We don't say that to dance on his proverbial grave.There's a difference between celebrating someone's downfall and acknowledging that the network made the right decision.ESPN had plenty of reasons to cut Clark.
It had hardly any reason to keep him.Let's go through them.EXCLUSIVE: COLIN COWHERD EXPLAINS WHY HE STUCK TO SPORTS AS ESPN BECAME 'RUDDERLESS' DURING TRUMP'S PRESIDENCYReasons to cut him: Clark made around $2 million per year, roughly four times what the average NFL analyst earns.
He was unpopular with much of the audience.He had a strained reputation with staffers and a mixed one among on-air colleagues.
Over the past year alone, he generated a string of negative headlines for ESPN, including shaming Robert Griffin III for marrying a White woman and making dubious claims about police officers involved in what was ultimately ruled a suicide.He also created both on- and off-air tension by belittling Peter Schrager, around whom ESPN is now building a new television show, because Schrager never played football.
Clark also had a habit of injecting race into discussions where it simply didn't belong.Reasons to keep him:There weren't any.ESPN is parting ways with longtime NFL analyst Ryan Clark following an 11-year run at the network.(Michael Allio/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)ESPN did not make more money because Ryan Clark was on television.
He wasn't boosting viewership.In fact, sources inside ESPN say there was even a slight, albeit not dramatic, dip in quarter-hour ratings during his appearances on NFL-specific programming.Even if one believed Clark was a better NFL analyst than some of his peers, he would have had to be significantly better to offset that lengthy list of negatives.This isn't a Ryan Clark-specific phenomenon.
Very few people in sports media provide a quantifiable net positive.Pat McAfee does.Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser do.
Colin Cowherd does.Stephen A.
Smith did for many years, though his star has undeniably faded over the p...