Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

ESPN.com Sucks


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 GordieSid&Ted

GordieSid&Ted

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 23 September 2009 - 08:38 AM

QUOTE (micah @ September 22, 2009 - 06:05PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not convinced that people who go to ESPN for hockey news know who Heatley or Kessel are.


BINGO!


All of my friends who like sports but not necessarily hockey, have heard of AO and Crosby. They'd have no idea who the hell Kessel or Heatley or Toews or Spezza or Lecavalier are.

We have to face facts, the league wants Crosby/AO to be its Bird/Magic and they're not going to stop riding this pony anytime soon.

Hockey fans know exactly where to go to get scoop on not only their favorite team/players, but also other teams' message boards, prospect sites, etc......Hockey fans know what's up. And they don't go to ESPN.com for hockey coverage. s***....I don't even go to NHL.com for hockey coverage.

Why would I? It's going to be 90% Crosby, 5% AO, 5% the rest of the league.

f*** all that.
Being a mod doesn't make you special.

#22 tdinc

tdinc

    1st Line All-Star

  • Bronze Booster
  • 1,585 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, Michigan

Posted 23 September 2009 - 08:41 AM

This image sums up ESPN's care and knowledge regarding the sport.... hehe.gif



#23 hooon

hooon

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,231 posts
  • Location:Denver

Posted 23 September 2009 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE (GordieSid&Ted @ September 23, 2009 - 08:38AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
BINGO!


All of my friends who like sports but not necessarily hockey, have heard of AO and Crosby. They'd have no idea who the hell Kessel or Heatley or Toews or Spezza or Lecavalier are.

We have to face facts, the league wants Crosby/AO to be its Bird/Magic and they're not going to stop riding this pony anytime soon.

Hockey fans know exactly where to go to get scoop on not only their favorite team/players, but also other teams' message boards, prospect sites, etc......Hockey fans know what's up. And they don't go to ESPN.com for hockey coverage. s***....I don't even go to NHL.com for hockey coverage.

Why would I? It's going to be 90% Crosby, 5% AO, 5% the rest of the league.

f*** all that.



Could be that ESPN not reporting on those players is the reason why your friends and non-hockey fans dont know who they are.
Posted Image

#24 Inultus

Inultus

    Slush ****

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts
  • Location:Lansing, MI

Posted 23 September 2009 - 02:16 PM

QUOTE (auxlepli @ September 23, 2009 - 01:34AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nothing new here.
I've been saying they've sucked for years, and I'm still on a 1.5-year boycott of all things four-letter network related products, not just the website.
C'mon aboard. There's lots of room on this bandwagon.


I take it you don't watch college football then? Look, ESPN is a business and it's their job to give their customers what they want. It's not their job to promote hockey.

Sadly, most of their customers would rather watch poker than hockey. So that's what ESPN gives them.

As a businessman I can totally understand why they dropped hockey after the lockout.

I think ESPN does a great job of covering college and pro sports, just not hockey because they haven't seen the demand for it. Whose fault is that?
"It's been six years since we won the Cup. That's too long." -Nick Lidstrom

"my message is simple: The next time anyone runs any of our guys in a way that shouldn't be done, then a message will be sent. I'm not going to go out and run your skill guys, your superstars. I'm going to go right to the guy (who did it), and fair justice is fair justice." -Downey

#25 auxlepli

auxlepli

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 08:21 AM

I do watch college football, just not on that Mickey Mouse network.
The network's business decision, my decision to boycott it. That's the great thing about a free country.
But I totally disagree with you regarding the four-letter's coverage of sports. Fox Sports does a much better job in my opinion. Fox had a much better highlight show which showed highlights of nearly all games, not just some.

#26 octopusonice

octopusonice

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Location:Wichita, KS

Posted 24 September 2009 - 12:03 PM

To me, the bigger frustration is that hockey coverage overall has declined. First we were reduced to watching VS, now you cannot get it if you have Direct TV. If that wasn't enough, my roomies have decided to get ultra-basic cable, so I'm pretty much limited to watching when NBC covers it, camping out in sports bars or watching over the net on my dinosaur computer.

I think I share a lot of the same problems that everyone else has with ESPN. Heaven help you if you're not a Yankees/Red Sox fan during baseball season, but that's another rant for another day, and as I said earlier, I don't even get ESPN, so griping about them is wasted effort.

It's definitely going to be a challenge to stay in the loop with hockey this season, but at least I have the internet.






#27 wmubronco420

wmubronco420

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 457 posts
  • Location:Kalamazoo/Cadillac, MI

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:06 PM

QUOTE (octopusonice @ September 24, 2009 - 01:03PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To me, the bigger frustration is that hockey coverage overall has declined. First we were reduced to watching VS, now you cannot get it if you have Direct TV. If that wasn't enough, my roomies have decided to get ultra-basic cable, so I'm pretty much limited to watching when NBC covers it, camping out in sports bars or watching over the net on my dinosaur computer.

I think I share a lot of the same problems that everyone else has with ESPN. Heaven help you if you're not a Yankees/Red Sox fan during baseball season, but that's another rant for another day, and as I said earlier, I don't even get ESPN, so griping about them is wasted effort.

It's definitely going to be a challenge to stay in the loop with hockey this season, but at least I have the internet.


I have direct tv and i get versus

Posted Image


#28 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 24 September 2009 - 02:26 PM

i think the thing to remember is just how much power espn has to push the sports it likes. their coverage, or lack thereof, can really form opinions by viewers of whats important. so while you can say 'people want poker more than hockey' that may be true. but it may be true because espn created the market for it. they were very important in helping hockey make strides in many american markets in the 90's. however, much like mtv and music, espn spends less and less time each year actually showing sports. instead they just talk about sports. i think that is huge for a sport like hockey which really captures people with its action. once espn decided not to renew their hockey contract, they seemed to make a decision not to even cover the sport on highlight shows. now the only time they talk about it is when someone gets suspended for attacking another player. its very much a chicken/egg problem. i know hockey is not the most popular u.s. sport, but i think that espn has played a very large factor in that.

I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.






Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users