1. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=3028618
2. http://a.espnradio.com/podcenter/svp/svp100405.mp3
3. The Scott Van Pelt Show is a sports talk radio show hosted by Scott Van Pelt and Ryen Russillo on ESPN Radio from 1 PM to 4 PM, Monday thru Friday. Each day, Van Pelt and Russillo talk about recent events in sports whether it being scores of games or athletes off-the-field incidents. The Podcasts usually last a little over an hour as they try to cover topics thoroughly and bring in guests to do so. They each bring their own insight to certain topics, but also bring in coaches, players and analysts to get their expert opinions on games, drafts, etc. Due to the fact that host Scott Van Pelt is an ESPN Sportscenter anchor and golf correspondent, Russillo often hosts the show during Van Pelt’s absence. The show does jump from topic to topic quickly though and because it is a radio show, there are many commercial breaks built into the Podcast. This can become annoying at times when you forget what they are talking about because of the commercial breaks. Overall though, I think this show is interesting because they update their audience on the current sports events, but they also give enough of their opinion to cause controversy or bring light to an issue.
4. I chose this Podcast because I often listen to their show on the radio, but I also download their episodes on days when a lot is going on in the sports world. The one thing that I don’t like about the show is the fact that they have rotating hosts. It is called “The Scott Van Pelt Show”, but Ryen Russillo hosts the show quite often, especially when major golf events are occurring. Do you think that not having an “everyday host,” would disrupt the continuity from episode to episode and cause audiences to become fragmented? Or would it have little or no impact?
Host Changes
I think that changing the host everyday could be an interesting way to have a new perspective everyday, but if Scott Van Pelt has a following and fans then that is a problem. I'm not really familiar with him, but it seems as if he has his own show he probably has his own fans who may or may not watch/listen when he is not hosting. When it comes to your own podcast though, since you probably won't have a loyal fan base, then changing hosts could be a good idea. If the topic is still the same, then I'd probably still listen if a podcast rotated hosts.
Scott Van Pelt Show
I listened to this podcast and normally sports podcasts really do bore me and never seem to keep me captivated... unless they have to do with some media-spun Hollywood scandal. The podcast I listened to was about Tiger Woods and even though its getting old I liked the dish about him on the podcast. In response to your question, I don't listen to this podcast regularly and this was my first time, but I do feel that there should always be one central host. I mean isn't that the point of naming a show after someone? It just doesn't make sense to me that someone else would host just sometimes. I agree with you that the rotating of the host is not a good idea. It could lose an audience and it is somewhat misleading and fragmented, as you said.
Do a Barrel Roll!
As long as the hosts are not selling themselves short. You never want a show where one host is loved more than the other. Look at Conan and Jay Leno, two different groups liking their own host. If they were to play nice and rotate every night do you think all the fans would watch at the same time or watch on their choice of hosts night of talking? If the title did not have his name in it I honestly would not have a problem with multiple hosts.
I prefer consistency
I watch the televised version of this show and other ESPN radio shows occasionally, and I prefer it when the hosting is consistent. It's not that the replacements aren't capable; it's just that I'm not expecting the change. This seems especially true for shows with co-hosts. For example, whenever either of the hosts of Pardon the Interruption has a substitute, the show doesn't seem the same. I think this is because co-hosts tend to have a conversational rhythm that draws in the listener as a participant more than does the monologue format of single-hosted programs. Co-hosted shows seem like a discussion; single-hosted shows seem like one-way broadcasts.
B.S. Report with Bill Simmons
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2864045
I've listened to this one before and it's just one host who brings in guests. I don't think that he's gone that often, though.