Guide to being a fan of Boston sports

[JL21]

This is pretty much where I'm at. I watch it in the morning while I get ready, to catch up on the happenings in sports. I only really get annoyed when they've obviously beaten a subject to death. It isn't only the big name teams. I'm tired of hearing about how the Rockies have won 21 of 22 games--I know all of their highlights from the last month by heart. I know that the Patriots are still undefeated. What I'd like to see is longer highlights from games that are still going on. They show like 5 total minutes of NHL highlights, even though it's the only pro sport that's going on during the week these days when the baseball playoffs are on hiatus for days at a time.

So in short, instead of telling us again about the stories involving a few teams/players, use that time to show us more highlights of other games. I could also do with less "Is this team better?", "Is this player better?" analysis. More highlights please. Let us decide for ourselves.

--P--

I don't mean this in any smartarse way, but I wonder... had ESPN been as big in the 70's as they are now, would this same sentiment exist about their bias towards the Reds, Pirates, and Orioles? I'm just speculating if the "bias" is because those two particular teams are from the markets that they're from, or if it's because they're generally year in and year out two of the very best teams in the game?

[haltz]

Even if we don't watch, we'll still know that the bias is there. The bias IS what's annoying, and it's not going to stop simply because I change the channel.

Maybe I'm not as good at pretending that it doesn't exist......

I know it exists, but I've made peace with it. I actually don't know what the big deal is. I'm sure ESPN is maximizing their viewership as best they can. It's probably what makes them the giant that they are.

But like I said earlier, it's not the reason that I changed the channel

[jim]

I don't think it's fair to say "don't watch ESPN" either. It's the pre-eminent national sports news outlet. If you want to follow sports and see game recaps, that's pretty much where you have to go.

Why not? I follow baseball just fine without turning it on. It has nothing to do with bias, it's just not good for my temper. If you don't like the product, then find an alternative. No use making yourself miserable.

Words of wisdom to live by Haltz. I rarely turn on ESPN unless I'm watching a game.

Same here, except replace rarely with never ever ever.

[ghostrunner]

It's the free market system. There are more people that care about the Red Sox and Yankees than the Devil Rays and Pirates. Networks want advertising dollars. Advertisers want people. Therefore Networks show more Red Sox and Yankees.

I think if it were that simple the Colts wouldn't get that much coverage, and Peyton Manning wouldn't get so much advertising work.

[Leroy]

Seriously folks, seriously.

Pretend you were at a software meeting all morning and just read this thread and tell me what you would think.

[Socnorb11]

I don't think it's fair to say "don't watch ESPN" either. It's the pre-eminent national sports news outlet. If you want to follow sports and see game recaps, that's pretty much where you have to go.

Why not? I follow baseball just fine without turning it on. It has nothing to do with bias, it's just not good for my temper. If you don't like the product, then find an alternative. No use making yourself miserable.

Even if we don't watch, we'll still know that the bias is there. The bias IS what's annoying, and it's not going to stop simply because I change the channel.

Maybe I'm not as good at pretending that it doesn't exist......

It's the free market system. There are more people that care about the Red Sox and Yankees than the Devil Rays and Pirates. Networks want advertising dollars. Advertisers want people. Therefore Networks show more Red Sox and Yankees.

I totally get that.

I'm not overly annoyed by the ESPN bias. But I don't think a reasonable solution for those that are annoyed is to simply stop watching.

[MDCardsFan]

Sort of like the Cards fans who can only say "1908!" to Cubs fans.

--P--

That would be wrong?

[ghostrunner]

I don't mean this in any smartarse way, but I wonder... had ESPN been as big in the 70's as they are now, would this same sentiment exist about their bias towards the Reds, Pirates, and Orioles? I'm just speculating if the "bias" is because those two particular teams are from the markets that they're from, or if it's because they're generally year in and year out two of the very best teams in the game?

Right. I think ESPN contributes to the issue, but it's mostly the fault of MLB. I keep going back to the NFL. I know there are differences - and those have been laid out well by Popeye and others - but I don't think it's healthy for the sport to have so much focus on two teams. If football can do it, baseball can at least do a better job. The Red Sox have now made it a two team focus, instead of one team. It used to be the Yankees and everyone else.

I think revenue sharing will help, and probably already has. Hopefully in 10 years, the Royals and Reds and Pirates are healthier than they are today. The key is getting all fans interested in the entire league. The NFL does an excellent job there.

[jim]

I don't think it's fair to say "don't watch ESPN" either. It's the pre-eminent national sports news outlet. If you want to follow sports and see game recaps, that's pretty much where you have to go.

Why not? I follow baseball just fine without turning it on. It has nothing to do with bias, it's just not good for my temper. If you don't like the product, then find an alternative. No use making yourself miserable.

Even if we don't watch, we'll still know that the bias is there. The bias IS what's annoying, and it's not going to stop simply because I change the channel.

Maybe I'm not as good at pretending that it doesn't exist......

It's the free market system. There are more people that care about the Red Sox and Yankees than the Devil Rays and Pirates. Networks want advertising dollars. Advertisers want people. Therefore Networks show more Red Sox and Yankees.

I totally get that.

I'm not overly annoyed by the ESPN bias. But I don't think a reasonable solution for those that are annoyed is to simply stop watching.

I don't understand why you would watch it if you don't enjoy it.

[jim]

I don't mean this in any smartarse way, but I wonder... had ESPN been as big in the 70's as they are now, would this same sentiment exist about their bias towards the Reds, Pirates, and Orioles? I'm just speculating if the "bias" is because those two particular teams are from the markets that they're from, or if it's because they're generally year in and year out two of the very best teams in the game?

Right. I think ESPN contributes to the issue, but it's mostly the fault of MLB. I keep going back to the NFL. I know there are differences - and those have been laid out well by Popeye and others - but I don't think it's healthy for the sport to have so much focus on two teams. If football can do it, baseball can at least do a better job. The Red Sox have now made it a two team focus, instead of one team. It used to be the Yankees and everyone else.

I think revenue sharing will help, and probably already has. Hopefully in 10 years, the Royals and Reds and Pirates are healthier than they are today. The key is getting all fans interested in the entire league. The NFL does an excellent job there.

MLB doesn't want that. There are disadvantages to a league of equals. MLB always has, and always will be a league dominated by a few teams.