ESPN sucks

[Hockeyfan02]

I understand they only care about money but they are constantly screwing hockey
fans. They said that they were definitely going to show every game when they announced that they would carry the World Cup last summer. It's like the World Championship and Heritage Classic all over again for those of us who can't get Centre Ice. We get screwed.

Its not that they intentionally screw hockey fans, its they have CONTRACTS with college football. They cant just break those off just to please hockey fans. Were getting 16 of 20 games when we could be getting 3 or 4 of 20 or even worse 0 of 20. Things could be A LOT worse.

 

[Darth Vitale]

Just tested their broadband thing on IE 5.x... doesn't work worth a crap as predicted. The live feed is scrunched into a "viewer window" that's about 40% as large as the one they're streaming (can you say scroll-bars needed to see the entire ice surface?) and it's choppy as hell on 3-4mbps cable).

Next time morons, use QuickTime Streaming and a standards-compliant browser as your recommended platform. The image quality and caching is only about 10x better than anything MS offers. Oh but you're partnered with MS, I forgot. Well, guess that means you have to throw the best technology out in favor of the parternered technology, even if it means low quality for your viewers.

 

[guinness]

Just tested their broadband thing on IE 5.x... doesn't work worth a crap as predicted. The live feed is scrunched into a "viewer window" that's about 40% as large as the one they're streaming (can you say scroll-bars needed to see the entire ice surface?) and it's choppy as hell on 3-4mbps cable).

Next time morons, use QuickTime Streaming and a standards-compliant browser as your recommended platform. The image quality and caching is only about 10x better than anything MS offers. Oh but you're partnered with MS, I forgot. Well, guess that means you have to throw the best technology out in favor of the parternered technology, even if it means low quality for your viewers.

It doesn't really make a difference if there are a ton of users on the servers, Quicktime? Please. Just about every streaming video type is about as crappy as any other, even Real.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

I'm getting a pretty clear picture.

 

[guinness]

I'm getting a pretty clear picture.

It's decent, but dark and a bit jittery, but for streaming video, it's a little better average though. I'm on a 2-3 Mbps connection.

If it had video/audio controls, it would be better.

 

[codswallop]

I'm getting a pretty clear picture.

Same here. Except that the second period video has been a bit jumpy, but it's a bit better when on full screen.

The audio didn't kick in until about 4 minutes into the game. Another glitch they'll have to iron out. This seems like more of a testing period, see what works and what doesn't. Since this game won't get as many viewers as many of their future telecasts, best case for ESPN.

But I'm not complaining. I can watch the game, don't really care where it's being broadcast. Though I do feel sorry for those here in the States that can't see it. Their missing a great game now, and I'm sure a great game to come tonight.

 

[Darth Vitale]

It doesn't really make a difference if there are a ton of users on the servers, Quicktime? Please. Just about every streaming video type is about as crappy as any other, even Real.

Uhh. No. That was true a year or so ago, but Apple's latest codecs and streaming technologies (which were first intro'd about that time) are *much* better than anything Real or MS has to offer for now. And of course it's platform independant, which frankly, WMP is the least platform indepedant of any of the streaming technologies.

It was just a crappy decision on their part to base everything on IE and WMP, plain and simple. Mozilla / Netsacape / Firefox + QT would've worked just as well if not better for Windows users, but also made the experience *useable* on Mac, Linux and other platforms. But of course ESPN doesnt' give a crap about any of that, they just want to please their partner (MS).

 

[guinness]

Uhh. No. That was true a year or so ago, but Apple's latest codecs and streaming technologies (which were first intro'd about that time) are *much* better than anything Real or MS has to offer for now. And of course it's platform independant, which frankly, WMP is the least platform indepedant of any of the streaming technologies.

It was just a crappy decision on their part to base everything on IE and WMP, plain and simple. Mozilla / Netsacape / Firefox + QT would've worked just as well if not better for Windows users, but also made the experience *useable* on Mac, Linux and other platforms. But of course ESPN doesnt' give a crap about any of that, they just want to please their partner (MS).

It's a Windows-centric world, ESPN is catering to what most people use, I could see opening it up to other browsers, Firefox is pretty good, but I only have Quicktime installed because iTunes slips it in while it's installed. I don't watch movie trailers so it doesn't do me any good and it can't handle very many video formats either, most of my videos are Divx avi's and QT doesn't know what to do with them. WMP 10 may not be the best, but most formats in Windows, it's better than what Apple offers. The only thing I like is iTunes for mp3s and internet radio.

 

[bleedgreen]

there is an option to go full screen. mine worked great - had a full screen that was surprisingly clear. it stops from time to time, pretty typical of streaming imo. its pretty sweet actually - i hope they show other things this way. also, no commercials- it just stays with the game feed. i like it. better than nothing at all, though i think russia canada should have made it to tv.
my big complaint is the finals wont be a best of three like the last cup (and all previous ones). i bet that was a money/tv deal.

 

[ALF AmericanLionsFan]

I never understood the big deal about college sports. It's like big deal? They havent done **** anyways till they are in the NFL or NBA. **** school pride too. I never had any, and certainly not for a college football team. NCAA bores me.

Don't get me wrong I'm upset about not seeing the two best games of the tourney so far,but maybe since you haven't grown up here you don't get the sense of the passion for college football. I personally like college football a lot more than pro football. The only comparison I can think of is maybe the way canadians follow their junior hockey. Not too many of us U.S. citizens even know about junior hockey let alone have any avenue to even follow. Only publication I know is the hockey news thank god. But college is far better. Kids seem to play with a lot more heart and desire and that dissappears in a lot of cases after they make the pros. Just my opinion.

 

[Darth Vitale]

It's a Windows-centric world, ESPN is catering to what most people use...

It is a Windows-centric world; I understand that. But that doesn't mean you set up your broadcasts to ignore everyone who isn't windows. If you have any interest in web standards and interoperability, you make it work for as many of your customers as you can. They didn't even make an effort.

 

[Missionhockey]

Who's talking about curling?? I hate curling. So watching 18 year olds playing for fun is a tradition?? Nice tradition.

What about the World Juniors?

Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[Paxon]

It's a Windows-centric world, ESPN is catering to what most people use, I could see opening it up to other browsers, Firefox is pretty good, but I only have Quicktime installed because iTunes slips it in while it's installed. I don't watch movie trailers so it doesn't do me any good and it can't handle very many video formats either, most of my videos are Divx avi's and QT doesn't know what to do with them. WMP 10 may not be the best, but most formats in Windows, it's better than what Apple offers. The only thing I like is iTunes for mp3s and internet radio.

Internet Explorer users make up the majority of internet users, but there is a substantial amount (millions) of people who use other browsers. As the poster you replied to said, QuickTime streams are better even for WINDOWS users than Windows Media streams. ESPN could have improved the quality of their stream for their Windows users while opening up their services to millions of others. Instead they bowed to their partnership, which you can't blame them for. A deal is a deal, and I imagine Microsoft is the player behind the whole service to begin with (bandwidth, servers).

As far as a media player, Winamp 5.x does a much better job of playing multiple formats. It isn't as clunky as WMP and uses far less memory.

 

[guinness]

It is a Windows-centric world; I understand that. But that doesn't mean you set up your broadcasts to ignore everyone who isn't windows. If you have any interest in web standards and interoperability, you make it work for as many of your customers as you can. They didn't even make an effort.

Well tell Apple or whoever to throw a bunch of money at ESPN, it's not like ESPN uses Microsoft's technologies for free. They very well could've been using RealPlayer (shudder), but it comes down to wants to spend the money. Some 90% of the market is Windows, most of those use IE and WMP, the market is what it is.

Apple has the money, but they always ***** about MS controlling everything, same with Real, but neither company does themselves any favors by not being more proactive. iTunes/Quicktime isn't the smallest of apps, memory-wise either, and when installing iTunes, it installs QT too, which I could do without, because most videos I have aren't in QT format. If I had a Mac, I'd probably use QT and not WMP.

 

[The Slap Shop]

I have it full Screen but then I hooked the computer to the TV. Works pretty Good that way. Still a little choppy.

 

[Evil Homer]

"ESPN sucks...how could they show college football instead of the world cup?"

Its called a contract. Its very basic. ABC/ESPN has a contract to show a previously agreed to number of football games on this day. That contract was signed long before the World Cup of Hockey was scheduled to be played. Frankly, if it was important to get those game on ESPN they would not have scheduled them for Saturday. In this case Canada's tradition of Saturday night hockey is more important to the NHL than US TV exposure. Its that simple.

As for the Canadian yahoo that took a shot at Americans for the popularity of college sports, its like this. US Universities were where organized sports began in general in late 19th and early 20th centuries. College football was popular LONG before professional football. Same with basketball and even hockey. The frozen 4 is a very popular event with tv ratings that rival NHL games.

Canada doesnt have that. Kids basically turn pro at 16 when they play junior hockey. That is not really socially acceptable in the USA. High School sports then college before pro.

I wonder...what are the tv ratings in Canada for the memorial cup?? i would imagine they are pretty good. particularly when many of the teams competing are not in NHL cities. much like college sports. the teams that often win are teams that come from none major league areas.

‘Socially acceptable’? That’s an incredibly pompous point of view. Junior hockey players in Canada also attend high school. I’m not sure that the literacy of high school hockey players in Canada is any better or worse than in the U.S. The U.S. college system also seems more professional than amateur in many ways.

 

[Paxon]

‘Socially acceptable’? That’s an incredibly pompous point of view. Junior hockey players in Canada also attend high school. I’m not sure that the literacy of high school hockey players in Canada is any better or worse than in the U.S. The U.S. college system also seems more professional than amateur in many ways.

Except in the most important way, which is the fact they don't get paid.

I'm not sure if a junior league would be any less socially acceptable in the U.S. if it existed, but going by the fact there it doesn
t, I can see his point.

 

[Badger Bob]

I know it and I always knew it, espn are just idiotic hockey haters, they rather show some dumb american colleg football game than the world cup, not to mention the olympics, espn sucks.

Why do you have to keep slipping in the word, "American," before college football? Do you think the other posters, here, want it shown? Get a grip, buddy. The NDP-Liberal-Bloc Quebecois anti-American bull, that your socialist media continually spoon feeds the Canadian public, does little to remedy the situation. News flash: some of us aren't happy about it across the border.

 

[Epsilon]

Threads like this annoy me to no end because they almost invariably show no knowledge of the business side of the TV industry and end up boiling down to "hockey rulz, US sports I dun watch sux0rz!". I stopped taking this seriously when someone whined about ESPN not showing the Olympics, when they arn't even legally allowed to do so.

 

[RI Canuck]

Its not that they intentionally screw hockey fans, its they have CONTRACTS with college football. They cant just break those off just to please hockey fans. Were getting 16 of 20 games when we could be getting 3 or 4 of 20 or even worse 0 of 20. Things could be A LOT worse.

Last year they never gave scores or highlights of hockey on the weekends. Every other sport got full coverage. NHL2Night is gone, they cut coverage of games for the third straight year. That doesn't sound like they care about hockey much. I understand it's a business. Last year if they said they would show the majority of games and not all of them I wouldn't be mad.

 

[adurn]

There's a reason ESPN doesn't show hockey much anymore. It doesn't make them the advertising money other sports do. ESPN pays the NCAA for the rights to show their games. Any guesses as to how they get the money back? Advertising money.

Why do you think Super Bowl commercials cost so much? Because millions of people are watching. Hockey draws a low rating these days, and companies don't want to pay for an ad that people won't see. It's simple economics people. Don't blame ESPN.

 

[Erik]

Yeah, blame my fellow Americans for having bad taste in sports......

 

[VanIslander]

OMG.

If you go to espnbroadband NOW you will see that they have removed the service entirely for those whose internet provider isn't partnered with them. (http://broadband.espn.go.com/multisport/index#) That means no more highlight clips for me here in South Korea. I can handle that. What really irks me though is they have the nerve to put in huge letters at the top their new rejections screen: "Welcome" when that is exactly what you no longer are!! (The hypocrisy of the modern world to say one thing and do another, for rhetorical effect.)

Oh well, at least I saw the Finn-Swede game before they locked out non-U.S. residents from that service. Losing highlights from other sports isn't such a big deal.

But, still, we overseas fans are no longer welcome at ESPN (I would pay a lot of $$ to watch hockey, more than the average American resident). If the service is ever available to watch LIVE hockey games on the Internet, and I can choose between companies, ESPN will not be my choice. Je me souviens.

 

[Higgy4]

Threads like this annoy me to no end because they almost invariably show no knowledge of the business side of the TV industry and end up boiling down to "hockey rulz, US sports I dun watch sux0rz!". I stopped taking this seriously when someone whined about ESPN not showing the Olympics, when they arn't even legally allowed to do so.

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

Oh well, at least I saw the Finn-Swede game before they locked out non-U.S. residents from that service. Losing highlights from other sports isn't such a big deal.

But, still, we overseas fans are no longer welcome at ESPN (I would pay a lot of $$ to watch hockey, more than the average American resident). If the service is ever available to watch LIVE hockey games on the Internet, and I can choose between companies, ESPN will not be my choice. Je me souviens.

I can completely second that one...