Fox Sports 1

[Bellsprout]

Re: Fox Sports 1

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q5wDEuOi7mo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SPTO]

Re: Fox Sports 1

Jay and Dan's routine worked at TSN because:

1. The comedic touches grew gradually and organically over the years. If two anchors we'd never heard of showed up on Canadian TV with a similar "wackiness" from the get-go, they wouldn't be received well.

2. TSN's Sportscentre is much more highlight-driven than ESPN's (and apparently Fox Live's, at least to start).

3. Most of TSN's other anchors are pretty "straight", so there was a nice contrast. I like Jay and Dan, but a little can go a long way.

Not saying that Onrait/O'Toole won't succeed down there, but it might take time. If I was a FSL producer, I'd suggest to ease up on the comedy a bit and focus on what disgruntled ESPN viewers want from FSL (detailed highlights from a wide range of sports), at least until Americans get used to them.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I remember when Sportsnet started here they tried to be a bit edgy and comedic but that network has morphed to the point now where they're pretty straight though every anchor has a personality so it's not like I dunno, PBS.

This exchange just happened.

It's take your dog to the park night in Tampa Bay:
"Hey! Let's bring our dogs to the ballpark so it can poop everywhere!"
"Especially in a dome stadium, it's like a fart chamber!"

This show is never going to be serious with these two involved. And I love that about it. But if that's not your thing, I don't think you're going to like it any more with time.

LOL! Classic Dan and Jay!

[aholbert32]

Re: Fox Sports 1

I just look at it like this, SC has been around forever. It's not difficult to study the show and figure out where you can focus your new show and hone your angle. No, you're not going to surpass SC on show #1, but good lord it would have been nice to see them show even a sliver of potential.

They did not do that in any regard, outside of perhaps spotlighting the UFC a bit more.

Not to mention in this day and age, it shouldn't be that difficult to put together a great team of personalities. I mean there is so much talent out there..

I don't think many in the thread have written the show off yet. It just would have been nice to be surprised by the show or to be intrigued by some aspect of the show to have me coming back.

Gotta disagree with that. If anything there are more sports channels now. 15 years ago, we only had ESPN and the 4 major broadcast networks. Now we have those 5, NFLN, NBATV, MLBTV, CBSSN, NBCSN, TNT all looking to sign the best talent. Then you have channels like ESPN and NFLN who sign EVERYBODY. NFLN has pregame show with 6 analysts. ESPN has one with 5. Its tougher to sign talent these days.

[VDusen04]

Re: Fox Sports 1

People say they want that but NOBODY actually does. NBCSN has a show called "The Highlight" or something like that. The show does nothing but show highlights and scores and around 10k people watch that show.

As for FSL, I liked the anchors and I like Clarissa. I hate the panel. I dont give a **** what Andy Roddick thinks about the Dodgers. I could care less what GP thinks about A-Rod.

I do not have cable, so I am unfamiliar with NBCSN's "The Highlight". What was its format like?

My issue has been the extremes of sports shows in the past 10 years or so. On one end there's modern Sportscenter, where the Jets, Yankees, Knicks, Heat, Lakers, and Tim Tebow all dominate the program. Highlights are not very thorough and "major" sports stories are dissected to an unfathomable degree. On the other end, there were shows like Highlight Express, where they showed almost nothing but highlights, but very minimally and within a half hour time frame.

I'd just really like a mix of both, and I think Sportscenter struck that mix pretty well around the turn of the century. I'm okay with post-game interviews and some additional information, but just not complete and utter saturation at the expense of everything else in the sports world. I understand "Kings-Bobcats" types of highlights have been getting the score only treatment since the beginning of time, but I've just grown weary of missing what happened in the Red Wings-Predators game from the night before just so Stephen A. Smith can argue about whether the Chicago Blackhawks would be better at basketball than the Heat at hockey.

[aholbert32]

Re: Fox Sports 1

I do not have cable, so I am unfamiliar with NBCSN's "The Highlight". What was its format like?

My issue has been the extremes of sports shows in the past 10 years or so. On one end there's modern Sportscenter, where the Jets, Yankees, Knicks, Heat, Lakers, and Tim Tebow all dominate the program. Highlights are not very thorough and "major" sports stories are dissected to an unfathomable degree. On the other end, there were shows like Highlight Express, where they showed almost nothing but highlights, but very minimally and within a half hour time frame.

I'd just really like a mix of both, and I think Sportscenter struck that mix pretty well around the turn of the century. I'm okay with post-game interviews and some additional information, but just not complete and utter saturation at the expense of everything else in the sports world. I understand "Kings-Bobcats" types of highlights have been getting the score only treatment since the beginning of time, but I've just grown weary of missing what happened in the Red Wings-Predators game from the night before just so Stephen A. Smith can argue about whether the Chicago Blackhawks would be better at basketball than the Heat at hockey.

More like Highlight Express (which also had horrible ratings). Just Highlights with an anchor voiceover.

[slickdtc]

People eat up SAS, Bayless, etc. I don't know how/why because everything I've ever heard is that they suck and can't be stood for long. Maybe its vocal minority internet syndrome. But somewhere, I guess more likely everywhere, people watch and care.

I am actually pretty surprised to hear those highlight only shows had such poor ratings. That's literally all I'm watching SC or Comcast's Sportsrise for. You never know what the featured discussion will be for SC when there's not a breaking story on Tebow/Arod/LeBron, so I don't know why people watch it over a highlights only show. I wonder if people have uttered the words, "It's that damn highlights only show again, change the channel." But I guess so.

[VDusen04]

Re: Fox Sports 1

People eat up SAS, Bayless, etc. I don't know how/why because everything I've ever heard is that they suck and can't be stood for long. Maybe its vocal minority internet syndrome. But somewhere, I guess more likely everywhere, people watch and care.

I am actually pretty surprised to hear those highlight only shows had such poor ratings. That's literally all I'm watching SC or Comcast's Sportsrise for. You never know what the featured discussion will be for SC when there's not a breaking story on Tebow/Arod/LeBron, so I don't know why people watch it over a highlights only show. I wonder if people have uttered the words, "It's that damn highlights only show again, change the channel." But I guess so.

I'm wondering why those shows had poor ratings as well. As I just mentioned, I was never a fan of the HighlightExpress' brevity. I feel my yearning for highlights was misunderstood as meaning "a clip or two from more games than you'd see on Sportscenter". Then when such a show fails, there seems to be the thought of, "Welp, we tried doing what you wanted and then you didn't want it so...".

In actuality, a couple of quick clips from a handful more games isn't what I asked for at all. And when game highlights purposely miss or exclude a clearly top-of-the-line highlight reel play (either due to negligence, time constraints, or to keep people watching until the Top Ten Plays segment), oh man, I am not pleased.

A part of me is struggling with the ratings justification of everything. If everything is decided by majority rule all the time, does quality never take precedent? Will quality break through only when it's a byproduct of popularity? If Stephen A. Smith accidentally falls into a strategically placed mud ring and grapples another analyst to the death, only for it to receive wonderful ratings, does that become the future of sports analysis?

[LowerWolf]

Re: Fox Sports 1

If Stephen A. Smith accidentally falls into strategically placed mud ring and grapples another analyst to the death, only for it to receive wonderful ratings, does that become the future of sports analysis?

Shh! Don't give them any ideas.

[gopher_guy]

Re: Fox Sports 1

Jay is the "BOBROVSKY!!" guy, right?

[JODYE]

Re: Fox Sports 1

Personally, it is a start but the channel is definitely rough around the edges.

The two hosts are hilarious. Remind me of old ESPN, with Patrick/Olbermann and Steiner/Mayne.

Roddick seems really knowledgeable about most things. Could see him stepping into a host type role ala Rece Davis.

McNabb...shut up. He needs a moderator. Loved the Glove calling him out on him taking over conversations.

Gary Payton would be decent, but not talking about anything other than basketball. They really need to have sport dedicated anchors. I don't want the Glove telling me how good Mark Sanchez is going to be this year.

Salaam might be the best of the football guys. Would like to see him McNabb and Urlacher on a panel together.

Thought Kapler was really good and energetic.

Charissa Thompson...yes please.

One thing they do need to refine is the look of the channel. The bottom line was not aesthetically pleasing. The font sucked and was too small. The right news bar seemed a little big, but I think I could adjust as long as there was meaningful sports information on there.

I'd say give it time. A lot of things to iron out. I really want to see this Crowd Goes Wild show. I haven't caught it yet.

[Bellsprout]

Re: Fox Sports 1

Crowd Goes Wild hasn't been on yet, that's why.

That starts today at 4pm central.

Here's a taste of that. Warning, this is also not at all the serious sports show you're looking for. But this is a fun way to mock ESPN.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MxcvmcF9YXA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AUChase]

Re: Fox Sports 1

I actually like their style a lot. It's more entertaining for me because I really don't care much about the MLB and that's what's "in" right now.

I'm also hoping they talk about soccer and hockey more than ESPN does.

I don't watch anything on ESPN not named College Football Live or an actual game. If I want straight forward information, I get it from my computer or phone.

I also listen to a lot of Sports talk radio shows so I don't need Sportscenter or the other ESPN TV shows to keep me in the loop.

[JODYE]

Re: Fox Sports 1

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q5wDEuOi7mo" allowfullscreen="" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>

This is ****ing gold!!!!

And then this happened:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Xw8o8UFDsVU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Guess I'll have to watch standing up.

[areobee401]

Re: Fox Sports 1

I like the betting odds being shown during their UFC coverage on Saturday night. Even saw betting odds for Nascar scroll across the bottom of the screen on the ticker thing. Not sure if that's something they will show for every sport, but think it would be a nice touch if they did.

[SPTO]

Re: Fox Sports 1

I'm actually gonna get a glimpse of FS1 programming tonight as we're gonna get Fox Football Daily tonight. I'll have to take a peek at it while watching the LLWS game.