Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

[MassNole]

I remember in what now seems like the toddler years of the internet that ESPN.com was going the way of almost being an Insider exclusive website. This was before the days of Rivals or Scout.com when paying for content wasn't the norm. However ESPN eventually went away from that model and back to a free model. Now it seems like they are back to the pay for content model with a vengeance as everything worthwhile seems to be ESPN Insider content.

Funny how this cycle came back, and tragic at the same time. Maybe its me, but this kills ESPN.com for me. I know it's a little hypocritical when subscribe to Warchant.com, but for me Warchant gives me content I won't find elsewhere, whereas ESPN does not. Instead they let some of their talking heads play journalist and charge for it.

Am I alone here, or are others losing faith with the once facet of ESPN that had remained pure?

[SPTO]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

You know, I used to love reading Jayson Stark, Peter Gammons and Rob Neyer during the baseball season. In fact, ESPN.com used to be my first stop for instant analysis and worthwhile news not only in baseball but other sports as well.

I understand having some "insider" content to entice people to pay for the more interesting content but they've gone way overboard and I honestly haven't gone to ESPN since they've started adding Insider Content. I'm willing to wager that 10% of the site is actually free these days.

[MassNole]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

The free content you can usually find is an AP News feed, so it isn't like its ESPN exclusive.

[SPTO]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

The free content you can usually find is an AP News feed, so it isn't like its ESPN exclusive.

Really? sheesh...well they might as well run it on the model of porn sites with a big preview splash page and keep 100% of the content as a paysite.

[MassNole]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

Really? sheesh...well they might as well run it on the model of porn sites with a big preview splash page and keep 100% of the content as a paysite.

As of right now (9:37am EST) of their 10 news stories linked on the front page, 7 come from the Associated Press. So I guess not all, but most. This is a usual trend for a lot of news outlets as you can publish AP Feeds for free, but when the news outlet is ESPN, I expect more.

EDIT
One of the 3 articles was by Len Pasquerelli (sp), who is very notorious for stealing other's content and calling it his own.

[jmood88]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I used to read ESPN.com everyday but I'm sick of every damn article being insider content. It's ridiculous, you can't read anything without having the insider icon on everything within the page.

[Dispatch]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I'm an insider. Its really not that bad if your interested in getting the magazine, plus you get free access to all of the fantasy guides and draft kits they have which is nice. Its not bad and for $40 I can get all my sports info at one site and don't have to go searching for stuff, its just convenient.

[ehh]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I have a free Insider account and it's a total waste. Nothing of "Insider Content" is all that profound or secretive anyway.

[bkfount]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

all they usually have is stupid trade rumors and then of course the fantasy stuff. Even yahoo makes you pay for their better fantasy stuff, so no harm there.

[TarHeelMan]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I have Insider because I subscribe to the magazine... But I rarely use it. Like others have said, if you look around a bit, you'll find the same "insider" info for free somewhere else.

[CMH]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

ESPN.com is not that great. I haven't visited the site in over a year. I think I'm going on two pretty soon. I visited maybe once or twice since because someone posted a link to an article I decided to check out.

I use SI.com and I find it much much better than ESPN. It reports the same news at the same pace and it doesn't give me stupid biased analysis. It tells me the truth. That's what I want from my sports news.

[USF11]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

Yes they have way too much insider content which can be found for free on foxsports.com or si.com.

I prefer foxsports because MSN is my homepage.

[Altimus]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I'm an insider but sometimes don't notice if what I'm reading is free or not.

Personally I don't care as I'm satisfied with the content that I get.

[Acedeuce]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

Site is decent if you're just after a quick score, but I mostly check the site out to read Bill Simmons columns. Great writer IMO, at least that hasn't been switched to insider.

[ubernoob]

Re: Does ESPN.com have too much insider content?

I'm an insider because I get the mag...

*shrug* I leave ESPN as my homepage on my desktop (it's google on the laptop for class). I never realize if what i'm reading is insider or not, nor do I care.