Mark Schlereth leaves ESPN for FS1

[ShaneFalco]

https://sports.yahoo.com/mark-schlereth-leaves-espn-fs1-162511829.html


Mark Schlereth, one of the few non-star players to become fixtures at ESPN, has left the network after 16 years. As noted by Michael McCarthy of SportingNews.com, Schlereth has joined FS1.

Per McCarthy, Schlereth has a close relationship with recently-ousted FOX Sports chief Jamie Horowitz, and the move had been in the works for months.

Chances are the contract was signed before Horowitz got the boot, adding Schlereth to a lengthy list of Horowitz hires that FOX eventually will have to decide whether to keep. While some have assumed that FOX will honor all contracts negotiated by Horowitz, keep in mind that ESPN let go many employees with multiple years left on their deals.


i am sure ESPN will replace him with some chick who has never played football.

[Buff]

I don't think I've purposely watched more than 5 minutes of FS1 programming that wasn't a live sporting event. I don't even know what channel it is...

Will Schlereth's local role stay the same?

[BroncoWave]

I don't think I've purposely watched more than 5 minutes of FS1 programming that wasn't a live sporting event. I don't even know what channel it is...

Will Schlereth's local role stay the same?

I could say the same for ESPN as well. I don't remember the last time I watched a sports channel for something other than a live event.

[ShaneFalco]

Thats funny, i dont even watch ESPN anymore.




I do watch Ultimate fighter and undisputed on Fs1.

Skip Bayless and Shannon Sharpe are a great combo.

[BroncoWave]

I do watch Ultimate fighter and undisputed on Fs1.

Skip Bayless and Shannon Sharpe are a great combo.

LOL so you're one of the hundreds of people who watch that huh? :lol:

[ShaneFalco]

i cant take you serious with your third party hosting signature

[Poet]

i cant take you serious with your third party hosting signature

I'm going to need you to stop trying to get snippy with my style brother.

[BroncoWave]

https://twitter.com/richarddeitsch/status/876957400015790080

[Poet]

https://twitter.com/richarddeitsch/status/876957400015790080

The irony (for SF's post) is that the 'chick who never played football' would probably give better commentary or analysis over most of the former players. Not saying Stink in particular, but most of the pro analysts are awful. I'd rather watch 'random chick' on ESPN than FS1 shit the bed.

[ShaneFalco]

ya espn. the only thing it has is steven a smith.

i gag at the rest.

[MOtorboat]

FS1 is even more of a cesspool than First Take.

[BroncoWave]

I don't think I've ever met an intelligent person who likes Skip Bayless.

[Poet]

Stephen A. Smith on basketball is wonderful.

[ShaneFalco]

Actually i like Will Caine on Espn too. But thats about it.

[ShaneFalco]

https://twitter.com/richarddeitsch/status/876957400015790080

i don't watch it live either. i dvr it.

[BroncoWave]

DVR is factored into ratings. It struggles to get 100,000 viewers most episodes. That's unfathomably bad, especially for a sports show with two well known hosts.

[Poet]

DVR is factored into ratings. It struggles to get 100,000 viewers most episodes. That's unfathomably bad, especially for a sports show with two well known hosts.

Even I thought Skip was too harsh on LBJ.

[ShaneFalco]

DVR is factored into ratings. It struggles to get 100,000 viewers most episodes. That's unfathomably bad, especially for a sports show with two well known hosts.



Basing everything on ratings.... i guess you think Kardashians is the worlds best tv show?

[BroncoWave]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2017/06/06/is-the-skip-bayless-experiment-at-fs1-an-overpriced-failure/#3e3a17411762



Is The Skip Bayless Experiment At FS1 An Overpriced Failure?

They say Rome wasn’t built in a day, but for the moment, it’s questionable as to whether the hefty paycheck being paid out to Bayless is garnering the return on investment for FS1. Yes, Undisputed has on more one occasion bested ESPN’s SportsCenter in the ratings, albeit it was when the flagship sports highlight show on the “Mother ship” was airing on ESPN2. According to FOX Sports, Undisputed has bested SportsCenter on ESPN2 the 10am-12pm ET time slot a total of 17 times to date -- including two separate strings of wins on May 9-11 as well as May 17-19, (weekend), and May 22nd.

But, overall, ratings have been, well… not so great. Sports Illustrated’s media columnist and analyst Richard Deitsch has had a bit of a running feud with Bayless replying to his tweets with nuggets showing how bad ratings have been for Undisputed. Below are a few examples

[MOtorboat]

The cesspool that is Foxsports.com:

Schlereth: Half of Tom Brady is better than three-quarters of NFL QBs
Here's how Paul George could stay in OKC for longer than a year (I don't know, sign a contract?)
Is Aaron Judge comparable to LeBron James and Kobe Bryant? Colin analyzes the facts
Skip says Aaron Judge has already passed LeBron James in one area
Should the Lakers actually be encouraged by Lonzo Ball's Summer League debut?

Solid stuff.

[BroncoWave]

Oh I get it. Skip is a big Tebow fangirl. That's why Shane likes him. How could I miss that at first?

[FanInAZ]

The cesspool that is Foxsports.com:

Schlereth: Half of Tom Brady is better than three-quarters of NFL QBs
Here's how Paul George could stay in OKC for longer than a year (I don't know, sign a contract?)
Is Aaron Judge comparable to LeBron James and Kobe Bryant? Colin analyzes the facts
Skip says Aaron Judge has already passed LeBron James in one area
Should the Lakers actually be encouraged by Lonzo Ball's Summer League debut?

Solid stuff.

You should apply for a job at ESPN as a baseball analyst so you can single handedly save the the entire network.

[MOtorboat]

You should apply for a job at ESPN as a baseball analyst so you can single handedly save the the entire network.

I think Olney and Kirkjean are doing just fine. The slimmed down baseball portion of the website is the only thing I pay attention to at this point. Those two are the best in the business, IMO. Stark was the other, sadly he is enjoying his vacation this summer. I'm hoping someone picks him up when his ESPN contract runs out.

[BeefStew25]

Lots of slamming the format of hot take shows. Which is basically slamming a culture. Man.

[Rick]

ya espn. the only thing it has is steven a smith.

i gag at the rest.

To each their own but he is one of the worst talk show hosts on any network. Steven A Smith is terrible. Bayless is about as bad but Smith is just horrible.

[Freyaka]

I don't watch ESPN anyway, but good riddance...I've never much cared for Stink personally. He rides Tom Brady's jock as hard as any patriot fanboy.

[ShaneFalco]

To each their own but he is one of the worst talk show hosts on any network. Steven A Smith is terrible. Bayless is about as bad but Smith is just horrible.

watching him cry over the knicks is pretty funny.

[Simple Jaded]

i cant take you serious with your third party hosting signature

It's over my head, wouldn't mind if you explain it to me.

[FanInAZ]

I think Olney and Kirkjean are doing just fine. The slimmed down baseball portion of the website is the only thing I pay attention to at this point. Those two are the best in the business, IMO. Stark was the other, sadly he is enjoying his vacation this summer. I'm hoping someone picks him up when his ESPN contract runs out.

Come on MO, work with me here. I'm trying to get you a TV gig. How about you replacing Kornheiser on PTI?

[Joel]

Even I thought Skip was too harsh on LBJ.
Didn't realize Bayless had branched out into political/historical analysis, but I believe Bill Moyers remains the definitive source on LBJ, if only because of his intimate first hand knowledge. Michael Beschloss has a couple good bios on him too, based on WH tapes. Oddly enough, that provides a segue:

About a year ago I read on Electoral-Vote.com that ESPN has been hemorrhaging viewers, and its online version losing hits, for a while, and that the huge monetary investment that lured Nate Silver away from the NYT to become a regular ESPN contributor could be the anvil that breaks the networks back. Ironic: As the Rasmussen Familys original claim to fame imploded over the last decade, their second creation as political anyalysts turned sports analysts was a badly needed legacy—now that's also collapsing thanks to the expense (and uselessness) of a sports analyst turned political analyst combined with the internet pushing out broadcast (or cablecast) TV.

Meh: If ESPNs demise means MNF returns to free TV where it belongs, I'm all for it. :)

[BroncoWave]

Jesus Christ, Joel... :tsk:

[Rick]

watching him cry over the knicks is pretty funny.

I have never liked him, but it was especially puke worthy watching him rant on and on that Elway hired a good ole boy in Kubiak, a white friend, and no black coach had the same chance at a relationship with an Elway to get that same kind of chance. WTF?

[BeefStew25]

Guys. Stop.

[DenBronx]

That sucks. I guess this explains why Cecil had been sitting in for him on 104.3 the fan alot lately.

I enjoyed listening to him.

[Joel]

Jesus Christ, Joel... :tsk:
What? Isn't "screw them ALL!" the general gist of the thread? Screw cable TV in particular: It uses our airwaves to transmit its signals to its cable relay stations—denying those frequencies to EVERYONE in the transmitters vicinity—so should be paying US for the privilege, like all other broadcasters do. It should not CHARGE us to see what it transmits AND charge advertisers to provide ads that are 33% of what we're paying to see anyway. And to top it all off (though this is less true of ESPN and actual news networks) it has far more repeated content than (exclusively) broadcast TV.

If I wanted to live in a country where I pay other people for their use of my airwaves, I'd have stayed in communist Europe. :tongue:

[Freyaka]

Joel can even make something so simple as Stink leaving a terrible sports channel into a novel.

[Joel]

Joel can even make something so simple as Stink leaving a terrible sports channel into a novel.
Paragraph, novel; it's pretty much the same. #MakeAmericaGruntAgain ;)

[MOtorboat]

LBJ = LeBron James.

When you realize that, you'll realize you wasted five minutes of your life.

[Joel]

LBJ = LeBron James.

When you realize that, you'll realize you wasted five minutes of your life.
I knew whom HE meant, but LRJ means LeBron James: LBJ means the 36th US president, not an athlete du jour who is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. JFK means Jack Kennedy, not Jim Freaking Kelly. Ask any random person on the street what they think of LBJ and I guarantee nearly every comment will be about Vietnam, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Great Society—unless the street's in front of a junior high.

Sorry, but "King James" and "The Decision" were bad enough; referring to him as "LBJ" just turned the giggle factor up to 11.

[Hawgdriver]

wut is even this thread doing

[BroncoWave]

I knew whom HE meant, but LRJ means LeBron James: LBJ means the 36th US president, not an athlete du jour who is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. JFK means Jack Kennedy, not Jim Freaking Kelly. Ask any random person on the street what they think of LBJ and I guarantee nearly every comment will be about Vietnam, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Great Society—unless the street's in front of a junior high.

Sorry, but "King James" and "The Decision" were bad enough; referring to him as "LBJ" just turned the giggle factor up to 11.

Literally everyone calls him LBJ for short. Seriously dude, you overthink the hell out of shit like this.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

wut is even this thread doing

It's like, a parallel reality, man.

[Slick]

Joel is great.

[Simple Jaded]

Joel is great.

I wish I knew what he was talking about. Or do I?

[MOtorboat]

I wish I knew what he was talking about. Or do I?

He's whining because television networks actually want to pay their employees for their work.

[Simple Jaded]

He's whining because television networks actually want to pay their employees for their work.

Oh noes, what would that do to their ability to sign free agents?

[Joel]

He's whining because television networks actually want to pay their employees for their work.
Not even close.


Oh noes, what would that do to their ability to sign free agents?
That IS their ability to sign free agents. And when they're already losing money, what it does to their ability to pay their current/prospective employees (or for anything else) is decimate it. Hence an already declining ESPN compounded that problem by paying Nate Silver a stupid amount of money for dubious analysis fewer and fewer people want to read/watch. Which is frankly fine by me; good riddance to bad rubbish. :)

[MOtorboat]

Not even close.

It's actually exactly what you're arguing. You want TV for free. I think, quite logically, quality programming, like quality journalism comes at a cost.

There's a place for subsidized programming in places like PBS for some of the arts, but all TV should not be free.

[FanInAZ]

It's actually exactly what you're arguing. You want TV for free. I think, quite logically, quality programming, like quality journalism comes at a cost.

There's a place for subsidized programming in places like PBS for some of the arts, but all TV should not be free.

Not to take this too far into politics, but there's no such thing as a "free lunch." If you can't get someone else to pay for it (aka: commercial sponsors), then you have to pay for it yourself (aka: you pay cable/satellite provider who then gives the ESPN their cut). ESPN, unlike HBO, uses a combination of both so you don't have to pay the cable/satellite provider as much. As for me, I buy a meal at a restaurant so I can eat while I watch ESPN (if I want to watch MNF) or FSN (if I want to watch the DBacks) on the TVs that they provide for their customers. The restaurant uses a portion of what I spend on my meal to a cable/satellite provider in order that can show ESPN and FSN on their TV(s) for my entertainment.

[BeefStew25]

This thread is a pile of shit.

[FanInAZ]

This thread is a pile of shit.

Then stop following it.

[BeefStew25]

Then stop following it.

No. I'm a sadist. Tie me up.

[FanInAZ]

No. I'm a sadist. Tie me up.

I'm not interest, ask Dave.

[Freyaka]

This thread is a pile of shit.

Your favorite kind :)

[Freyaka]

I'm not interest, ask Dave.

Dave would be all over that, in fact, I'm not sure how he's not here yet.

[BeefStew25]

Your favorite kind :)

Please update your account to enable 3rd party hosting.

[Freyaka]

Please update your account to enable 3rd party hosting.

I always view the boards from work, photobucket is blocked at work so I don't see my signature. Just viewed it from my phone and saw it. I've removed the stupid 3rd party thing and will fix it by uploading my sig somewhere else after work.

[Joel]

It's actually exactly what you're arguing. You want TV for free. I think, quite logically, quality programming, like quality journalism comes at a cost.

There's a place for subsidized programming in places like PBS for some of the arts, but all TV should not be free.
I don't want TV for free: I just don't want to pay someone else for their profitable use of MY PROPERTY—especially when their use of it prevents my use of it. It's like if Uber wanted to use YOUR car to drive you around town and still charge YOU the fare.

I don't just think but know, quite legally, we only allow broadcasters to use OUR airwaves after first licensing that use in OUR interest, for two good reasons:

1) Our air belongs to We the People, not any particular broadcaster(s,)
2) Setting up a multi-megawatt transmitter beaming out a signal over any given frequency drowns out any other use of that frequency by any or all other members of the public: If someone else is using it, none of the rest of us can, so they pay us for that monopoly, we don't pay them.


Not to take this too far into politics, but there's no such thing as a "free lunch." If you can't get someone else to pay for it (aka: commercial sponsors), then you have to pay for it yourself (aka: you pay cable/satellite provider who then gives the ESPN their cut). ESPN, unlike HBO, uses a combination of both so you don't have to pay the cable/satellite provider as much. As for me, I buy a meal at a restaurant so I can eat while I watch ESPN (if I want to watch MNF) or FSN (if I want to watch the DBacks) on the TVs that they provide for their customers. The restaurant uses a portion of what I spend on my meal to a cable/satellite provider in order that can show ESPN and FSN on their TV(s) for my entertainment.
This
If you can't get someone else to pay for it (aka: commercial sponsors), then you have to pay for it yourself (aka: you pay cable/satellite provider who then gives the ESPN their cut).
is quite a logic leap: "If you can't get someone else to pay for staging, recording and broadcasting your programs, you have to pay for it yourself (aka: Not ACTUALLY yourself, but the audience on whom you depend for your very medium, not to mention viewers of the ads you're trying to sell.) The restaurant analogy is only valid if the restaurant serves food YOU grew but are now PAYING to eat. If I go into my kitchen, fry up a meat patty and put it on a bun, I don't expect Burger King to send me a bill; if they did anyway, I certainly wouldn't pay it.

Again, if I wanted to pay for other peoples use of my air, I'd have stayed in Europe: Where cops patrol with radios trying to catch unlicensed TELEVISIONS (i.e. unlicensed receivers that don't prevent anyones use of airwaves, instead of hunting down unlicensed transmitters prevent EVERYONES use of airwaves.)

Let's bear in mind that the only reason cable TV was ever considered legal in the first place (despite the fact it STILL uses radio to send signals from a main source to cable-linked substations) is that folks in places like, well, the Rocky Mountains, often have poor radio reception, which a cable station can overcome by placing a substation on a mountain top and running a cable from there into viewers in nearby valleys. That's fine, and so is charging them: They're not getting anything already theirs by right, because without the cable the signal would never reach them. However, once cable made the leap from merely overcoming local radio limitations to nationally replacing broadcast-only TV we were back to "why am I paying for YOUR use of MY PROPERTY?"

There's no risk of getting into politics there, unless theft is a partisan issue.

[Joel]

The NFL says you can't have fall cookouts anymore, because it needs your backyard to play its highly profitable games, but you can watch—IF you PAY for a ticket; peek through your curtains and you'll get sued. If ESPN can't find advertising profit from something that's murdered Monday prime time for decades, it deserves bankruptcy.

[MOtorboat]

I don't think you understand how cable and satellite works.

Others probably know more than I do, but shit just isn't free.

[Joel]

I don't think you understand how cable and satellite works.

Others probably know more than I do, but shit just isn't free.
It certainly isn't; for one thing, networks must pay us a licensing fee for use of our airwaves preventing use by the rest of us—but they can always just bill US for our own fee and then it's just fine, right? Or, alternatively, they can sell this thing called, "advertising;" seems to work OK for everyone else.