Can someone please tell me why, after watching the Red Sox play the Yankees on national television for what seems like five days in a row, I once again have the Red Sox in my living room this evening? I spent all day looking forward to the Cubs and Brewers. Anyone with an ounce of sense would be showing the Cubs and Brewers right now. But no, I have the Red Sox again.
Did you hear that Manny is disgruntled?
Did you know that Ortiz is back?
The only way this game becomes interesting to me is if they change the rules in the middle of it to allow the Angels to lose ten games in the standings for a loss, thereby making anything they do at the moment relevant for pennant race purposes.
Did I mention that I was in a bad mood today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I more than wholeheartedly agree. I wonder how those who don't see ESPN as obviously coastal biased defend EPSN's decision to not show Cubs-Brewers.
I've defended ESPN on the coast-bias thing before, conceding that, yes, the Red Sox and Yankees likely give them higher ratings and thus they shouldn't show games no one wants simply out of a sense of fairness or whatever.
But this is different. I sense huge, pent-up demand for the Cubs-Brewers series. It's a big fuckin' deal right now, and it's especially attractive given just how much coverage the Sox have had in the past couple of days. Does ESPN risk lower ratings if it broadcasts the Cubs game? Sure, but not substantially lower ratings, and they'd likely make a lot of people happy. Have some courage once in a while, y'know?
I guess if the Brewers had Brett Favre throw out the first pitch it would have been perfect ESPN bait.
Of course ESPN is biased, but it's just chasing the largest audience. However, I happen to agree 100% because although NESN broadcasts Sox games throughout New England, ESPN still carried LA v. Bos in the region tonight. What sense does that make? I would've gladly watched Milwaukee-Chicago after another beat down from the Halos.
What's craziest is that for much of the day today the Cubs-Brewers series has been the lead story on ESPN's MLB page. So at least *some* part of ESPN gets it.
Not that I care, since I get to see all the Cub games :) but the principle still remains.
P.S. This is one HELL of a game.
Craig: Sure, when there is no better option, go for ratings. But if it's about the competition in a major sport -- not a decision based in "fairness", but an actual race, an actual postseason-altering outcome -- that has to come before the LA and Boston markets.
Otherwise you stop being a sports channel, and you might as well start airing swimsuit pageants featuring Hooters girls.
I would rather have watched Cubs-Brewers as well, but to be fair, the Sox-Angels game had playoff implications as well; in fact, they're remarkably similar - the team with the best record in the league versus the wild card leader. The Sox and Brewers both came in a game out of first, and both are currently 2 games up in the wild card. Cubs-Brewers is probably a bit more important because it's a divisional matchup and their records are so close; on the other hand, I'd say the Red Sox are going to have a bit tougher time holding onto that wild card spot.
And at least the Angels pulled off a beautiful suicide squeeze in the 6th.
A quick question-how much flexibility does ESPN have in choosing games. i have the impression that they are showing a schedule that they set last winter, with maybe a little choice built in later in the season
That was ESPN? I thought I was watching NESN all weekend?
Red Sox - Angels was the easy pick for last night because the regular Monday night crew (Steve Phillips, Orel Hershiser, etc) were in town for Sunday's game to cover for Joe Morgan. So I guess it's more forgivable...but still, are we to believe that ESPN isn't capable of getting a couple announcers from Boston to Milwaukee in one day?
chris, I didn't see Cubs-Brewers on the front page of ESPN.com last night...I saw Manny Ramirez's mug on there, along with a few articles about Red Sox fans whining about him being immature and selfish (as if they just got the memo). [/Midwestern bias]
Well, I, for one, am sick and tired of the Yankees being on ESPN 3 times per month (or more)...they nearly always lose the nationally televised games! Oh, and there is FAR too much Red Sox coverage on ESPN, right down to who is selected for a Web Gem or Touch 'Em All. Of course, ESPN IS based in Connecticut, so...
On a side note, since Peter mentioned the broadcast crew, is there anyone in baseball coverage ANYWHERE, besides Tim McCarver, who knows LESS about baseball than Steve Philips? I mean, is this guy EVER right about anything? Sheesh!
Osmod, you must know that Conn has more Yanks fans than Sox fans, right? Not sure the home office in Conn has much to do with it...I think it's just genreal incompetence.
Tad, I have heard that myth before, but it isn't true (at least in my experience). It seems that everyone in New England is a Sox fan, it's a requirement or something. I suppose there might be a pocket of Yankee loyalists in the tip of Conn that is closest to the Bronx, but the rest of it is Red all the way.
It turns out that Upstate NY is part of Red Sox territory as well. I am reminded of that every time I have a conversation about Rachel Ray ("You like baseball, right? Did you know that she's a Red Sox fan?" Yes, yes I do...even though she grew up in NY state.). I consider them all traitors (come ON...you live in the state that is the name of the team...I don't even get that benefit from my local football team(s), even though they are in MY state and not the one they are named after!).
Man, I wish that red sox / angels game was on national tv tonight so i could have watched lackey go for that no hitter.
Post a Comment