SnB Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) American soccer fans rejoice! NBC has just won the rights to keep the Premier League through the '21/22 season! This was the last season of their original three-year deal. NBC's coverage of the league is perhaps the best coverage of any sport on American TV. Going back to FOX/ESPN would have been a major step backward. They really do a nice job with it. I wish they'd bring back that redzone style show they tried last year. I really enjoyed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Love weekend mornings with NBCS. Only thing that annoys me is comcast having the extra time on demand rather than a channel. You can't dvr it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) American soccer fans rejoice! NBC has just won the rights to keep the Premier League through the '21/22 season! This was the last season of their original three-year deal. NBC's coverage of the league is perhaps the best coverage of any sport on American TV. Going back to FOX/ESPN would have been a major step backward. NBC is doing a great job and the bold above is my exact thoughts. ESPN would have totally ruined the coverage, very happy to see NBC is extending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) NBC is doing a great job and the bold above is my exact thoughts. ESPN would have totally ruined the coverage, very happy to see NBC is extending. ESPN has set the standard for soccer coverage in this country so I don't know how they could have ruined the coverage. In fact, they had the Premier League rights before NBC and basically showed the league has value in this country. Fox has been inconsistent to me (Gus Johnson announcing Champions League was embarrassing and insulting), but ESPN is still the best at covering soccer. If the rights moved, we would have been fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 They'd ruin it by having Alexei Lalas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GamesToLove Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 11:01 AM) ESPN has set the standard for soccer coverage in this country so I don't know how they could have ruined the coverage. In fact, they had the Premier League rights before NBC and basically showed the league has value in this country. Fox has been inconsistent to me (Gus Johnson announcing Champions League was embarrassing and insulting), but ESPN is still the best at covering soccer. If the rights moved, we would have been fine. ESPN's soccer coverage generally is fantastic, but the previous Premier League arrangement wasn't ideal. Just the early Saturday kickoff and the occasional midweek. Unfortunately, the bulk of coverage was on the low-rent FSC, who only had the ability to air a match at a time, and didn't offer streaming of extra games. FS+ (and Setanta before it) was still a ripoff back then. ESPN did fine with what little Prem coverage they had (and did a good job promoting it; they really hyped up the Manchester derby at the end of 2012), and their coverage of the 2010/14 World Cup and the Euros are still the gold standard...NBC clearly learned from them. ESPN did fine with what they had, but they wouldn't be able to fully commit to the league due to other programming. The coverage itself would be good, but the volume would be substandard. If they had teamed back up with FOX, that would've been bad quality AND bad volume. NBC has no such conflicts. We would not "have been fine" if the rights had gone back to some FOX/ESPN partnership. It would've been a massive step back. The article I linked to makes this argument more thoroughly than I just did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 12:14 PM) ESPN's soccer coverage generally is fantastic, but the previous Premier League arrangement wasn't ideal. Just the early Saturday kickoff and the occasional midweek. Unfortunately, the bulk of coverage was on the low-rent FSC, who only had the ability to air a match at a time, and didn't offer streaming of extra games. FS+ (and Setanta before it) was still a ripoff back then. ESPN did fine with what little Prem coverage they had (and did a good job promoting it; they really hyped up the Manchester derby at the end of 2012), and their coverage of the 2010/14 World Cup and the Euros are still the gold standard...NBC clearly learned from them. ESPN did fine with what they had, but they wouldn't be able to fully commit to the league due to other programming. The coverage itself would be good, but the volume would be substandard. If they had teamed back up with FOX, that would've been bad quality AND bad volume. NBC has no such conflicts. We would not "have been fine" if the rights had gone back to some FOX/ESPN partnership. It would've been a massive step back. The article I linked to makes this argument more thoroughly than I just did. Agreed. First, I hate ESPN, so I'm biased. Second, my thoughts about ESPN being bad fit for EPL is nicely summarized in 3gtl post, especially the volume thought. My fear is they would have given 85% to the Manchester clubs, about 13% to CFC, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham and then remaining to the rest. I believe NBC has done a great job of handling their analyst by not talking down to newer viewers but also going in-depth and satisfying more familiar viewers, in my mind, ESPN would have been way more ham-handed in their approach. NBC was in a perfect spot to handle it as they could make it their anchor sport, and in my mind a much better fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 12:14 PM) If they had teamed back up with FOX, that would've been bad quality AND bad volume. NBC has no such conflicts. We would not "have been fine" if the rights had gone back to some FOX/ESPN partnership. It would've been a massive step back. The article I linked to makes this argument more thoroughly than I just did. I assume Fox would have had the bulk of the coverage when ESPN didn't have it and the same amount of games would air on TV. Fox Sports 1 did well with the Women's World Cup and I enjoyed their MLS and Gold Cup coverage. I don't think it would be a massive jump backwards. QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 12:27 PM) Agreed. First, I hate ESPN, so I'm biased. Second, my thoughts about ESPN being bad fit for EPL is nicely summarized in 3gtl post, especially the volume thought. My fear is they would have given 85% to the Manchester clubs, about 13% to CFC, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham and then remaining to the rest. I believe NBC has done a great job of handling their analyst by not talking down to newer viewers but also going in-depth and satisfying more familiar viewers, in my mind, ESPN would have been way more ham-handed in their approach. NBC was in a perfect spot to handle it as they could make it their anchor sport, and in my mind a much better fit. You can hate ESPN for their yelling, screaming debate shows, but their game coverage is still as good as it gets. Ultimately, that's all that matters. Also, NBC shows the big clubs just as heavily as what you're saying so I'm not sure that point is fair to ESPN either. People get so worked up over what network sports are aired on, but I just want to watch the games and I don't give a s*** what channel it's on. Just let me watch the sport in HD. Only when the announcers are terrible (Gus Johnson or the English Univision MLS play-by-play guy) does the network matter to me. As long as I can watch I'm happy. Thus it 'would have been fine.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 04:38 PM) I assume Fox would have had the bulk of the coverage when ESPN didn't have it and the same amount of games would air on TV. Fox Sports 1 did well with the Women's World Cup and I enjoyed their MLS and Gold Cup coverage. I don't think it would be a massive jump backwards. You can hate ESPN for their yelling, screaming debate shows, but their game coverage is still as good as it gets. Ultimately, that's all that matters. Also, NBC shows the big clubs just as heavily as what you're saying so I'm not sure that point is fair to ESPN either. People get so worked up over what network sports are aired on, but I just want to watch the games and I don't give a s*** what channel it's on. Just let me watch the sport in HD. Only when the announcers are terrible (Gus Johnson or the English Univision MLS play-by-play guy) does the network matter to me. As long as I can watch I'm happy. Thus it 'would have been fine.' If ESPN put that type of investment in the EPL it would have made it to their debate shows, and yes I can ignore them if I chose, but it still would have there and that would annoy me. Totally disagree about NBC handling the big clubs as ESPN would have and don't think they handle it the way I outlined, think they obviously give more attention to the bigger clubs, can't fault them for that, but they give plenty of time to highlights, stories, etc... to the smaller clubs that I don't believe ESPN would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Honestly the only game coverage I like best on ESPN is their fantastic CFB coverage. I prefer TNT for hoops. Fox for NFL. MLBN for baseball. NBC for hockey/soccer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 02:42 PM) If ESPN put that type of investment in the EPL it would have made it to their debate shows, and yes I can ignore them if I chose, but it still would have there and that would annoy me. Totally disagree about NBC handling the big clubs as ESPN would have and don't think they handle it the way I outlined, think they obviously give more attention to the bigger clubs, can't fault them for that, but they give plenty of time to highlights, stories, etc... to the smaller clubs that I don't believe ESPN would. Sports media is a business, to say that NBC wouldn't have handled it like a business and milked what was going to be most profitable, is just crazy. If someone else had rights to MLB and other networks, you think they wouldn't still show a ton of Red Sox / Yankees games? Only company that doesn't do that is MLB Network and that is because they are owned by the league so they have other agendas vs. just running the network like a pure business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) Honestly the only game coverage I like best on ESPN is their fantastic CFB coverage. I prefer TNT for hoops. Fox for NFL. MLBN for baseball. NBC for hockey/soccer. I guess that's true. The things I watch most are soccer, NBA, college football and tennis. I'll give you TNT's NBA coverage is much better, but I think that's just the studio show (Inside the NBA) guys being better. The announcing teams are the same to me. The other three sports I think ESPN does really well. They do a really nice job with the tennis majors. ESPN is great for MLS and USMNT coverage. I don't watch the NFL to care about that. I thought ESPN's hockey coverage was great. I don't think NBC is doing it any better now. Obviously ESPN ignores it now because they don't carry it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) Sports media is a business, to say that NBC wouldn't have handled it like a business and milked what was going to be most profitable, is just crazy. If someone else had rights to MLB and other networks, you think they wouldn't still show a ton of Red Sox / Yankees games? Only company that doesn't do that is MLB Network and that is because they are owned by the league so they have other agendas vs. just running the network like a pure business. Right, and NBCSN was in far better position, and still is, to do best of both worlds, showcase the large clubs, hence they are usually on NBC late Saturday morning, and still have the ability to give other, smaller teams ample coverage. As fan I would much rather have nbc keep it then it be on espn being relegated, , for extensive cfb coverage on Saturday mornings and nfl pregame on Sundays Edited August 12, 2015 by SoxFan562004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 08:35 PM) As fan I would much rather have nbc keep it then it be on espn being relegated, , for extensive cfb coverage on Saturday mornings and nfl pregame on Sundays Supposedly that's why ESPN didn't bid for it by themselves. Too many football commitments in the fall that overlap with more than 1/3 of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 07:34 PM) I guess that's true. The things I watch most are soccer, NBA, college football and tennis. I'll give you TNT's NBA coverage is much better, but I think that's just the studio show (Inside the NBA) guys being better. The announcing teams are the same to me. The other three sports I think ESPN does really well. They do a really nice job with the tennis majors. ESPN is great for MLS and USMNT coverage. I don't watch the NFL to care about that. I thought ESPN's hockey coverage was great. I don't think NBC is doing it any better now. Obviously ESPN ignores it now because they don't carry it. You are right on tennis, their coverage is fantastic. i wish they could do the type of coverage during a tournament (throwing all the matches on demand) as NBCS does for EPL. Really, regardless of ESPN, the set-up on NBCS is so sweet, and likely so shortlived, that its worth enjoying the unique circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GamesToLove Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Don't get me wrong, I enjoy ESPN's coverage of most sports as well. Their baseball coverage actually isn't bad (and Baseball Tonight is a better show minute for minute than MLB Tonight), their soccer coverage has been great for years, and I'm a tennis nut and appreciate the respect they give to the game there too (though Chris Evert is abysmal and John McEnroe is pretty bad now too). They just obviously weren't in a position to take over the Premier League. Also, soccer WOULD have taken a step backwards if it'd gone to FOX, because Premier League would have cannibalized the new Bundesliga deal over there. That would've been a nightmare. Now we get 2-3 matches a weekend on FS1/2 in addition to our fantastic PL stuff on NBCSN. Win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) US looked pretty good in the last 50 minutes or so against Peru. Nicaragua beat Jamaica in Jamaica tonight in the opening leg of their WCQ 3-2. Jamaica was down 3-0 so they are lucky to get back within a goal going into next week's game. It'll be interesting to see if Jamaica falls apart like they typically do when facing adversity. Edited September 5, 2015 by zenryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Iceland has qualified for the 2016 Euros already. From a group featuring Netherlands, Czech Republic and Turkey. That is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 07:58 AM) Iceland has qualified for the 2016 Euros already. From a group featuring Netherlands, Czech Republic and Turkey. That is awesome. Netherlands might not qualify...that team's really fallen off after the WC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 When I grow up I want to be just like Robert Lewandowski. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Tottenham upsets City 4-1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I'm heading down to St. Louis for Friday's opening 2018 World Cup qualifier. Anyone else here going to that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 10, 2015 -> 12:06 PM) I'm heading down to St. Louis for Friday's opening 2018 World Cup qualifier. Anyone else here going to that one? Awesome. Hopefully you get to see newcomers Darlington Nagbe and Matt Miazga play and get cap tied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 10, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) Awesome. Hopefully you get to see newcomers Darlington Nagbe and Matt Miazga play and get cap tied. That's a good point. I was hesitant to get on the Miazga bandwagon, but he's really improved a lot in the past year and seems to be capable of being an elite defender within the US system. It will be my second US game, first since the 2013 Gold Cup final in Soldier Field. It will be a bit weird seeing a game in a baseball stadium. I saw a friendly at Wrigley and it was less than ideal. Hopefully I picked out better seats for this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) I've only been to one senior match and it was the first WCQ for 2014. It was against Antigua and Barbuda in Tampa. It was in a driving rainstorm but fun nonetheless. Have fun Edited November 10, 2015 by zenryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.