KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

ESPN used to be great to watch...SportsCenter used to be a good watch at any time of day...now, it's ridiculous. Only thing worth watching there = live games (and occassional 30 for 30)...take that away, and they're just another CSBSSN, NBCSN, etc. Take away the live games and I probably spend more time watching concert footage on MTVLive....

Chad ford looks like he is added to this list. Just delayed until after the NBA draft

"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Not Breitbarts words, a 15+ year ESPN employees words.

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Hillary by 10 points.

Rhodymob05 wrote:

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Not Breitbarts words, a 15+ year ESPN employees words.

Oh ok, if we're just going by what she said then it remains meaningless. Since she herself admits she has no idea what the percentage of impact it really was. Could be 0.00000001%.

I've also talked to many ESPN employees over the past few weeks who are 100% sure it had nothing to do with politics at all.

theblueram wrote:

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Hillary by 10 points.

Hillary lost dude, you should really pay better attention to whats going on!

theblueram wrote:

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." ~ Linda Cohn of ESPN on politics and espn's downfall.

Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Hillary by 10 points.

Well she wasn't ahead by that much, she only had three million more votes than Trump

When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

Hold the phone gentleman I just thought I would get a different opinion on the subject here.

adam914 wrote:

Rhodymob05 wrote:

adam914 wrote:
Ok so it was 1% of it maybe. Still meaningless. No matter what Breitbart tries to tell you.

Not Breitbarts words, a 15+ year ESPN employees words.

Oh ok, if we're just going by what she said then it remains meaningless. Since she herself admits she has no idea what the percentage of impact it really was. Could be 0.00000001%.

I've also talked to many ESPN employees over the past few weeks who are 100% sure it had nothing to do with politics at all.

The most obvious argument that it doesn't have anything to do with politics is that ESPN supposedly has my politics (according to insane right wing internet cranks), but there is likely nobody who has turned harder on ESPN than I have. Cord-cutting millennials and people that consider the glorified yelling match hot take culture to be tedious and uninteresting account for most of the loss of viewership - those are segments of the audience that likely lean left.

But it's important to understand that it isn't just the decline in viewership and in subscriptions that have caused the problem, it's that in combination with the financial commitments they made for broadcast rights at a time when they assumed viewership and subscriptions would continue to explode unabated into the future forever. Laying off all these people was partially symbolic and partially like a once-wealthy person selling off silverware and furniture as they go through bankruptcy - shedding these salaries is not going to accomplish anything in terms of their overall financial condition.

rambone 78 wrote:When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

This requires amending the Constitution. There is no chance that 3/4 of the states will go along with this.

rambone 78 wrote:When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

how do you figure? Hillary's popular vote "win" came on the back of 2 cities, NY and LA. Take those 2 cities away and Trump wins the popular vote.

This is the exact reason we have the electoral college, its purpose is to distribute the voting power more evenly among the entire country and avoid situations where a few large population centers can essentially decide any election.

Think of it as socialism for votes

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

rambone 78 wrote:When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

how do you figure? Hillary's popular vote "win" came on the back of 2 cities, NY and LA. Take those 2 cities away and Trump wins the popular vote.

This is the exact reason we have the electoral college, its purpose is to distribute the voting power more evenly among the entire country and avoid situations where a few large population centers can essentially decide any election.

Think of it as socialism for votes

That is the rationale for the electoral college, but I haven't ever heard any good arguments for why the votes of the people in New York City and Los Angeles should count less than everyone else's.

TruePoint wrote:

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

rambone 78 wrote:When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

how do you figure? Hillary's popular vote "win" came on the back of 2 cities, NY and LA. Take those 2 cities away and Trump wins the popular vote.

This is the exact reason we have the electoral college, its purpose is to distribute the voting power more evenly among the entire country and avoid situations where a few large population centers can essentially decide any election.

Think of it as socialism for votes

That is the rationale for the electoral college, but I haven't ever heard any good arguments for why the votes of the people in New York City and Los Angeles should count less than everyone else's.

they dont. because of the electoral college, every vote has the same relative weight. Its nothing more than adding a weighted average to the voting process.

fwiw, based on electoral college values, a person's vote in California is 13.75 times the value of yours in RI (4 vs 55) and in NY its 7.25 times yours (4 vs 29)

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

TruePoint wrote:

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:
how do you figure? Hillary's popular vote "win" came on the back of 2 cities, NY and LA. Take those 2 cities away and Trump wins the popular vote.

This is the exact reason we have the electoral college, its purpose is to distribute the voting power more evenly among the entire country and avoid situations where a few large population centers can essentially decide any election.

Think of it as socialism for votes

That is the rationale for the electoral college, but I haven't ever heard any good arguments for why the votes of the people in New York City and Los Angeles should count less than everyone else's.

they dont. because of the electoral college, every vote has the same relative weight. Its nothing more than adding a weighted average to the voting process.

fwiw, based on electoral college values, a person's vote in California is 13.75 times the value of yours in RI (4 vs 55) and in NY its 7.25 times yours (4 vs 29)

Wow. You either did not think this one all the way through or you need to brush up on your math. (This also directly contradicts your previous post that I was responding to that correctly identified the rationale for why we have an electoral college.)

There are 39M people in california, and as you mentioned, they get 55 electoral college votes. New York State has 20M people, and it has 29 electoral college votes. That means that California has 709,000 people per one electoral college vote. New York State has 689,650 people per electoral college vote. I don't live in Rhode Island, I live in Massachusetts. We have 6.8M people, and 11 electoral college votes - good for 618,200 people per electoral college vote. Meanwhile, RI has 1M people and 4 electoral votes - meaning there are 250,000 Rhode Islanders per electoral vote. Wyoming has 0.58M people and 3 electoral college votes - 193,000 Wyomingites per electoral college vote.

This means that a Rhode Islander's vote is worth almost 3X more than a Californian's, and more than 2X more than a New Yorker's or my fellow Bay Stater's. A Wyoming vote is worth almost 4X what a California vote is worth! Same with North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Vermont. That is not how any sane system would work.

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

rambone 78 wrote:When the Dems take back Congress, my guess is they will make changes to the Electoral College....that system doesn't work anymore.

That will fundamentally change the entire election process....way overdue.

how do you figure? Hillary's popular vote "win" came on the back of 2 cities, NY and LA. Take those 2 cities away and Trump wins the popular vote.

This is the exact reason we have the electoral college, its purpose is to distribute the voting power more evenly among the entire country and avoid situations where a few large population centers can essentially decide any election.

Think of it as socialism for votes

This is such a dumb thought process. Take away Trump's two largest voting blocks and then you're right back at the beginning with Hillary up by a substantial margin.

The Electoral College is dumb. The fact that state lines are more influential when it comes to picking a president then votes is against the philosophy of one person one vote and everything else this country stands for. All you need to know to see how broken the system is is looking at the map of where the candidates campaign. Too much of the country gets ignored and a few states and their special interests hold the power

Thread belongs in "Let's Talk Politics" in the Down the Line
Nothing to do with URI NCAA or Bust

What a moot point and topic this is. Republicans dominate in state politics, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors. It takes 38 states to ratify a change to the constitution. So democrats sit at 13 states. Gonna be awhile before this fairy tale of eliminating the electoral college happens.

Getting back on topic, one thing ESPN did right was replacing its NBA "insiders" with Woj and perhaps others from Yahoo to follow.

Woj and Shams pretty much scoop everything NBA related.

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/1/1550367 ... -woj-yahoo

Also, Shams is just out of college....

http://www.complex.com/sports/2016/07/t ... -nba-news/

Jaworski and Hoge....wow.

Jaworski hadn't been much of a contributor lately, but Hoge for sure is a surprise.....I guess they aren't done yet......

At least they waited until after the draft [in Philly] to let RJ go.

STC wrote:Getting back on topic, one thing ESPN did right was replacing its NBA "insiders" with Woj and perhaps others from Yahoo to follow.

Woj and Shams pretty much scoop everything NBA related.

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/1/1550367 ... -woj-yahoo

Also, Shams is just out of college....

http://www.complex.com/sports/2016/07/t ... -nba-news/

Woj is obviously a good pick-up. But the timing is bizarre to me, since they cut guys like Stark and Werder.

Other than maybe that undefeated thing and firing Curt schilling what are people talking about when they refer to espn's supposed leftward turn?

I read/watch espn every day and I honestly have no idea what people are talking about. This is coming from someone who hates PC culture btw.

Like TP and others pointed out ESPN has some major issues with cord cutting and the like that are causing them to lose major money. Perhaps a few people stopped watching because of some perceived political slant but it's very low on the list of espns problems.

How many Michael Sam stories did ESPN do, even when
he went to the CFL?
Blasting a WNBA player who said she was driven from the league because she
was straight.
The Undefeated. Imagine if they has an all white group by that name?
I'm no Curt Schilling fan, but the reason he was fired, was ridiculous.
Gushing over Obama's NCAA brackets.
Yes, I can readily see why all of this could rub some viewers the wrong way.

Nowadays, everyone is labeled either a liberal or conservative....left right left right....so much so I think I'm in a parade....

Why can't people just be called Americans?

Most people have views on both sides of the aisle....I know I do......

This stuff is tearing this country apart from the inside.

Say it ain't so Ronny Jaworski !!!

can this be moved to politics?

rambone 78 wrote:Nowadays, everyone is labeled either a liberal or conservative....left right left right....so much so I think I'm in a parade....

Why can't people just be called Americans?

Most people have views on both sides of the aisle....I know I do......

This stuff is tearing this country apart from the inside.

I believe both sides can agree with this.

Ya know i might be changing my opinion on the ESPN promoting SJW stuff.

I happened upon an article about the supposed lack of black people at fenway park today. https://theundefeated.com/features/blac ... nway-park/ . After reading that i went through the other stuff on undefeated.

It's the sort of Victim culture writing you would expect to see on the huffington post or slate. I fully expect them to start writing about microaggressions (Thankfully spellcheck says this is not a word at least) and nakedly talking about the evils of the white man soon if they have not started already.

Going around a ballpark hoping to find a black guy who will say how awful and racist redsox fans are is not something sports journalists should be doing.

EGram wrote:Ya know i might be changing my opinion on the ESPN promoting SJW stuff.

I happened upon an article about the supposed lack of black people at fenway park today. https://theundefeated.com/features/blac ... nway-park/ . After reading that i went through the other stuff on undefeated.

It's the sort of Victim culture writing you would expect to see on the huffington post or slate. I fully expect them to start writing about microaggressions (Thankfully spellcheck says this is not a word at least) and nakedly talking about the evils of the white man soon if they have not started already.

Going around a ballpark hoping to find a black guy who will say how awful and racist redsox fans are is not something sports journalists should be doing.

EGram wrote:Ya know i might be changing my opinion on the ESPN promoting SJW stuff.

I happened upon an article about the supposed lack of black people at fenway park today. https://theundefeated.com/features/blac ... nway-park/ . After reading that i went through the other stuff on undefeated.

It's the sort of Victim culture writing you would expect to see on the huffington post or slate. I fully expect them to start writing about microaggressions (Thankfully spellcheck says this is not a word at least) and nakedly talking about the evils of the white man soon if they have not started already.

Going around a ballpark hoping to find a black guy who will say how awful and racist redsox fans are is not something sports journalists should be doing.

What's funny is...the Victim Culture, that likes to raise and write about microagressions...is generally far more flat out rude, oppressive and aggressive than those they accuse of being 'micro'aggressive...a big reason the 'leaners' tipped the scales in November imo....

Sorry to burst some people's bubble but the general cord cutting trend in TV is what is mainly hurting ESPN. This trend is not limited just to ESPN as it is also affecting other sports networks such as FS1. According to the estimates available at Sports TV Ratings, ESPN lost 422,000 households in February. That number was however far less than FS1 which lost 565,000 households from a smaller customer base during the same span.


http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/fs1- ... -espn.html

Just saw that today is the last show for The Sports Reporters. I used to watch this show every Sunday morning and thought it was a good show. I haven't watched it for a few years now, but not because I didn't like it. So, it seems they're cutting good shows too.

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:

EGram wrote:Ya know i might be changing my opinion on the ESPN promoting SJW stuff.

I happened upon an article about the supposed lack of black people at fenway park today. https://theundefeated.com/features/blac ... nway-park/ . After reading that i went through the other stuff on undefeated.

It's the sort of Victim culture writing you would expect to see on the huffington post or slate. I fully expect them to start writing about microaggressions (Thankfully spellcheck says this is not a word at least) and nakedly talking about the evils of the white man soon if they have not started already.

Going around a ballpark hoping to find a black guy who will say how awful and racist redsox fans are is not something sports journalists should be doing.

What's funny is...the Victim Culture, that likes to raise and write about microagressions...is generally far more flat out rude, oppressive and aggressive than those they accuse of being 'micro'aggressive...a big reason the 'leaners' tipped the scales in November imo....

The biggest members of the victim culture as you put it are the conservatives. They control most of the government, are the member of the dominant religion in this culture, and are not members of a minority race yet somehow they're always whining about how they're being attacked when heaven forbid other people don't want to conform

Not conforming is one thing, no one needs to do that, but shutting down free speech with violence is quite another...