Why ESPN is Bad
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
- x 21
Why ESPN is Bad
Ok so I went to ESPN.com this morning to check out who Mel Kiper has in his top 5 Postion List. Well I get there and I read the top 5 QB's, and then it says,"To read the rest of this article you must be an Insider, sign up today!" WTF ESPN!? To read the best stuff on ESPN.com you need to pay like $50 bucks for a 1 year trial. Why would I do that when Mike Mayock's Top 5 Position List is free on NFL.com? Become an insider just to read some articles? WTF is that? Also, I hate Sportscenter. Freaking baseball all the freaking time. No let's not put the reverse pass for a touchdown as the #1 top, instead lets put a homerun as the top play. You could have the greatest football play ever, and I bet they would put a baseball play ahead of it. Notice how they are so fast to report baseball too. However they report old NFL news, and they don't fix their news until it has been released for at least 6 hours. NFL Live is scheduled on hours where no one can see it. They schedule it at 2:30 pm and 12:00 am and these are on weekdays. Oh but lets put Baseball Tonight conveniently at 9:00 before SportsCenter. They even freaking do this during the NFL season. So there, I am done ranting for now. I don't know how many of you out there are die hard ESPN fans, but you should think about switching.
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.
-
- Starter
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: Costa Mesa, California
I share the same thoughts on the ESPN website. To view the articles you want to read you must be an "insider." I don't know why they are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of us. I think if you have the mag subscription then you get the web site as well.
It doesn't really matter though because I haven't seen anything on espn.com that isn't written about exhaustively anywhere else. For my Vikings news I come here.
It doesn't really matter though because I haven't seen anything on espn.com that isn't written about exhaustively anywhere else. For my Vikings news I come here.
-
- Career Elite Player
- Posts: 2149
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:02 pm
- Location: montrose,MN
- Contact:
i cant stand tony kornhiser he sux ...and there monday night crew is a joke...isnt there gunna be a battle for the football news between nfl network and espn?? and why would the nfl even think that espn can do a better job than them ....you add steve sabol to the nfl network and you got a great host....imo


-
- Starting Wide Receiver
- Posts: 19150
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Crystal, MN
- x 114
- Contact:
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5063
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:12 pm
- Location: Park Rapids, MN
Re: Why ESPN is Bad
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Ok so I went to ESPN.com this morning to check out who Mel Kiper has in his top 5 Postion List. Well I get there and I read the top 5 QB's, and then it says,"To read the rest of this article you must be an Insider, sign up today!" WTF ESPN!? To read the best stuff on ESPN.com you need to pay like $50 bucks for a 1 year trial. Why would I do that when Mike Mayock's Top 5 Position List is free on NFL.com? Become an insider just to read some articles? WTF is that? Also, I hate Sportscenter. Freaking baseball all the freaking time. No let's not put the reverse pass for a touchdown as the #1 top, instead lets put a homerun as the top play. You could have the greatest football play ever, and I bet they would put a baseball play ahead of it. Notice how they are so fast to report baseball too. However they report old NFL news, and they don't fix their news until it has been released for at least 6 hours. NFL Live is scheduled on hours where no one can see it. They schedule it at 2:30 pm and 12:00 am and these are on weekdays. Oh but lets put Baseball Tonight conveniently at 9:00 before SportsCenter. They even freaking do this during the NFL season. So there, I am done ranting for now. I don't know how many of you out there are die hard ESPN fans, but you should think about switching.
I just dont understand this type of thought.
First off, its 39.95 not $50. Secondly you ALSO get a subscription to ESPN magazine with that so its really not a bad value.
Why does ESPN need to make everything free for you? They have no obligation. I dont get this mentality where everything should be free. They pay all of those people alot of money and their business model says they need to charge for the "extra" information. Have you called and complained to your local newspaper lately that they dont deliver it to your door for free? How about calling up Bob Lurtsema and complaining that you dont have free access to his site or his magazine. This is the same mindset that complains that you might have to pay extra for the NFL channel because it is apparently somewhere in the constitution that information on TV and the internet should be free.
As far as their programming, well ratings and sponsers pay the bills. They put things on in certian order or give more coverage because its what is the most popular. I am a big college wrestling fan but youre dang lucky to get ANY coverage and why??? ESPN owes me right? No, viewers and sponsers say that its just not that popular thus it gets minimal coverage.....this really isnt that hard people.
- Kansas Viking
- Starship Commander
- Posts: 11256
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:08 am
- Location: Cestus III
Re: Why ESPN is Bad
You're right, it's not that bad of a deal. I used to have the Premium subscription to VU which gave you total access to Scout.com. I also got the Viking Update magazine. That ran $99 a year. I finally dropped it after several years. I don't need 24 hour access to Premium articles on other teams, whether they be college or professional. I have also found out that generally the "secret insider info" or the " anonymous sources" are the guy writing the article. And most of all, if you just search around or wait a day, you will find the same information out there for free.VikingMachine wrote: First off, its 39.95 not $50. Secondly you ALSO get a subscription to ESPN magazine with that so its really not a bad value.
Despite the fact that I don't like them, I wouldn't get the ESPN subscription for the same reason. You can generally find most of it for free if you just wait. But then again, I don't pay for any premium stuff, whether that is magazines, cable television, etc. You'd be surprised how good a coverage is out there for free. NFL.com has some of the best highlight footage around and I don't have to sit through 20 minutes of Chris Berman falling in love with the Packers or Cowboys just to get Viking highlights.

Mike
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3779
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:57 am
- Location: Mitchell, SD
Re: Why ESPN is Bad
It sucks, I know. But ESPN isn't great quality anyways, go elsewhere for your news and commentary. I doubt Insider is even close to worth the money. I doubt its worth 10 dollars even.HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Ok so I went to ESPN.com this morning to check out who Mel Kiper has in his top 5 Postion List. Well I get there and I read the top 5 QB's, and then it says,"To read the rest of this article you must be an Insider, sign up today!" WTF ESPN!? To read the best stuff on ESPN.com you need to pay like $50 bucks for a 1 year trial. Why would I do that when Mike Mayock's Top 5 Position List is free on NFL.com? Become an insider just to read some articles? WTF is that? Also, I hate Sportscenter. Freaking baseball all the freaking time. No let's not put the reverse pass for a touchdown as the #1 top, instead lets put a homerun as the top play. You could have the greatest football play ever, and I bet they would put a baseball play ahead of it. Notice how they are so fast to report baseball too. However they report old NFL news, and they don't fix their news until it has been released for at least 6 hours. NFL Live is scheduled on hours where no one can see it. They schedule it at 2:30 pm and 12:00 am and these are on weekdays. Oh but lets put Baseball Tonight conveniently at 9:00 before SportsCenter. They even freaking do this during the NFL season. So there, I am done ranting for now. I don't know how many of you out there are die hard ESPN fans, but you should think about switching.
Baseball is played on a daily basis, therefore needs to be talked about daily. Ever watch SC on Sunday or Monday during the football season? It takes up almost the whole show, even on Monday when there is only one game being played.
NFL Live sucks, it ain't worth watching no matter what time it is on. Of all the "shows" on ESPN, Baseball Tonight is the only one I'll actually watch because it actually is done pretty well and has halfway intelligent people on it. But NFL Live has terrible anchors and never have anything worth listening to. SC is just as bad; I choose to watch ESPNEWS or just jump on the internet instead of watching that crap.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3779
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:57 am
- Location: Mitchell, SD
Lots of sites have a premium for pay. Sporting News, Baseball Prospectus (which is almost all pay), Scout.com, and VikingUpdate just to name a few in the sports world have it. If people will pay for the fluff, more power to the company. Its no different than magazines in the pre-internet days.Demi wrote: Yet most if not all other sites don't have this. Hm, why is that? If this was necessary ESPN wouldn't be the only one, or one of the very few.
I assume someone is a big ESPN fan.
Most of those are specialty though. Aside from sporting news. I can only assume it's more about the magazine than anything. Gotta have that ad revenue! I'm sure if fox sports etc had a paper version they'd charge too.wang_chi7 wrote: Lots of sites have a premium for pay. Sporting News, Baseball Prospectus (which is almost all pay), Scout.com, and VikingUpdate just to name a few in the sports world have it. If people will pay for the fluff, more power to the company. Its no different than magazines in the pre-internet days.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5063
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:12 pm
- Location: Park Rapids, MN
Those sites dont offer the "extra" information that they do. This is stuff above and beyond. If you check out the other sites, ESPN has more "specialty" articles, reporters, ect. Once again, its not really that hard to understand.Demi wrote: Yet most if not all other sites don't have this. Hm, why is that? If this was necessary ESPN wouldn't be the only one, or one of the very few.
I assume someone is a big ESPN fan.
If you dont like it, go somewhere else.