Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by jaywdetroit, Mar 1, 2007.
Hey, if curling can be an Olympic sport, then ANY game can take off in the US
I'm not a basketball fan either - I do really appreciate the skill the players have - and it is something to watch a player drive for the net and dunk the ball from the top of the key - but the game itself is boring for me until the last two minutes of a close game. I did play as a kid and do understand the game somewhat - I just never really got into watching it much.
And to throw fuel on the fire (why not) - at the last Pistons game I went too in the mid 90s, the stands were full of business folk in suits making deals with their clients.
There were a handful of African Americans sitting behind us REALLY enjoying the game. They seemed to be the only ones actually WATCHING the game. Yeah - well they got kicked out for being too rowdy.
That was the last game I went too.
Let me make one point about soccer and admit something about it that I don't understand! OFFSIDES!! At somepoint on the field it should fall on the defender to defend and not let a player get behind him!
If this exposes my ignorance of the game so be it!!
Fair question. First, it depends on a number of factors. One - you have a limited number of defenders (depending on the formation you play), and they can throw alot of other players at you (forwards and midfielders). To defend against all of them is just impossible. And it can hurt you - how many of those players are not part of the play? Spend your energy focusing on that one guy in the back, and you may miss the play entirely, and you get beaten. Second, to do that would require that you keep your defenders way back, giving your opponent more time in your side of the field, and giving them way too much time in front of your goal. Finally, you want to keep the ball out of your end of the field as much as you can - many good defenses know how to spring an off-sides trap. The number of off-sides, while portrayed frequently (here's that insipid reporting again) as a deficiency on the attacker (there goes that forward again - another off-sides call), many times lots of off-sides calls speak to the skill of the defense. The communication and focus it takes to spring an off-sides trap is difficult, and to pull it off shows great skill. Granted, sometimes the off-sides is due to an attacker who's over-anxious, but many times it's the result of a well-executed defensive play.
Get the off-sides called, and guess what? You now have the ball - actually your goalie gets to kick it up field. It's in the defending team's interest to spring an off-sides if they can.
I used to think they should get rid of the offside rule to increase the scoring and make the game more exciting, but not anymore. As jpl said, it really is an interesting part of the game and, besides that, it probably actually increases scoring opportunities.
If the rule wasn't there, teams would probably keep their defenders further back to the point that at least a couple of them would be completely out of the offensive game and defenders are a big part of a well-run offensive attack as the game is now. What goals did result from eliminating the offside rule would be of the cherry-picking, breakaway type; not the great scheme, great pass type that I really appreciate.
Couldn't agree more. And I couldn't have said it any better.
not sure if anyone realizes this, but the Euro 2008 tournament is going to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 this time around. that has to show some kind of improvement as far as popularity goes.
Did not realize that- That is good news. As is the news that the U.S. might host the 2018 World Cup.
You think you got it bad? In my house, we only watch hockey and lacrosse. I get to be a 4th and 5th class citizen at the same time!
In other words, you expect a charity to serve your self-serving interest. You think it will somehow work differently, magically in a vacuum for US market, irrespective of media rights in other parts of the world, which are all inter-connected.
Notice how you conveniently ignored the "basic laws of economics governed by supply and demand" part.
There is no expectation of charity.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. FSC is a crap channel which shows left overs of Premiership after best bulk has been sold off to Setanta. And almost worthless leftovers of Serie A, and coming spring portions of MLS.
That constitutes "little of every popular league", eh? Does FSC show La Liga or Bundesliga? Willing to take a bet on the popularity of those leagues? As a hint, average attendance figures for Bundesliga routinely blow out English Premiership. Does it show any worthwhile Champions League (don't mention worthless delayed telecast involving AC Milan, as it is after 2 days)? Did it show World Cup? Will it show Euro 2008, Copa America, Copa Libertadores (except maybe the final)?
I won't even bother mentioning lower rung stuff such as Dutch, French, Scottish, Portuguese leagues.
Or here is a killer, talking about "popular leagues". Do you know which league is most popular on US soil from TV ratings? It's not English Premiership, it's not MLS. In fact, it's not even a single European league. It's the Mexican Apertura. Does FSC go anywhere near it?
Look, if you really cared about little bit of popular leagues, you would actually have GolTV and Setanta, both top-notch channels. Not while absurdly, almost demanding charity for a crap channel like FSC which is nothing but leftover scraps interrupted by umpteen informacials and reruns of garbage like Dream Team.
So yes, it most certainly is.
oh. but don't forget. FSC has the suspenseful, dramatic, ever popular "Dream Team!" soap opera!!
sarcasm aside.. GolTV is a better channel than FSC is. and of course Setanta is great. Setanta is the Modern day Fox Sports World!
No, didn't forget it. It's mentioned there somewhere in my long reply.
You wouldn't be if you lived in Detroit.
Hockey is probably the #1 sport now days. In fact in my neighborhood, there are 4 or 5 guys that play in adult leagues.
Okay - personal attacks aside - let me clarify for you, I will put it in simple terms since you seem to think me a simple mind.
I said a "LITTLE". The scraps, as you call them, fit into that category.
If you agree with your argument, then you should agree FSC should be free, since it apparently isn't showing anything worth paying for in the first place.
I personally, don't care about the Mexican League, and where I live in Michigan, ITS NOT POPULAR AT ALL. I play in an adult league with about 100 players and we have a couple of (very good) Mexican players, and a TON of Europeans, MOSTLY ENGLISH. So pardon me for wanting something that fits my demographic. Maybe in SoCAL its popular, not here.
I want to see more than 1 MLS game per week and I want to keep up with what is going on in Europe. FSC is sufficient to do that. I had Setanta and GOLTV and I know all about them. We ought to be able to see more MLS games in this country
FOR FREE, as well as the Premiership. The NFL and MLB figured out long ago how to do it, are you telling me its beyond soccer to do the same? Please.
Before you decided to attack me, did you consider that maybe I thought those stations deserved and extra charge on my Bill?
Now please - if you are going to respond with an attack - don't bother. Your opinions are welcome, your attacks are not.
In other words, you have an understanding of financial statement of Fox Sports International, which is the parent company of FSC, and you can unilaterally declare it should be in lowest tier. Just because you want it.
Oh, and how DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, Time Warner will all, oh so lovingly and eagerly wait to embrace it in the lowest tier there.
Do you have any idea how ludicrous your statements are? Do you know how Fox Sports International treats American FSC? As far as their financial bottom line is concerned, they care more about their informacials than striving to bring weekend FA Cup LIVE. That's what pays their bills. Getting rights money for premium matches from Setanta is what pays their bills. Not those once in a while Man Utd. vs. Arsenal matchups, and definitely not MLS. And God forbid, definitely not Catania vs. Torino from Serie A.
FSC is a convenient tax write off in USA for Fox Sports International, that's all!!
And the "lowest tier" stuff is even more ludicrous hyperbole than demands about FSC. It shows you have absolutely no idea how business decisions are made about these tiers. Do you think it's a simple matter to go into lowest tier? Do you have any idea how much crap Disney family pulls to keep their ESPN/ESPN2 in the lowest tier? They almost pay arm and leg, and hold most of carriers ransom with too many package demands.
Is Fox Sports International going to make such demands for their tax write off channel? The parent Fox would probably want it to, but do they have a chance in hell? DirecTV, DISH, major cable carriers would tell them to go to hell.
Once again, quit with this "I personally" part. It's not about what you personally care about, or what I personally care about. To say otherwise is selfishness, and that's not a personal attack.
It's about what sells advertising, has most ratings. That's why I've been repeating the "supply and demand, economics" part.
Take some time to do research on historical business negotiations involved in getting channels in low tiers. Most notably investigate what Disney does for their ESPN. Don't start whines with no basis in vacuum and nothing to back them up, and are all subjective, no trace of objectivity.
And last but not the least, stop mentioning NFL or MLB when talking about English Premiership demands.
Even if you put the topmost Premiership match (such as Man Utd vs. Chelsea this year) hypotetically in the lowest tier, it won't get more rating numbers than the most worthless NFL matchup like Arizona Cardinals vs. Houstan Texans. And that statement has got nothing to do with my personal preferences. It's just an objective fact.
The thing is - no one is talking about getting charity here. The problem with the English Premier League has nothing to do with the sport at all - it has to do with government regulation -- everyone gets a TV tax, just for owning one, in England. That's what I think this is referring to - you're required to pay to watch soccer there... but you're required to pay for TV period - and we're not talking for services like DirecTV - but you pay for just owning a TV. To say that soccer should be treated like all other professional sports in the US is not to ask for charity - whatever they decide to do in England is totally irrelevent to how the US handles these types of broadcasts.
Okay - Fine - I don't know what you do, and why you happen to know sooooo much about the financing of Fox Soccer Channel. Bully for you. That doesn't change my position.
First off, I can DEMAND anything I like, as long as I have reasonable expectation of results. Do you seriously think, that I think at thread on DBSTalk.com is going to make D* see the light and throw FSC into their line-up? I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of people.
Explain to me again why you think we should pay extra for a channel that you so lovingly describe as a tax write off.
If soccer games are ever going to get the kind of ratings that a Cardinals vs. Lions game does, then they are going to have to start by showing more games on Television for free.
I'm not an econ major, but I'm betting if you can get a station on the air like BabyFirst, Fox can afford to pull off showing "drivel" all day long for free.
Thanks for your opinion, enjoy your season.
Say what? Do you think you can watch English Premiership in England over the air like on ITV, BBC? There is one single "Match of the Day" on Sundays on BBC. Other than that, you're required to shell out half your paycheck for that Sky subscription, or go and get pissed in pubs to watch it without comforts of your home.
It's got nothing to with TV tax. It's got everything to do with forever sky-rocketing media rights.
Also, no one is saying that we should get the games for free totally - only that DirecTV should consider treating soccer like it does the NFL and Golf, and offer a basic channel for the sport in its basic tier. If it's FSC, then fine. If it's another channel (Gol, e.g.) that's fine too. If I'm a soccer fanatic, and willing to pay more for it, then I have options to get those additional channels (ditto for the NFL - if I so desired - and my wife would let me - I could go for NFL ST to get all the football I could stand). But offering a basic soccer channel in their basic tier is no different than what they do with other sports - and as an analogy, I could make the same argument that the NFL network is crap too because it doesn't show every game across the country. No, it's not ideal for football fans, but it's an offering that lets them have more access to a particular sport.
Again, no one is saying that they should carry more of these games over the air, for no fee. But that DirecTV should carry a basic soccer channel on their base tier.
It doesn't matter what I think about it.
That's what DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, Time Warner cable, and most importantly executives of Fox Sports International think.
I know nothing about the financial numbers involved behind BabyFirst. Who is the parent company of that channel, and how much are they paying DirecTV? What does their advertising revenue look like? How does that compare with FSC?