[tells]

I think the criticisms of ESPN and the advent of cord-cutting is severely missing a larger issue at hand. Sports are just another form of entertainment for people. I can probably safely say that the decline of ESPN first started with the rise of well-produced TV shows on HBO, AMC, Netflix, etc. I believe it's more than just correlation.

Just like a captivating TV series, sports demands your attention to the details and personal stories for you to become a fan. However, sporting events take hours to ingest at a time and the outcome leave many disappointed. People who have money to spend are typically people with fewer hours to allocate for entertainment. With the rise of quality TV shows that take one hour to consume, how do sports like baseball stand a chance at gaining new viewers?

The best thing ESPN has going for it are its 30 for 30 documentaries. A well produced documentary series. However, documentaries generally don't bring in huge sums of cash. If they can pivot to a create must-see dramatic show with a sports theme, they may have a chance.

[crabasa]

> I can probably safely say that the decline of ESPN first started with the rise of well-produced TV shows on HBO, AMC, Netflix, etc.

You are remarkably wrong here. In fact, live sports has come to completely dominate TV over the last 20 years. 9 of the top 10 most watched TV shows in 2016 was a sporting event:

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/tops-of-2016...

I would argue the opposite: that "prestige" TV shows are a response to live sports by networks that don't have NFL or NBA rights.

[tells]

The 10 most watched TV shows doesn't give as much info as the top 10 primetime tv programs. 7 out of the 10 shows that are aired regularly are NOT sports. These one off events are big for the networks that have the rights to air them but they exist for one day and do not obtain ownership of the content afterwards. On the other hand regular programs last for approximately a dozen episodes or more and can still maintain viewership with reruns. Other than the NFL, there is nothing that has a comparable draw.

But that diverges from my main assertion that with less time available to working people, people prefer to follow a story with familiar characters in a 1-hr window rather than have to watch a 3-hour affair between two random teams.

[ntsplnkv2]

The major key is ESPN was the ONLY source for sports, highlights, discussion, etc. SportsCenter was a staple of most young males in the 80s and 90s growing up.

Now they compete with the internet. Highlights? Go to r/nba, r/soccer, r/nfl, r/hockey, boom, done, quick gif, lots of good discussion. Why spend an hour watching sportscenter? Especially now that they talk about music, twitter, and lebron james 24/7, endless commercials, always before what you spent the last 20 minutes waiting for, for something.

Not only that, youtube channels, podcasts, fans making their own content, blogs, and other forums...there's just way more content out there now than in the 90s, where all you had was the newspaper/magazine instead of the TV.

On top of that, all the major leagues have their own networks now-NHL net, NBA net, NFL net. In addition to FS1, and competing with the major networks for top events.

It's not just people watching game of thrones (those shows don't air all year around and only take up an hour a week anyway.) Although I'm sure it reduces those numbers a bit.

[thrillgore]

They actually had a drama, Playmakers. It was axed in the wake of the NFL Monday Night Football deal.

[tells]

I remember watching it. It had an 'Any Given Sunday' feel to it which missed the mark of it being generally captivating. Currently, the HBO series 'Ballers' does a much better job of toe-ing (sp?) the line between sports and drama.