View Single Post
Old 07-07-2012, 12:29 PM   #13
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 5,037

Originally Posted by stringertom View Post
I have a hard time feeling good about someone making the above judgemental statement.

First, the suggestion was "why not the handoff to ABC for the finals?". It's easy enough for cable/dish households to shift to the over-the-air channel and EVERYONE watches in the convenience and comfort of their own home. There is a precedent for this...NBA Finals. Did you have a problem with that handoff?

Second, if you have a HDTV and an inexpensive external antenna, you can stay in touch with this world just fine, minus the $1,200+ annual hit on the pocket for cable/dish. It IS 2012...that is the point and many households struggle to keep ahead of the bills. Have you not been following the news on your favorite cable news show?

Time to get off your high horse, my friend!
What high horse?

If you don't have cable, the internet, or a friend that has either, I don't really know what to say...I feel like it's nearly impossible in modern America to not have access to one of those three things.

As for the transfer to ABC, it's fine for the NBA Finals. They get huge ratings, it's a hugely popular sport in America, the games never run more than 3 hours, and it's in Primetime in the US. It's an entirely different thing than tennis coverage, which has multiple events that could run anywhere from 2 hours total to 8 hours total (like today).

Imagine if ABC had the women's final today, and ESPN had nothing. We wouldn't have seen either doubles final, because ABC would have moved to regular Saturday programming in lieu of more tennis.

I'm 100% fine with the system as is. If that makes me heartless and on a high horse, then so be it.
BigServer1 is offline   Reply With Quote