Anyone else hate ESPN's interruptions during baeball games?

[drew2k]

I'm watching ESPN in a hotel and really missing my TiVo, and almost as bad, the TV has crappy reception. But ESPN just pushed me over the edge a few minutes ago.

ESPN just interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox game for about 10 minutes due to a "developing situation", and displayed the MLB logo. I was expecting something related to Bonds or steroids or a major injury, but instead, ESPN shows "bonus coverage" of the Cubs game. It's the bottom of the 8th and the "situation" is the Cubs pitcher is throwing a no-hitter.

Big F'n Deal!!!!! This is a "situation"? Worthy of interrupting coverage of another event??? Could ESPN at least put the Yankees-Red Sox game in a PIP window? No! Forget the reason you're watching ESPN in the first place, enjoy our bonus coverage instead!

The worst thing is the no-hitter was broken up about 5 minutes later, and when the Yanks-Sox game resumed, the announcers didn't even recap what we missed.

Granted, it's a Yanks blow-out over the Sox right now, but so what - stop freaking interrupting the game! You get a non-stop sports ticker, frequent cuts to show the announcers (maybe just to prove that Sudcliffe is sober?), the annoying 30 at 30 studio updates, and a lot of other distractions.

Boy, do I just hate ESPN right now. :mad:

[TriBruin]

I'm watching ESPN in a hotel and really missing my TiVo, and almost as bad, the TV has crappy reception. But ESPN just pushed me over the edge a few minutes ago.

ESPN just interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox game for about 10 minutes due to a "developing situation", and displayed the MLB logo. I was expecting something related to Bonds or steroids or a major injury, but instead, ESPN shows "bonus coverage" of the Cubs game. It's the bottom of the 8th and the "situation" is the Cubs pitcher is throwing a no-hitter.

Big F'n Deal!!!!! This is a "situation"? Worthy of interrupting coverage of another event??? Could ESPN at least put the Yankees-Red Sox game in a PIP window? No! Forget the reason you're watching ESPN in the first place, enjoy our bonus coverage instead!

The worst thing is the no-hitter was broken up about 5 minutes later, and when the Yanks-Sox game resumed, the announcers didn't even recap what we missed.

Granted, it's a Yanks blow-out over the Sox right now, but so what - stop freaking interrupting the game! You get a non-stop sports ticker, frequent cuts to show the announcers (maybe just to prove that Sudcliffe is sober?), the annoying 30 at 30 studio updates, and a lot of other distractions.

Boy, do I just hate ESPN right now. :mad:

Yea, because the Red Sox and Yankees only play what every other weekend (or it just seems that way.)

Now you know how those of us that don't live in either Boston or New York feel. Sorry to say that most of the country couldn't care about either team! :p

[drew2k]

I do not want this to turn into a Yanks- or Sox-bashing thread. It's an ESPN-bashing thread! :D

I'm not upset because of who ESPN interrupted, I'm upset because of how they interrupt, how often they interrupt, and why they interrupt! This happens on EVERY baseball game ESPN covers, and I hate it. Someone else may view these interruptions as a service to the viewers, but ESPN sholld at least have the courtesy to always show the original game being covered in a PIP window while providing "bonus" material!

[Sparty99]

I do not want this to turn into a Yanks- or Sox-bashing thread. It's an ESPN-bashing thread! :D

I'm not upset because of who ESPN interrupted, I'm upset because of how they interrupt, how often they interrupt, and why they interrupt! This happens on EVERY baseball game ESPN covers, and I hate it. Someone else may view these interruptions as a service to the viewers, but ESPN sholld at least have the courtesy to always show the original game being covered in a PIP window while providing "bonus" material!
You're being extreme. You seem to be implying that they're breaking into a 9th inning nail-biter with a 3rd inning update of a St. Louis-Milwaukee game.

ESPN breaks into games for events with historical implications. The only thing I didn't care about that they broke in for was Bonds's chase, but that was something they advertised, so you can't tell me you didn't know about it. What else have they broken in for? Potential no-hitters - history. Albert Pujols chasing monthly records - history. The potential for a four home run game - history. I don't care who's playing, but I would much rather see a pitcher try for a no-hitter than I would see a 13-3 game.

If you've seen other examples, please give more exampels. I just don't see how this is something you could be upset about. Just me though.

(Happy? I hate the Yankees, I hate the Red Sox, and I rationally addressed your concerns without bringing up the Yankees-Red Sox implications.)

[drew2k]

You're being extreme. You seem to be implying that they're breaking into a 9th inning nail-biter with a 3rd inning update of a St. Louis-Milwaukee game.

ESPN breaks into games for events with historical implications. The only thing I didn't care about that they broke in for was Bonds's chase, but that was something they advertised, so you can't tell me you didn't know about it. What else have they broken in for? Potential no-hitters - history. Albert Pujols chasing monthly records - history. The potential for a four home run game - history. I don't care who's playing, but I would much rather see a pitcher try for a no-hitter than I would see a 13-3 game.

If you've seen other examples, please give more exampels. I just don't see how this is something you could be upset about. Just me though.

(Happy? I hate the Yankees, I hate the Red Sox, and I rationally addressed your concerns without bringing up the Yankees-Red Sox implications.)Happy? Yes! Thank you. But you may be misunderstanding or underestimating my ire. As I put in an earlier post, I was upset over how they interrupt, how often they interrupt, and why. Let me expand on these.

How they interrupt: The interruptions either completely replace the original game, or the original game is shown in a smaller PIP window while the new event is shown in a larger PIP window. I can live with two PIP windows, but my personal preference is for the 'interrupting' event to be in the smaller window. (I think that's how FOX does it, but could be wrong.) My real objection is when the interrupting event replaces the original event without PIP. When this happens and I don't care about the new event, I have no reason to keep my eyes on the tube. If they used a PIP window, at least I could follow the action of the original event.

How often they interrupt: Every 30 minutes for the 30 at 30 update. To me, it's overkill. This is not ESPNnews, it's ESPN. Show the game, skip the updates.

Why they interrupt: To present news updates, to show the announcers every other inning, or for breaking news. I can live with breaking news, because as you say, there may be some historical significance. There's already a ticker showing news updates, though, so why do we need the live updates every 30 minutes? If I want news from ESPN, I could swith to ESPNnews or wait for the post-game coverage. As stated above, I'm here to watch a game, not get news. (Yes, FOX does this during Saturday MLB games, too, but it's not every 30 minutes.) As to the announcers - I don't know why this bothers me, but it does. Do I need to see them every other inning?

Am I being rational here? Probably not. But see my first post: I'm away from home and having TiVo withdrawal! :D

[tomm1079]

i am a cubs fan and i always hate the e(astern)spn...

This is a shock actually cause all espn always does is east coast teams and bonds (not even the guilty stuff about bonds)....

It was a great game u got to watch though :) 7 1/3 inning of no hit ball is pretty good.. surpized they didnt wait till the 9th though

[cherry ghost]

Why didn't you flip over to the YES network?

[TomK]

Wasn't the Red Sox - Yankees game a 13-5 score at the time? Hardly a cliffhanger not to be interrupted for a couple minutes. In general I'd always want to see 'developing situations' interrupt a normal situation.

I hate ESPN for forgetting the athletes who don't cause problems and the teams who truly are teams that get along. ESPN is almost unwatchable to me. Please ESPN, we need more pool and poker and 'talk' shows were about 50 loud mouth writers/columnists/analysts sit around see who can yell loudest and say the least.

[Bondelev]

I'm a Red Sox fan, and I'm glad they stopped showing the travesty.

Sincerely, I hate ESPN with passion, but I can't blame them for that interruption. No-hitters are pretty fr!ickin' rare.

[smickola]

As far as no-hitters go...I think I saw something recently that this is the longest period in a while between no-hitters. Wasn't the last one Randy Johnson's perfect game with the D-Backs? So yes, as much as I hate ESPN, and I DO hate everything they stand for and have done to sports, a no-hitter is big news...

[drew2k]

Cool - now we're getting somewhere! Glad to see I'm not alone loathing ESPN.

smickola: If the last no-hitter was Randy Johnson with Diamond Backs, that had to be at least 2004, so yes, it's been awhile! You'd think ESPN, being the responsible "news" organization, would have announced that when they disclosed the "developing situation" and cut to the Cubs game. If they put the game in context and framed it more as, hey, here's why this is significant, I'd have been less perturbed.

cherry ghost: Was the game shown on YES? I thought it was national, with only ESPN covering.

[Frylock]

I am annoyed by ESPN doing this as well. Like when I tried to watch PTI yesterday, but kept getting Michelle Wie updates interrupting my program!

[Sparty99]

Happy? Yes! Thank you. But you may be misunderstanding or underestimating my ire. As I put in an earlier post, I was upset over how they interrupt, how often they interrupt, and why. Let me expand on these.

How they interrupt: The interruptions either completely replace the original game, or the original game is shown in a smaller PIP window while the new event is shown in a larger PIP window. I can live with two PIP windows, but my personal preference is for the 'interrupting' event to be in the smaller window. (I think that's how FOX does it, but could be wrong.) My real objection is when the interrupting event replaces the original event without PIP. When this happens and I don't care about the new event, I have no reason to keep my eyes on the tube. If they used a PIP window, at least I could follow the action of the original event.

How often they interrupt: Every 30 minutes for the 30 at 30 update. To me, it's overkill. This is not ESPNnews, it's ESPN. Show the game, skip the updates.

Why they interrupt: To present news updates, to show the announcers every other inning, or for breaking news. I can live with breaking news, because as you say, there may be some historical significance. There's already a ticker showing news updates, though, so why do we need the live updates every 30 minutes? If I want news from ESPN, I could swith to ESPNnews or wait for the post-game coverage. As stated above, I'm here to watch a game, not get news. (Yes, FOX does this during Saturday MLB games, too, but it's not every 30 minutes.) As to the announcers - I don't know why this bothers me, but it does. Do I need to see them every other inning?

Am I being rational here? Probably not. But see my first post: I'm away from home and having TiVo withdrawal! :D
That's what you're getting upset about?!? Has their 30-on-30 interruptions ever prevented you from seeing a pitch? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it's no. Those updates provide people who may not be interested in the game a quick window to tune into ESPN, see what the big stories are, and change back.

And I was going to yell at people about ESPN's bias, until I checked their schedule. I'm out of town, so I was hoping that one of the White Sox-Tigers games would show up on an ESPN network. No such luck. The Red Sox-Yankees series is being shown on ESPN/ESPN2 Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Talk about overkill.

[sschwart]

cherry ghost: Was the game shown on YES? I thought it was national, with only ESPN covering.

It was shown on YES. That's where I watched it :)

[MikeMar]

I'm watching ESPN in a hotel and really missing my TiVo, and almost as bad, the TV has crappy reception. But ESPN just pushed me over the edge a few minutes ago.

ESPN just interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox game for about 10 minutes due to a "developing situation", and displayed the MLB logo. I was expecting something related to Bonds or steroids or a major injury, but instead, ESPN shows "bonus coverage" of the Cubs game. It's the bottom of the 8th and the "situation" is the Cubs pitcher is throwing a no-hitter.

Big F'n Deal!!!!! This is a "situation"? Worthy of interrupting coverage of another event??? Could ESPN at least put the Yankees-Red Sox game in a PIP window? No! Forget the reason you're watching ESPN in the first place, enjoy our bonus coverage instead!

The worst thing is the no-hitter was broken up about 5 minutes later, and when the Yanks-Sox game resumed, the announcers didn't even recap what we missed.

Granted, it's a Yanks blow-out over the Sox right now, but so what - stop freaking interrupting the game! You get a non-stop sports ticker, frequent cuts to show the announcers (maybe just to prove that Sudcliffe is sober?), the annoying 30 at 30 studio updates, and a lot of other distractions.

Boy, do I just hate ESPN right now. :mad:

Glad I was watching on NESN :) Didn't even know it was on ESPN

[Guindalf]

I don't care WHAT they show, I just wish they'd take the time to comment on the GAME and not everything else in the world instead. I don't need to hear about how the current pitcher's wife shows in WalMart or that the team we're watching had a playing in the 1930s who could climb the Green Monster!

If it wasn't for TiVo (and in the days before I got TiVo - I can barely remember them), I would put the radio coverage on with the ESPN pics.

[footballdude]

I haven't turned on ESPN in years. They've ALWAYS had an east coast bias in their reporting. Hockey coverage was always extended highlights of the Rangers and Islanders with a few quick scenes from fly over country games.

The last straw came a few years ago when I had SportCenter on early in the morning during my workout. They spent twenty minutes talking about Snoop Dog and how much he likes youth football.

[Sirius Black]

Maybe I'm just not that much of an avid watch of sports events but what has ESPN "done to sports"? A summarized top-10 will do just fine.

Personally I think NBC's coverage of the Olympics is far more damaging than anything ESPN could do to sports.

[Chunky]

Baseball sucks a$$ anyway! I hope next time, they cut in with PBA Bowling. And I don't appreciate Baseball cutting in when I am watching ESPN...so quit your crying! :D

[TomK]

"52 reasons why ESPN sucks" --> http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/?p=1406

[lambertman]

The last straw came a few years ago when I had SportCenter on early in the morning during my workout. They spent twenty minutes talking about Snoop Dog and how much he likes youth football.

With ESPNEWS increasingly available, SportsCenter has pretty much been devoid of sports news. Hopefully they resist mucking *that* up, too.

[durl]

I'm tired of ESPN, too. I no longer wear my ESPN tshirt out in public. I don't like their interruptions and I LOATHE their full-time ticker at the bottom of the screen during games.

Sportscenter is bland. It's become a human interest show with a few 10-second highlights of a game. Well, unless it's Yankees/ Red Sox, then they'll spend 30 minutes analyzing the game. I do watch Baseball Tonight although I don't really enjoy the show. I just want to see highlights and that's about the only place I can see them, even if they're just 20-30 blurbs. After the blurb, we get a minute of analysis and predictions from 3 talking heads.

During baseball season, they're SO fixated on the Red Sox and the Yankees. I understand that they're major markets and good teams, but they seem to forget that other teams (and other FANS) exist.

I remember early in this season, Baseball Tonight had a phone interview with Bronson Arroyo, now with the Cincinnati Reds but he was with the Red Sox last year. Arroyo just came off a great performance and was undefeated. After asking Arroyo one question about the game he just won, the host started asking Arroyo about what he thought about the Yankees/Red Sox game that night (as if he were watching the game while sitting in the dugout) and how he felt about NOT playing for Boston. The most important thing to the host was Arroyo's connection to Boston.

It's getting old. The time is right for another sports network to step up and take advantage of ESPN's blunders.

[footballdude]

The time is right for another sports network to step up and take advantage of ESPN's blunders.
That's happening. Outdoor Life Network is changing it's name to Versus and is going to try to compete with ESPN.

[Rkkeller]

Big F'n Deal!!!!! This is a "situation"? Worthy of interrupting coverage of another event???


Just as bad, my local stations broke in to every show that was on before when Bonds was at bat trying to break the Babes record. Its worse as they weren't even sports shows that were on and every time he went up to bat, they broke in and showed it. The Babes still #2 in "my" record book.

[murgatroyd]

I agree with your comemnts that they should be talking about the game, and not all the other crap. But with the interruption the OP started the rant about -- hey, at least they are interrrupting baseball with baseball!

I hate NBC's stupid sports-news updates that they shove into everything. I have turned in to watch horse racing, I want to see horse racing. I don't give a flip about what's going on in basketball or anywhere else. If I want to know all that news, I can read a newspaper (online or otherwise). Show me the f-ing sport that I turned on to see. And yes, talk about the event while you are showing it. And while you are at it, ix-nay on describing it by means of metaphors or terms from other sports. So tired of hearing about touchdowns when I'm not watching football, homeruns when I'm not watching baseball, slam dunks when I'm not watching basketball, etc. etc. etc.

I can see some reason to borrow "hat trick" from hockey but some of these other borrowings are just plain ridiculous.

My other rant is when they show highlights from games that are not the game in progress. In baseball it's annoying enough, but during the Olympics, they showed so many highlights from other Olympics, I wondered if we would ever get to see any of the current games.

So despite the form of my rant I'm in total agreement with the OP. Show me the f-ing sports that I tuned in to see.

Jan

[durl]

That's happening. Outdoor Life Network is changing it's name to Versus and is going to try to compete with ESPN.

I knew that OLN wanted to move up a bit (landing the NHL contract was part of that plan) but I hadn't heard that they're changing their name.

I believe that change will definitely help them. I watched the end of the Oilers/Hurricanes game last night while my wife was in the room. She thought it was odd that "Outdoor Life Network" was showing hockey. A name change can do wonders.

I'm anxious to see how it looks when they make the change.

[drew2k]

Has their 30-on-30 interruptions ever prevented you from seeing a pitch? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it's no. Actually, yes, I have seen a couple of games where they mistimed the length of the update or the speed of the pitcher, and the pitch was delivered while the on-screen graphics were going buh-bye. Pitch not shown.
And I was going to yell at people about ESPN's bias, until I checked their schedule. I'm out of town, so I was hoping that one of the White Sox-Tigers games would show up on an ESPN network. No such luck. The Red Sox-Yankees series is being shown on ESPN/ESPN2 Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Talk about overkill.I agree, the importance placed on the Sox/Yankees games has been elevated to levels dangerously close to "sensationalism" by all of the media. In the NY market, talk starts a good week-and-a-half before the series even begins, and finishes a week after the series ends. It's all consuming and tiresome.

I can't speak to how annoyed the rest of the country must be at the attention paid to this localized rivalry, but if it's annoying to THIS New Yorker, I'm sure it's at least doubly-annoying to the out-of-towners.

[drew2k]

But with the interruption the OP started the rant about -- . . .

Jan :o Wow. I can't be sure, but I think this may indeed be my first honest-to-goodness full-on rant in the TC Forums since I joined in 2003. Sure, I've had a few grumpy posts and some minor whines, but a rant? I don't know whether to be ashamed that I finally succumbed, or proud that I held-out for as long as I did.

I think I'll choose to be proud. ;)

[murgatroyd]

What are friends for, if not to listen to rants? Not to worry.

No recap when they went back to your game? ESPN sucks.

Jan (spoiled by Krukow and Kuiper)

[cheesesteak]

I hate ESPN's addiction to overkill. BondsBondsBondsBondsBonds. TO.TO.TO.TO.TO.TO. Yanks/SoxYanks/SoxYanks/SoxYanks/SoxYanks/Sox. Ad infinitum. I shudder to think what'll happen if Danica Patrick ever wins a race or Michelle Wie ever makes the cut at an important tournament.

[bullitt]

I'm a Red Sox fan, and I'm glad they stopped showing the travesty.

Sincerely, I hate ESPN with passion, but I can't blame them for that interruption. No-hitters are pretty fr!ickin' rare.

I hate them as well, does Jon Miller or Joe Morgan ever shut up? They just babble on about everthing and anything. At least Tim Mcarver explains strategy. They should take a page from some of the old timers like Vin Scully and pause to let the sound of the game through. Do we really need on the field babes to tell us that Derek Jeter loves to play in critical games. The biggest waste of time in my opinion is the propensity to review every at bat, pitch by pitch.

[TonyD79]

At least Tim Mcarver explains strategy.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Thanks for my laugh of the day. Criticizing Miller then using McCarver as an example of goodness!

Hahahahahahahahaha.

[Steveknj]

I haven't turned on ESPN in years. They've ALWAYS had an east coast bias in their reporting. Hockey coverage was always extended highlights of the Rangers and Islanders with a few quick scenes from fly over country games.

The last straw came a few years ago when I had SportCenter on early in the morning during my workout. They spent twenty minutes talking about Snoop Dog and how much he likes youth football.


Could be the fact that ESPN is based in...CT...the East Coast. And I have always thought Fox has had a West Coast bias....since they are based in....Hollywood!!

ESPN, over the last 5 or 6 years have gone away from what was their core...showing various games and reporting on such to being a "Sports Entertainment" channel, taking literally their name. So rather than just show the games, they HAVE to entertain you with a bunch of inane graphics, cutaways and the like. And I'm not even going to talk about the various inane sports entertainment shows they push. Hey ESPN, if I wanted to watch a movie, I'll flip on HBO!!

Regarding this particular situation....I agree with ESPN this time, a no-hitter trumps a 13-5 blowout (and I'm a Yankees fan...watched on YES though), but I would agree also that a PIP of the game you were watching was warrented. The problem is, ESPN has so much screen clutter now with the scorebox at top and the scrolling NEWS/SCORES at the bottom, that if they showed a PIP box, you wouldn't see the no-hiiter!! THAT is one of my pet peaves with ESPN....WHY do they have to continually distract their viewers by constantly scrolling stuff at the bottom of the screen? Like you said, one click to ESPN News and you can get the scores, not to mention people have the scores at their fingertips these days on their cell phones or the internet. Scrolling the scores say every other inning would be sufficient. Even FOX, whose coverage I hate in general, show the scores revolving in a less distracting small bug on the top of the screen.

[Steveknj]

Baseball sucks a$$ anyway! I hope next time, they cut in with PBA Bowling. And I don't appreciate Baseball cutting in when I am watching ESPN...so quit your crying! :D

This isn't about baseball bashing. ESPN pulls the same crap when showing games of the No Fun League or the National Basketball Thug Association too.

[Steveknj]

That's happening. Outdoor Life Network is changing it's name to Versus and is going to try to compete with ESPN.

Good luck to them. Personally I hate the new name. Unless OLN (or Versus), can reach as many households as ESPN AND can bring in the NFL, they can't compete with ESPN.


Of course they said Fox News could never compete with CNN either. The problem is, in today's climate of instant gratification, I can't see Comcast sticking it out too long if the format isn't an instant success. Fox News was successful because the politics of the country changed and they had compelling shows to bring in views. The NHL, as much as I love hockey, will never bring in enough viewers to hurt ESPN.

[Steveknj]

Just as bad, my local stations broke in to every show that was on before when Bonds was at bat trying to break the Babes record. Its worse as they weren't even sports shows that were on and every time he went up to bat, they broke in and showed it. The Babes still #2 in "my" record book.

What record? Babe doesn't HOLD that record. But he's still the babe...

[Steveknj]

I agree with your comemnts that they should be talking about the game, and not all the other crap. But with the interruption the OP started the rant about -- hey, at least they are interrrupting baseball with baseball!

I hate NBC's stupid sports-news updates that they shove into everything. I have turned in to watch horse racing, I want to see horse racing. I don't give a flip about what's going on in basketball or anywhere else. If I want to know all that news, I can read a newspaper (online or otherwise). Show me the f-ing sport that I turned on to see. And yes, talk about the event while you are showing it. And while you are at it, ix-nay on describing it by means of metaphors or terms from other sports. So tired of hearing about touchdowns when I'm not watching football, homeruns when I'm not watching baseball, slam dunks when I'm not watching basketball, etc. etc. etc.

I can see some reason to borrow "hat trick" from hockey but some of these other borrowings are just plain ridiculous.

My other rant is when they show highlights from games that are not the game in progress. In baseball it's annoying enough, but during the Olympics, they showed so many highlights from other Olympics, I wondered if we would ever get to see any of the current games.

So despite the form of my rant I'm in total agreement with the OP. Show me the f-ing sports that I tuned in to see.

Jan

I happen to like when they update ALL sports, not just the sport you are watching? Sometimes I have to decide to watch a football game, but want to know the score of the baseball game too. Yeah, I can flip during commercials, but it's not a bad thing to have NBC tell me everything that is going on in sports so I don't have to flip.

As for the Olympics, I think people WANT to see highlights from other Olympics to put into perspective what they are seeing currently. The Olympics is so steeped in history, that it is part of the fabric of every game. In reality, I thought NBCs coverage of these last Olympics was great, and there was a lot less human interest crap than normal, especially if you watched the coverage on the cable nets like USA or MSNBC.

[Steveknj]

Actually, yes, I have seen a couple of games where they mistimed the length of the update or the speed of the pitcher, and the pitch was delivered while the on-screen graphics were going buh-bye. Pitch not shown.
I agree, the importance placed on the Sox/Yankees games has been elevated to levels dangerously close to "sensationalism" by all of the media. In the NY market, talk starts a good week-and-a-half before the series even begins, and finishes a week after the series ends. It's all consuming and tiresome.

I can't speak to how annoyed the rest of the country must be at the attention paid to this localized rivalry, but if it's annoying to THIS New Yorker, I'm sure it's at least doubly-annoying to the out-of-towners.

I have to agree with you. It's like there is every other series and then the Yankees Red Sox. I'm rooting for the Blue Jays to sneak in ahead of the Sox and make the rivalry moot in Sept. But it's like this in all sports. There's always some team that is over hyped. In NFL, it is the Cowboys, who I couldn't care less about, but no matter how bad they are, we have to endure them at least 2x on MFN football and another 2x on SNF, plus all those inanae shows about the cheerleaders, et al. In the NBA, it is the Lakers, who seem to be on the game of the week EVERY week. I think, last time I checked, there are 29 other teams in the league. It's one of the reasons why I don't watch the NBA. But the networks love to hype the stars that come out and watch the games, many of whom work for the networks or their sister companies in the movie industry. For baseball, the Yankees, and the Sox rivalry is the equivalent.

[Fleck]

Im starting to despise ESPN (and baseball) too now. Nevermind the cutting to other games and 30/30 updates, how about the fact that they go to commercial after every half inning! Thats a minimum of 16 commercial breaks during the telecast, and dont forget about pitching changes, injuries, extra innings... its horrible. Even with Tivo.

Whats with all the damn poker too? I like poker, but jeez to we need to see reruns from the 2004 wsop all day every day? two years later? we all know who wins by now...

The WORST by far was this one Saturday when I was planning on watching an (read: the only) MLS game on ESPN2 and Reagan died. ABC was showing WNBA and it got bumped to the duece for the Reagan coverage (hours of reporters basically saying "yep he's still dead") and they bumped the MLS right off the air. I was so pissed I just about threw my remote through the television!! :mad:

[Steveknj]

Im starting to despise ESPN (and baseball) too now. Nevermind the cutting to other games and 30/30 updates, how about the fact that they go to commercial after every half inning! Thats a minimum of 16 commercial breaks during the telecast, and dont forget about pitching changes, injuries, extra innings... its horrible. Even with Tivo.

Whats with all the damn poker too? I like poker, but jeez to we need to see reruns from the 2004 wsop all day every day? two years later? we all know who wins by now...

The WORST by far was this one Saturday when I was planning on watching an (read: the only) MLS game on ESPN2 and Reagan died. ABC was showing WNBA and it got bumped to the duece for the Reagan coverage (hours of reporters basically saying "yep he's still dead") and they bumped the MLS right off the air. I was so pissed I just about threw my remote through the television!! :mad:

You're kidding right? Have you watched a baseball game in the last 40 years? Baseball has ALWAYS had commercials after every half inning except for rare circumstances (an injury to a player they are tracking, fan reaction to some big event, like that). This is done on local coverage, network coverage, everywhere and it's been done since I started watching baseball 40 years ago...

I agree about the poker. When did poker become a sport? And I would put darts and the spelling bee in that category too. Best left to the game show channel. But can't blame ESPN for not getting in on the poker craze. For awhile it was getting HUGE ratings...better than some of their live sports. But that too will fade over time, like all other fads.

As for Reagan dying and MLS, Reagan dying is a big deal, and ABC decided that show scheduled to run on network TV has preference over a show scheduled to run on cable. I can see that happening and I understand the reasoning. Basketball, even WNBA is most definitely more popular in the US than MLS soccer. It's a matter of upsetting the least amount of viewers I suppose and you got caught in it.

ESPN does a lot of stupid things, which I have posted, but I can see their reason in everyone of your cases...

[bidger]

Im starting to despise ESPN (and baseball) too now. Nevermind the cutting to other games and 30/30 updates, how about the fact that they go to commercial after every half inning!
And you've seen a provider who doesn't do that? I've been watching MLB for 35 years now and I've never seen a carrier who didn't break for commercials after the top and bottom half of every inning.

[murgatroyd]

I happen to like when they update ALL sports, not just the sport you are watching? Sometimes I have to decide to watch a football game, but want to know the score of the baseball game too. Yeah, I can flip during commercials, but it's not a bad thing to have NBC tell me everything that is going on in sports so I don't have to flip.

Yes, but -- putting the update at the very beginning of a show? Puh-leeze! A Live TV viewer has very likely just finished watching / channel surfing past a lot of that other stuff while waiting for the show to start.

As for the Olympics, I think people WANT to see highlights from other Olympics to put into perspective what they are seeing currently. The Olympics is so steeped in history, that it is part of the fabric of every game. In reality, I thought NBCs coverage of these last Olympics was great, and there was a lot less human interest crap than normal, especially if you watched the coverage on the cable nets like USA or MSNBC.

Sure, historical context is great, but a lot of the time, I felt that NBC was spending more time covering the previous Olympics than they were paying attention to the one that was going on at the moment. Which is the ultimate in tape delay -- four years (plus three more hours for us West Coasters).

Jan

[murgatroyd]

smickola: If the last no-hitter was Randy Johnson with Diamond Backs, that had to be at least 2004, so yes, it's been awhile! You'd think ESPN, being the responsible "news" organization, would have announced that when they disclosed the "developing situation" and cut to the Cubs game. If they put the game in context and framed it more as, hey, here's why this is significant, I'd have been less perturbed.

Well, here's something you haven't considered.

They can't announce that a no-hitter is in progress. That would be a jinx. ;)

Therefore they have to call it a "developing situation" and just show it to you, so you can figure out what the "situation" is.

Jan

[Steveknj]

Well, here's something you haven't considered.

They can't announce that a no-hitter is in progress. That would be a jinx.

Therefore they have to call it a "developing situation" and just show it to you, so you can figure out what the "situation" is.

Jan

well that isn't quite true. I've seen many successful and non-successful no hitters where they announce that it's happening, including the preverbial ticker on the bottom of the screen...

[murgatroyd]

/me edits previous message to add smiley....

Jan

[Bars & Tone]

...They can't announce that a no-hitter is in progress. That would be a jinx. ;)
Hmmmm...I wonder how far removed from the situation one must be before talking about it isn't a jinx. I know that you can't say it aloud in the presence of the individual involved, but is everyone prohibited from saying it?

[DevdogAZ]

Sure, historical context is great, but a lot of the time, I felt that NBC was spending more time covering the previous Olympics than they were paying attention to the one that was going on at the moment. Which is the ultimate in tape delay -- four years (plus three more hours for us West Coasters).

Jan
The problem with TV coverage of the Olympics is that a majority of the events are mere seconds, but they have several hours of time to fill. They can't just sit there and show the event and nothing else, or their coverage that started at 8 p.m would be over by 8:15. Sure, there are exceptions to this, and those events usually get shown quite extensively. But the majority of events and short and you can't really command a TV audience for an hour with coverage of a 1-2 minute event without talking about extraneous stuff.

In fact, you specifically mention horse racing and how you don't like that they show other stuff when you tune in to watch a race. However, what do you expect them to talk about for 2 hours leading up to a 2 minute race? They're going to show highlights from previous year's races, highlights from previous races that year, interviews with trainers, owners, and jockeys, puff pieces about some human interest story somehow related to the sport, etc. This is the only way to get viewers to watch (and advertisers to pay for) two hours for a two minute event. I really can't believe you're criticizing the way they televise the Olympics out one side of your mouth and then saying just the opposite about horse racing out the other.

Oh, and just to keep it on topic, ESPN sucks! ;)

[TomK]

The problem with TV coverage of the Olympics is that a majority of the events are mere seconds, but they have several hours of time to fill. They can't just sit there and show the event and nothing else, or their coverage that started at 8 p.m would be over by 8:15. Sure, there are exceptions to this, and those events usually get shown quite extensively. But the majority of events and short and you can't really command a TV audience for an hour with coverage of a 1-2 minute event without talking about extraneous stuff.

The answer is to show more events and have less extraneous stuff.

[Steveknj]

In fact, you specifically mention horse racing and how you don't like that they show other stuff when you tune in to watch a race. However, what do you expect them to talk about for 2 hours leading up to a 2 minute race? They're going to show highlights from previous year's races, highlights from previous races that year, interviews with trainers, owners, and jockeys, puff pieces about some human interest story somehow related to the sport, etc. This is the only way to get viewers to watch (and advertisers to pay for) two hours for a two minute event. I really can't believe you're criticizing the way they televise the Olympics out one side of your mouth and then saying just the opposite about horse racing out the other.

Oh, and just to keep it on topic, ESPN sucks! ;)

I personally can't understand why you need a 2 hour show to cover a 2 minute horse race like any of the Triple Crown races. An hour would be sufficient. Does anyone but die hard racing fans actually WATCH all two hours? I flip it on about 15 minutes before the race, watch the parade of horses as they go into the gate, watch the race, and if there's an iquiry watch the replay of the race, otherwise turn it off. I guess they get enough advertising dollars to warrant 2 hours though.

[murgatroyd]

The problem with TV coverage of the Olympics is that a majority of the events are mere seconds, but they have several hours of time to fill. They can't just sit there and show the event and nothing else, or their coverage that started at 8 p.m would be over by 8:15. Sure, there are exceptions to this, and those events usually get shown quite extensively. But the majority of events and short and you can't really command a TV audience for an hour with coverage of a 1-2 minute event without talking about extraneous stuff.

In fact, you specifically mention horse racing and how you don't like that they show other stuff when you tune in to watch a race. However, what do you expect them to talk about for 2 hours leading up to a 2 minute race? They're going to show highlights from previous year's races, highlights from previous races that year, interviews with trainers, owners, and jockeys, puff pieces about some human interest story somehow related to the sport, etc. This is the only way to get viewers to watch (and advertisers to pay for) two hours for a two minute event. I really can't believe you're criticizing the way they televise the Olympics out one side of your mouth and then saying just the opposite about horse racing out the other.

Oh, and just to keep it on topic, ESPN sucks! ;)

You must not be a horseracing fan -- otherwise you would know there is more than one race run in any given day.

Horse racing is the place where ESPN actually doesn't suck. They often have racing from several different racetracks, and going back and forth allows them to nicely give background on who is running and do a little handicapping talk and show the race and show the post-race analysis and then they move over to the other track.

By interleaving the broadcasts from more than one track, the viewer doesn't have to wait the full time between races that fans would have at the racetrack. On the other hand, if you were actually at the racetrack, very often you too could also bet on races from other venues and watch those races on the monitors.

For the Olympics, I watched NBC's Triplecast from Barcelona, where we got continuous coverage with commentary and no commercials. There are plenty of things to watch if you can see the whole event, rather than cherry-picking to get onlly the performances of athletes from the USA. By seeing the whole competiton, you understand the individual performance in the context of the competition as a whole. Thus you get a much better idea of just how great the great performances are.

Edited to add: yes, I'm going to be watching all the stuff from Belmont Park all day Saturday. You guys who watch team sports get to watch whole games all the friggin' time, so don't begrudge me my six hours of horse racing.

Imagine what it would be like if you only got to see three double-headers all year long, and the rest of the time, you only got highlights of one or two plays on the news. That's pretty much what horseracing fans got until very recently when ESPN and the broadcast networks actually started to cover more than the Triple Crown races.

Jan

[Bondelev]

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Thanks for my laugh of the day. Criticizing Miller then using McCarver as an example of goodness!

Hahahahahahahahaha.


http://www.shutuptimmccarver.com/gems.htm

[EchoBravo]

Hockey coverage was always extended highlights of the Rangers and Islanders with a few quick scenes from fly over country games.What hockey coverage? It's truly disheartening to know I've missed the first Stanley Cup tournament since they first became nationally televised... Then I turn on ESPN and see poker or a regular season Royals-Mariners game. I even scheduled my Las Vegas vacation during the playoffs, hoping to catch some action from within a sportsbook... But nobody in the U.S. cares, it seems. It was all baseball and harness racing. Guess I'll just have to give it up and be a NASCAR fan instead.

The last straw came a few years ago when I had SportCenter on early in the morning during my workout. They spent twenty minutes talking about Snoop Dog and how much he likes youth football. I actually liked that piece. I don't mind non-pure sports stories if they're interesting and, to me, that one was.

[murgatroyd]

What hockey coverage? It's truly disheartening to know I've missed the first Stanley Cup tournament since they first became nationally televised...

What, no auto-recording wishlist? You don't have OLN?

Cycling fans know where the hockey is. They're run a bazillion promos during the cycling coverage on Sunday afternoons.

Jan

[aindik]

Hmmmm...I wonder how far removed from the situation one must be before talking about it isn't a jinx. I know that you can't say it aloud in the presence of the individual involved, but is everyone prohibited from saying it?

A week or so ago, I jinxed a Tom Glavine perfect game by saying "perfect game" to my wife while I was watching. And I was watching it on a TiVo the day after it happened.


;)

[Z-Todd]

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Thanks for my laugh of the day. Criticizing Miller then using McCarver as an example of goodness!

Hahahahahahahahaha.

I got a laugh too. The difference between Miller and McCarver is like the difference between a day old hamburger and a filet mignon steak.