What is considered affordable? Ranger tickets must be high because I've been looking into Braves tickets (I'd like to check out the new stadium) and they have tickets that start out as low as $7 for some games. That's very affordable IMO.
What is considered affordable? Ranger tickets must be high because I've been looking into Braves tickets (I'd like to check out the new stadium) and they have tickets that start out as low as $7 for some games. That's very affordable IMO.
Define an arm and a leg. I sat right behind home plate last night for $39 at the Rangers-Twins game (row 17). If I got an upper deck seat it would have been about $10 after the fees.My boys want to go to a Texas Rangers game. My sister lives in the area and she sent me ticket prices. It would cost us dang near an arm and a leg to go. And that's just taking two of my boys. Lord knows how much it would be if I took all of them.
It depends on WHO they're playing and WHAT DAY of the week the game is.What is considered affordable? Ranger tickets must be high because I've been looking into Braves tickets (I'd like to check out the new stadium) and they have tickets that start out as low as $7 for some games. That's very affordable IMO.
On that topic, I can't get ESPN or any other streaming service to work with Google Chrome. I can do Netflix or Hulu just fine but those of course are apps. These other services just won't work well at all:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Baseball is way more affordable than NFL or NBA tickets. Unless you are going to a bad game Wizards tickets are pretty expensive and Redskins tickets are insane especially considering they haven't done anything in the past 20 years.Yeah baseball used to be affordable for anyone who wanted to take in a game but not so much anymore. It's really gotten crazy.
But I think that works for them because people tune into those networks to specifically see just that. I don't think sports fans tune into ESPN, anxious to see two or three bloviating talking heads.CNN, Fox News, and others have done well copying the ESPN format over the last decade. I wouldn't bet on two people arguing over news items to disappear.
Saw a tweet on the reasoning the cuts were made about a changing climate. The person said "that falls on leadership. good leaders adapt to the changes."But one last comment/question. While we may not like the opinions of someone like Danny Kannell, he's not getting paid a TON. Who at ESPN made the decisions to spend so much money on rights fees and what is their salaries? And is that person/persons still employed? I bet they are.
This is a great post. I would love to know who made those decisions and how high up they are.But I think that works for them because people tune into those networks to specifically see just that. I don't think sports fans tune into ESPN, anxious to see two or three bloviating talking heads.
Having said that though, it's true that ESPN took on WAY too much debt with the rights fees with the NFL/College Football/NBA/etc. This isn't over, I'm afraid. Because the cord-cutting is going to continue.
But one last comment/question. While we may not like the opinions of someone like Danny Kannell, he's not getting paid a TON. Who at ESPN made the decisions to spend so much money on rights fees and what is their salaries? And is that person/persons still employed? I bet they are.
Actually their cost for hiring and retaining on-air talent is considerably less than their cost that they pay for broadcasting rights. THAT is ultimately going to be their downfall because it's a failed business model in the current environment. Espn at some point made the bet that by gobbling up all the major broadcasting rights that it would insulate them from competition--instead they vastly overcommitted and are basically drowning in debt. The only way I see how they can survive is if they can get out from under their NFL and NBA commitments.imo, this is typical of a large originally growing corporation, expanding with bigger contracts, and having to pay long time employees, retirement, benefits, and raises. there are many jocks out there that will take less money and be a comedy on espn. they payment to major sports is killing them with the drop of subscribers. maybe they ought to set term limits for employees. the amount of knowledge and personality is really dropping.
That's a Mickey Mouse comment if I ever read one.Can we also just say that its probably good for society if Disney isn't the leader in sports media
Instead, they will get others to contribute free content, like this:TBF, several of them are writers, not TV personalities.
See above. Besides, who doesn't like to watch a good train wreck, every now and again? Folks love to watch carnage. How else do you explain folks watching NASCAR? (Or, as it is known around here: wrasslin' on wheels.)I'm going to naively hope they turn to real sports analysis and not double down on the canned, manufactured two guys argue the opposite sides of an issue just because approach that's gotten them here.
Probably the same type of "leaders" that decide the way to help the bottom line is to do away the R&D dept.But one last comment/question. While we may not like the opinions of someone like Danny Kannell, he's not getting paid a TON. Who at ESPN made the decisions to spend so much money on rights fees and what is their salaries? And is that person/persons still employed? I bet they are.
And what's going to happen to all of these universities that went into debt on facilities upgrades when the networks stop offering so much for the broadcast rights? It's not going to be good at all.Actually their cost for hiring and retaining on-air talent is considerably less than their cost that they pay for broadcasting rights. THAT is ultimately going to be their downfall because it's a failed business model in the current environment.
And what's going to happen to all of these universities that went into debt on facilities upgrades when the networks stop offering so much for the broadcast rights? It's not going to be good at all.
It's because Conley resigned with the team that drafted him which enables him to make more money over a longer period of time. The NBA allows this to discourage all the good free agents to team up together (see Miami heat big 3 w/Lebron, Bosh and Wade). So, essentially a player gets rewarded for resigning with the team that drafted him. Most players don't do that though. The one's you mentioned - Conley, Bryant and LeBron did.Clay Travis( I know, he's an idiot when it comes to a lot of things) made an interesting point: only 4 guys have ever made $30 million/yr( inflation -adj.) to play basketball--Jordan, K Bryant, L James, and....Mike Conley of the Memphis Grizzlies. How is it possible that a guy like Conley gets that kind of money? The NBA's very generous contract with espn.
This plus teams have to spend the money. I've seen/heard some say this is why guys end up getting over paid. Teams are punished if they don't spend a certain amount.It's because Conley resigned with the team that drafted him which enables him to make more money over a longer period of time. The NBA allows this to discourage all the good free agents to team up together (see Miamai heat big 3 w/Lebron, Bosh and Wade). So, essentially a player gets rewarded for resigning with the team that drafted him. Most players don't do that though. The one's you mentioned - Conley, Bryant and LeBron did..