. It had nothing to do with politics of the network. I do think it had to do a lot with politics in general though. My interest grew some after the election. I just couldn't get into the horseshit drama of games I didn't care about given the real world cluster than was unfolding.
Not sure. No, digitally streamed. No one smart points cameras at screens anymore. Very easy to digitally share displays.
I'm following fine. No matter how much you want it to be true, if it wasn't the deciding factor, then it didn't bite them in the ass or get people fired. That was happening either way.
I don't think it is legal. Watched very little football last year due to no cable. It's tough to do, legally.
