|
Post by Mac on Dec 15, 2006 12:48:53 GMT -5
The shame of ESPN is in not having both semis on ESPN 2. They are using the popularity of one of the matches to get audiences to call their cable companies and request their systems carry ESPN-U. This is the semis. They should both be on ESPN2.
How many of you went to ESPNU.com, put in your zip code and filled in the form letter to your cable company execs to request they start providing ESPNU?
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 15, 2006 12:58:37 GMT -5
They're showing it tape delayed at 11 AM PST on ESPN2. My VCR is set up to record it.
Like it or not, the figure skating they showed after Nebraska-UCLA probably gets better ratings than the volleyball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2006 13:01:02 GMT -5
It wasn't worth watching and I love volleyball. Man, that was ugly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2006 13:01:51 GMT -5
I'm so tired of the fact that every year during the Final Four every conversation on here ends up being all about Cox. It completely drives me nuts. Haha, good one.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Dec 15, 2006 13:31:44 GMT -5
The shame is on college volleyball for not marketing a product that should be a no brainer for ESPN 2. ESPN in the end did not think the event significant enough. If they did, they would of.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Dec 15, 2006 14:21:17 GMT -5
The shame is on college volleyball for not marketing a product that should be a no brainer for ESPN 2. ESPN in the end did not think the event significant enough. If they did, they would of. True to an extent. However, in the second match you had the defending #3 ranked team in the country vs. 6 time champion 2nd ranked Stanford. Not significant? hm......Unfortunately Stanford didn't do anything to prove them wrong. Luckily for those who can see it, they will be able to see most of the match. I really felt bad for Thompson, it almost look like she was about ready to cry at the end. I've never seen her so despondant. Great career and best of luck in whatever she decides to do.
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 15, 2006 14:31:20 GMT -5
No, they are just cheap. Cheap. Cheap! This sport needs better camerawork than it receives. But that's more money, too. For $25,000, you can get CSTV to broadcast your volleyball match, at least in the Chicago area. Of course, that $25,000 is the ballpark cost of a scholarship so you have to decide which athlete you want to take it from...
|
|
|
Post by FloridaPerson on Dec 15, 2006 14:35:34 GMT -5
Who gets the hypothetical advertising revenue?
|
|
|
Post by YellowC on Dec 15, 2006 15:22:27 GMT -5
Cox- " The history between Stanford and Washington rivalry"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2006 15:29:47 GMT -5
Does anyone else get irritated when they still explain the rules of scoring?
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Dec 15, 2006 15:31:36 GMT -5
Does anyone else get irritated when they still explain the rules of scoring? Yes I think its an ESPN "you're stupid" thing. They've been doing this with the WSOP of poker for the last 4 years too. They only replay it 1000 times a month. I think most people watching, get it by now.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 15, 2006 15:44:57 GMT -5
But it's not just ESPN. Watch the friggin food network sometime. They tell you how to do the same thing over and over and over again.
Nowadays, the instant some moron tells me to squeeze the lemon upside down so not to get seeds in the dish, I turn the channel (that, and the instant Rachel Ray says "EVOO"). I told my wife it's time for the food channel to start having some more advanced shows for those who don't want to hear the same stupid things. At least Alton Brown acts as if you've seen some of his other shows, so that he doesn't rehash things that he has said before.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 15, 2006 15:48:06 GMT -5
Does anyone else get irritated when they still explain the rules of scoring? OTOH, last night they had a great opportunity to point out an usual play, where Neb I think got called for a back row attack after the libero set a ball from within the 3 m line that got attacked. Meanwhile, all they did was say it was a back row attack, and then Cox continued rambling on. That's a rare enough play that it is a subtle call. Even a lot of casual fans would not have realized it when it happened. It would have been an interesting place to talk about that part of the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2006 15:52:26 GMT -5
Yeah, Busboom set Stalls. I'm always amazed that volleyball players forget this rule.
That's the main gripe I have with Cox (when she's not being a Pac-10 shill). She always says the same things. She never takes the time to speak to the fans who actually know something about the sport.
And I still want someone to keep track of the rotations! A simple graphic. Is that asking too much? Because the camera never shows the entire court (unless they use the endline shot), the TV viewer can't easily track this himself/herself.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 15, 2006 16:49:05 GMT -5
Does anyone else get irritated when they still explain the rules of scoring? No, it's a good review.
|
|