buffaloboyinATL Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 And God is he annoying. His shtick gets old so fast and yet the just keep going back to him. He is hanging out during media day and talking to some of the players and it is just not funny. I guess Bobcat Goldthwait wasn't available.
Like A Mofo Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Little word of advice: DONT WATCH ESPN Screw that station.
buffaloboyinATL Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 Little word of advice: DONT WATCH ESPN Screw that station. 589567[/snapback] But it just looks so damn cool in HD. I wish there were other sports outlets available on TV but ever since the CNNSI channel went away it's been pretty limited. I do watch the Golf channel sometimes.
Like A Mofo Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 But it just looks so damn cool in HD. I wish there were other sports outlets available on TV but ever since the CNNSI channel went away it's been pretty limited. I do watch the Golf channel sometimes. 589571[/snapback] **** is ****....evne in HD...it just looks like clearer ****... I loathe ESPN
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 I think Gilbert Gottfried is funny. With that said, why have comedians in sports coverage? The only one that was any good was Jimmy Kimmel, and that's because he was a better pronosticator than the "real" football guys. Plus, he made fun of that blockhead, Howie Long.
MDH Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 It won't be long before ESPN hires Joan Rivers to critique the teams' uniforms.
Talonz Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 I think Gilbert Gottfried is funny. With that said, why have comedians in sports coverage? The only one that was any good was Jimmy Kimmel, and that's because he was a better pronosticator than the "real" football guys. Plus, he made fun of that blockhead, Howie Long. 589573[/snapback] Kimmel + The Man Show = Great fun
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Kimmel + The Man Show = Great fun 589633[/snapback] (The Man Show - Kimmel + Rogan and Stanhope) < RJ
Lurker Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 With that said, why have comedians in sports coverage? 589573[/snapback] Because the Super Bowl isn't about sports. It's the single largest "entertainment event" left in America. The folks watching it for the football are probably in the minority.
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Because the Super Bowl isn't about sports. It's the single largest "entertainment event" left in America. The folks watching it for the football are probably in the minority. 589661[/snapback] i guess my question was really hypothetical. But, I don't believe anyone really watches the Super Bowl for the "entertainment" stuff. They watch because it is the Super Bowl.
The Senator Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 i guess my question was really hypothetical. But, I don't believe anyone really watches the Super Bowl for the "entertainment" stuff. They watch because it is the Super Bowl. 589697[/snapback] Well, some actually do watch it to see the commercials...
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Well, some actually do watch it to see the commercials... 589701[/snapback] That I buy. While i know the NFL and the networks think they have to entertain the millions who watch the SB, but do not usually watch football, I seriously doubt many of those viewers watch the game in order to see the lame half-time entertainment, etc. Of course, that's a research question. I'm ready to do the study.
Fan in Chicago Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 i guess my question was really hypothetical. But, I don't believe anyone really watches the Super Bowl for the "entertainment" stuff. They watch because it is the Super Bowl. 589697[/snapback] I am having a Superbowl party with 12 adults and only 3 are really interested in the football aspect. Rest are there for the event, the commercials and my booze.
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 I am having a Superbowl party with 12 adults and only 3 are really interested in the football aspect. Rest are there for the event, the commercials and my booze. 589764[/snapback] That i understand. How many are watching because of the band playing at halftime?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Actually, if they replaced all of the ESPN on site reporters with Gilbert Gottfied and his Dogs Playing Cards it would improve the ESPN coverage dramatically. I loved those dogs.
Lurker Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 That I buy. While i know the NFL and the networks think they have to entertain the millions who watch the SB, but do not usually watch football, I seriously doubt many of those viewers watch the game in order to see the lame half-time entertainment, etc. Of course, that's a research question. I'm ready to do the study. 589758[/snapback] A little old, but still valid (and I wonder how many 50-something women will be tuning in to see the Glimmer Twins at halftime!): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The women are watching with more female viewers than the Academy Awards, this Sunday's Super Bowl will air ads that cater to broader interests The Christian Science Monitor 1/30/2004 Clayton Collins Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor If you believe the twangy beer jingle, a lot of men like football on TV, shots of Gina Lee - and twins. In at least one of those supposed preferences - televised football - men are increasingly being joined by women. Consider: ---* An ESPN poll three years ago revealed that women who watched TV sports favored NFL games above all other sports broadcasts. ---* In 2002, a survey by Scarborough Sports Marketing, in New York, estimated that 50 million US women avidly followed professional sports - and confirmed pro football's top ranking. ---* When last year's Super Bowl rolled around, nearly 40 million women tuned in, says Andrew Rohm, a professor of marketing at Boston's Northeastern University, "which is 10 million more than turned on the Academy Awards." So if you fire up the television for Sunday's big game, will the commercial breaks offer signs of bold new thinking meant to capitalize on those numbers? Well, maybe. Advertisers have been waking up - slowly - to this long-dawning shift in viewer demographics, experts say, adopting creative approaches they think will appeal to both sexes. And companies are beginning to use football games to push products that research shows are more commonly bought by women. But many firms and their ad agencies have been reluctant to let go of the "regular guy" imagery that football has traditionally evoked. And even with 150 million sets of eyes ready to watch the Super Bowl, companies see more cost- efficient ways of reaching women than spending $2.3 million for a 30-second spot. It's clearly a high-stakes buy. The Super Bowl may crown a pigskin champ, but it also traditionally showcases the ad world's premium pitches, making the commercials as great a draw as the competition. "It's the only broadcast event that exists where you can capture so many people at the same time," says David Blum, senior vice president at Eisner Communications in Baltimore, which released a survey last week on Super Bowl ads. "There's been a shift away, over the years, from a few products that would tend to be more male- dominated in tone and approach," he says. You'll still see ads for Gillette razors and Viagra. But rounding out the mix now are "broad-based products, soft drinks, snack-food products," adds Mr. Blum. "There are some car manufacturers, movie studios." Procter & Gamble will advertise Charmin in Sunday's Super Bowl. That could represent a more typical game-time advertisement, going forward, than the manly old Master Lock spot that had a rifle bullet failing to break a padlock, says Blum, who has tracked Super Bowl marketing since 1988. "They're trying to straddle the fence and not alienate women," adds Professor Rohm. "Women tend to be more highly involved with commercials [than men] and typically in a Super Bowl, because of the large audience, you're less apt to have more of the messages that employ females as sex symbols." .... Women buy 68 percent of all new cars, according to Barletta, and 65 percent of tires. Yet she calls Detroit "especially bad" at speaking to women. The points they make - about torque and horsepower - miss the mark. "Women want to know what it does for them," she says. "It has to be about people." "The Super Bowl is something of a shotgun approach," agrees Northeastern's Rohm. "There are other programs, like 'Friends,' or some of the reality shows, that are much more efficient media buys on a cost-per-thousand basis." Blum, too, notes the allure to advertisers of reality programming, though he argues that many viewers count the Super Bowl, an unscripted drama, as a reality show in itself. He's interested to see how much of the Super Bowl audience can be retained by "Survivor: All Stars," which airs after the game. Still, such short-run series come and go, he says. Cable offerings change. So advertisers across the spectrum would do well to monitor that shifting Super Bowl audience - and learn to mine it in ways that are more inclusive. "The only thing that it seems you can really count on, year after year," he says, "are all those viewers that are going to tune in on Super Sunday." © Copyright 2004. The Christian Science Monitor
Marv Levy Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 ESPN drops hockey, so I dropped ESPN!! Screw them
Recommended Posts