Xtratime Community banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
FSC has outbid ESPN for Champions League Football begining next season.
They already show more MLS matches, than ESPN.
They are the only ones covering the youth and womens game.
They are the only ones covering the A-League, The CONCACAF Champions Cup, EPL (including Setanta), etc, etc, etc.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...0.ap.soc.champions.league.fox.0364/index.html


This is a monumental stroke. ESPN didn't treat the game with the respect it deserves. Football is not a second string entity, yet ESPN gives no respect to the game.

No lead in, unless it's the WC (men or women), even "the national team", the boys that carry the colors into battle, are given little or no respect, IMHO. Maybe now, OUR game will be presented as it should be in OUR country, with the respect it deserves.

The BIG draw back her is that FSC is in less markets that ESPN and is not yet broadcasting in High Def. They need to work on both issues, IMHO, to continue to challenge ESPN going forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69,640 Posts
I'm upset actually, because I think ESPN has done a decent job with the soccer coverage. The only times it bothers me is during SportsCenter when the broadcasters have to insert a joke in the highlight package (which makes them seem disinterested or knocking the sport) or they give the highlights to some ESPN Deportes reporter assuming only Latinos watch the highlights

They do a decent job with the CL, they have a 15 minute pre-game show, they are starting to show Press Pass twice a week, they have a CL highlights show every Friday and I thought they did a goob job with the Euro coverage and it was in HD.

I don't have FSC because whenever I get a free preview it really isn't worth it because you can watch all those games plus more on the internet for free. I know FSC is a young and growing channel, but I'm not interested in seeing repeated EPL games and Aussie soccer either.

The ratings of the Euro and CL games also didn't do too bad on ESPN, but we know their main focus is football, baseball and basketball. I mean they have football shows on everyday even in April. When they lose coverage of a sport they tend to ignore it (look at the NHL) and when they do cover a sport they go over-board with it (Arena Football and Women's basketball)

Not a suppporter of this at all, FSC has to improve themselves if they want me to buy the channel, because in these days you can practically watch anything on the internet.

Also, apparently ESPN are making a push to show EPL matches by 2010, let's hope they at least succeed in that....they have nothing to show on Saturday/Sunday mornings except for re-runs of Sportscenter and fishing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,397 Posts
Damn this sucks, because I've been watching the CL with ESPS360, who looks good on a TV screen as well. And it's actually nice to watch a CL game in HD from time to time. FSC can own all the contract they want, it does no justify the extra $20 a month when online streams are free. Though I must say the CL streams suck:yuck:


BTW TP, FSC owns the EPL contract but they chose to contract it to Setanta.
I thought this was going to be about Calipari to Lexington woooooo
Nope I guess it's about not watching Gourcuff on TV but in some shitty internet stream on wednesdays:moan:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
The big problem is in the numbers...

FSC is not in as many homes as ESPN, and they don't as of yet broadcast in HD. They need to rectify both issues, IMHO.

The REALLY BIG plus is that the game will be given its just deserts; Its propper place as a 1st class sport, and not having to be put on hold for womens billards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,966 Posts
I like that it's going to a channel that gives the game more respect, but honestly it really doesn't matter if its not getting any exposure, because frankly FSC ha a waaaaay smaller a udience than ESPN.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top