There's two choices: 1) Sit there while ESPN shows a live event, as you wait for the soccer game, which you know will surely be joined in progress. Let your blood boil as you curse ESPN. or 2) Flip to another channel that is showing the game. Sure, you may not understand the language, but it's all the same game, isn't it? Turn the sound down and listen to some music. Sure, it may be in SD, but SD is still better than nothing. At least it isn't black and white. Let's flip the situation. Would you rather their policy be to cut out EXACTLY at the time the next program was to start? Imagine what that would mean for...oh, just about everything. You'd have to look to the internet to find out who won 100% of live events that ran over. What they should do is put taped shows between live events to act as buffers. Unfortunately, this isn't possible as much as we would like. As we all know, ESPN (or any channel) doesn't control the start times for events. And yes, I can think of at least twice when FSC stuck with a live event, even if it meant missing the start of the next program. (Petr Cech's injury and the 1998 US Open Cup Final both come to mind.) Now, let's say ESPN ran a ticker saying that the US v France match would be shown in its enterity on a delayed basis, following the conclusion of NASCAR practice. What if the soccer game ran long? They'd *gasp* stick with it until it finished. If their policy was to start things on time, we'd miss the end of the game.
At 4:58 PM ET, Max Bretos said they'd get to discussion and highlights of European teams "when we return". Obviously, this eats into SportsNation. Hopefully, people were smart enough to set additional time on their DVRs.
Didn't that only pre-empt Super Sunday+? I understand the issue with scheduling live events back to back and having one run over into the other - the scheduling thing is on ESPN. But what I always worry about is the last minute re-scheduling and the difficulty in setting a DVR when they move things around at the last minute - especially things that they promote the hell out of ... even if it's just a pre-game show. Yes there are options - there always are options - most less optimal. But that's why we have to look for all possible threats on the horizon - like the JoePa News Tsunami. Hence the original question. BTW I assume Twix1138 is a PSU alumni?
ESPN broke their own rule yesterday as they aired the Nebraska/PSU game at noon which ended around 3:35p and they decided to do a postgame show for about 15 minutes missing the first TD by Michigan against Illinois. More times than not after the coaches shake hands of the first game ESPN goes right to the next live game. Since Happy Valley has been the focus of the world over the last week ESPN thought more coverage of the game was due. What sucks is that they didn't run a crawl on the bottom of the screen that the game could be watched on ESPN3 or ESPN Classic. I went to ESPN3 right as Michigan was lining up to kick the extra point and a couple of minutes later ESPN picked up coverage of the game.
I had a similar problem. In my area the ESPN game was Miami (FL) at Florida State and I root for Florida State. The game was scheduled to start at 3:30 but really started about 3:45 and less than a minute had been played when ESPN went to it. I wonder if ESPN on short notice requested the game to start late. I agree that they should have acknowledged on the bottom that they weren't showing what they were scheduled to show.
I was watching that game too but on ABC and luckily it started on time (or at least the broadcast did). But I'm glad that weekend is over. They beat that story to death during what seemed like every quarter of that game and the Stanford Oregon game afterwards. This is another reason why I hate watching ESPN during big events. I remember living in fear that a Brett Favre retirement or unretirement or an Alex Rodriguez steroids story would pre-empt a Champions League game. That said, it was good to get highlights of the Euro playoffs during the France-USA game.
I can't believe they sent McManaman to Bristol! Just to be in the studio. They could have sent him to Paris on the Eurostar? It would have been cheaper.
Spoiler Alert: Taylor Twellman hosting the studio show with Lalas and Macca providing analysis. Christian Miles weeps. Game is on ESPN2 as advertised, though.
This sucks - Aston Villa V. Tottenham game scheduled for next Monday Nov. 21 is only on ESPN Deportes. Looks like ESPN is showing NFL related programming and ESPN2 has a college basketball game =( Still don't understand why any true fan wants more soccer, especially EPL on ESPN when they treat soccer as a fourth tier sport...
It's on ESPN3 as well. That for me is one of the main reasons I want more soccer on ESPN. ESPN3 gives me a better picture than what I get with Fox Soccer and I never have any issues using it like I've had in the past with the awful Fox Soccer online player.
this is why i think espn will lose there dominance in sports in the next decade. also because theres much more competetion.
Come on - they are only going to have two more months of NFL LIVE and three more months of college basketball! They can't put NFL LIVE or NFL PRIMETIME or college basketball on ESPN3. How do you get a better picture on ESPN 3? I get FSC in HD! So my plasma is going to always have a better picture than ESPN3.
I don't get FSC in HD where I live. Thanks Comcast. Standard definition Fox Soccer looks like a local access channel. Why would they put shows that actually get ratings on ESPN3 instead of soccer?
In an earlier thread someone stated that they put college basketball on this past Tuesday instead of one of the UEFA playoff games. Great. So I am assumming that they are putting on Kansas - Duke in the afternoon. Not quite. It is Memphis vs Belmont? Really? You tell me that Memphis - Belmont is a better offerring than say Portugal - Bosnia? With Portugal - Bosnia they could have hyped the UEFA tournament this summer. But, no we show a basketball game between the number 22 rated (Sagarin) Memphis vs number 62 Belmont. As I said, if it were Florida - Michigan, I get that. Not the above match up. If NFL Live and NFL Primetime get the ratings you suggest. Why show any soccer? Show the prior weeks NFL Live and NFL Primetime on Saturday early AM when they show the Premier League.
Because they cover it (production wise) better than their competitors do so far... because while they've been getting better at it in the past few years, their main competitor (FOX) has been getting worse in covering the sport. Latest news is that Piers Morgan will be covering some upcoming EPL games. Give me ESPN any time despite their flaws.
Honestly I have no problem with the way FSC covers the Premier League. More games, FSC doesn't give scores of other games (something that ESPN does when they have a 9:00 AM kick off which thankfully they haven't had for awhile), FSC shows the Premier League Review show, typically no crawl along the bottom (at least on weekend games - on weekday replays they do have a crawl). I like Darke and MacManaman who I think make a good team. As I said in the past - ESPN did well with the World Cups, Champions League not so much. Euro's we shall see. World Cup Qualifiers for the US - again, we shall see.
How can they cover it better when quite a number of their games are buried on ESPN Deportes , ESPN news and ESPN3 on the internet? Has FSC ever pre-empted a soccer match over a Cheerleader competiion like ESPN did for a Champions League game a few years back? Much rather watch soccer on channel, where soccer is the #1 priority.. I guess I'm old fashioned in that I prefer seeing games on my HDtv than on my laptop on ESPN3.
Really you think games are "buried" by ESPN when they're shown on ESPN News or ESPN Deportes? You put the same game on ESPN News and FSC which channel do you think will get more viewers? Beside that your comparison does not even make sense: ESPN equivalent would be Fox, not FSC. I'd say FSC is to FOX what ESPNU is to ESPN. Therefore, now let's see: How well does Fox treat soccer as opposed to ESPN?
They do fine with the early morning Saturday games. And when they actually showed the ESPN UK games last season on Mondays I loved how they had Rebecca Lowe lead everyone out of the tunnel. But the problem with them is them showing the games they have rights to. ESPN3 is a decent alternative, but it's not the same. 5 more months. Getting worse? how? they have pre/post game shows now, reporters at the grounds for weekend and champions league matches, they have interviews with journalists and players. I hardly see how that is getting worse. I don't. I was glad Healy was on the Arsenal game today. Darke has gotten worse IMO. Huh?!?!?
exactly - just go back to the fact that ESPN is not a free network. An apt comparison to Fox is ABC. To compare FSC to ESPNU ...sheesh..
I thought that there were not any more free over the air networks. You have to have either satellite or cable to get television don't you. Didn't the government sell the over the air bandwidth that "free" Fox or ABC were on? So, aren't all channels pay now?