Latest offering from ESPN Ombudsman

I agree with Oz on this one, in a way. I can't afford to pay for MLB.tv and when would I watch it? All the games are on when I am at work.
The only Yankees games I really, really want to see are against the Red Sox. I think we could all do without the random Yankees-Devil Rays games on Monday afternoons, when there is a full slate and other teams could be on.
I too have not seen the Brewers play this year and would like to. The Angels and the White Sox however? Meh.

 

I will say that cutting Baseball Tonight to 20 minutes from an hour hurt the WWL's chances of representing all nooks and crannies of the MLB world. Stoopid decision. When it was an hour, I think more corners were more represented. But that's a separate argument from, "Waah, the Yankees-Red Sox game is on again." The former argument has a mile more merit, since any game any night is pretty much available to everyone. Not seeing enough Angels? Not ESPN's problem.

 

As Angola said, MLB.tv doesn't help me any given my night hours and that you must watch the game live. Oh, but I can DVR the Yankees on ESPN!

 

Fixed.

 

Oh, so now WGN, TBS and local teams make it OK for ESPN from showing the same teams all the time?

And dools, I don't get WGN here. Not that the Braves or Cubs or a local National League market would help a fan of an American League team not living in that market see their team on TV.

 

Like I said, MLB.tv doesn't do anything for a guy who works nights when you would have to watch the games live. It's a poor option, at best.

 

It's not ESPN's job to accommodate every work schedule and every taste. Every game is available. Whether you're doing the availing is not ESPN's problem.

 

Since when is covering the two teams in two of the biggest markets with the two largest fanbases bad business?
Like Dooley said, ESPN can cover who they want, when they want. And if you haven't seen the Brewers yet, that's your fault. They just finished a series with Atlanta. At least two games were on TV. I know, I know -- we all work nights. And it isn't fair that you have to pay extra for DVR. Guess what -- one game was on at 1 p.m.

Out. Of. Excuses.

 

Football is a national sport with local games, so the topics discussed on national outlets tend to be more varied (the Brady/Manning indulgence aside). Baseball is a regional sport, which affects the way it's covered. ESPN can set a baseball agenda of sorts, but that really doesn't matter to fans of the, say, Cardinals, who follow their team through local avenues.

 

As a hockey fan, my problem with ESPN is that since they have the rights to the NBA, they cover the hell out of that, put on dopey Stu Scott (bigger dick in person than on TV), run a thousand stupid commercials for games that are boring at best, and mostly impossible to watch. Meanwhile, the NHL just completed a thrilling, exciting two months of playoffs, but you never see any of it, because ESPN can't make any money off it.

ESPN has gone from the CNN of sports to an infomercial for their rights-holders. I just hope that Comcast will invest the money in Versus and turn that into a national sports network that could and should go head to head with the supposed "world-wide leader."

And in regard to their baseball coverage, someone can correct me if I'm mistaken, but when Sunday Night Baseball debuted, their mandate was to hit every MLB park, which meant every fan everywhere would get the chance to see their home park and home team in the national spotlight. I haven't kept tabs recently, but it sounds like they've unfortunately gotten away from this to scream about all things Yankees-Red Sox.

And as far as Baseball Tonight, once they got rid of Harold Reynolds and pushed Peter Gammons to glorified sideline reporter, I gave up. Karl Ravech is great, but any other buffoon they put in as host ruins it. And anything with Steve Philips kind of makes me think of the high school principal from Billy Madison, when he tells Billy that everyone in the room feels dummer for having listened to him talk.

 

It's privately owned, obviously, but at this point ESPN - the television side of it, anyway - is more or less AT&T pre-Reagan. Or CNN, 16 years ago. You're gonna get whatever they give you. Until someone is willing to challenge them with network muscle behind it, not much is going to change. Fox News, love it or hate it, did that. There now has to be the equivalent of a Fox News out there or ESPN is going to keep throwing its muscle around.

Personally, I think it can be had. Disney's had its share of defeats along the way (Miramax, ABC primetime). Cable companies are completely fed up with ESPN's asking price. It'd take a lot of money, and some big gets on sports TV contracts, but it can be had.

 

Too bad the Royals don't play the Braves or Cubs most years. Works for the same for other AL teams. So yeah, there is that.

Not out of excuses yet.