Good for NBC for relegating the most exciting sporting event of the year so far to a third place cable news channel. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving network.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BB73
- Start date
GoBucks1014
Heaven on earth
jlb1705;1663466; said:
I don't get what the big stink is about hockey being shown on MSNBC. We get to watch the most exciting sporting event relatively commercial free. If it were on network, we would be subject to forced TV timeouts and interuption of the game.
If the argument is "I don't get MSNBC on my chosen cable/satellite provider," you know what the answer to that is. The same as when I faced a season with the possibility of missing a couple Bucks games. Tell your provider to bite it or move up to the next tier.
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
GoBucks1014;1663477; said:
Has nothing to do with any of that. I have MSNBC and CNBC, so it doesn't really matter to me personally. We want hockey to get more exposure. These are the games that will have millions watching, only half of them can't watch it.
Trying to get hockey to the point where idiots can talk about it for 30 minutes on ESPN again. I want to see NHL 2 Night again. Needs to be on the cover of SI again. etc
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
OH10;1663481; said:
A game that great on national television would've helped. Maybe just a little. But the NHL needs it..
If they win gold I don't know what will happen, but it'll be awesome. Still not getting my hopes up but I'm feeling much better about the chances.
Upvote
0
scott91575
Resident hater
GoBucks1014;1663477; said:
The network wouldn't dictate anything. It would be the same, and hence the problem. NBC would not be able to have as many commercials, or would have to miss much of the game while they were showing commercials.
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
It's the Olympics, the games should be ahead of the commercials and I refuse to accept otherwise. It's why I hate NBC. Wouldn't you think you'd televise the games based on the games themselves? Nope. Other worldwide channels are doing this the right way, I'm pretty sure.
I'd guess that this Canada/US game would be worth putting on the main channel. Or USA. Or something that most people get. They have other options and they chose this channel that a lot of people don't get.
Fuck commercials, I want hockey to be popular again.
I'd guess that this Canada/US game would be worth putting on the main channel. Or USA. Or something that most people get. They have other options and they chose this channel that a lot of people don't get.
Fuck commercials, I want hockey to be popular again.
Upvote
0
Mr_Burns
Hall of Fame
Once the game was over, I went back and started skimming through NBC's coverage on my DVR. They cut to the last 30 seconds of the game, Costas said a few things about it, and then Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth showed the highlights and briefly added their two cents.
And then Costas said, "And as promised, we'll get you back to ice dancing after the break". How can't anyone at that network realize how ridiculous that sounds?
And then Costas said, "And as promised, we'll get you back to ice dancing after the break". How can't anyone at that network realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
Jake;1663495; said:
And this was for seeding purposes.
Can't call this game meaningless because it gives the US a ton of momentum and puts heaps of pressure on Canada, but there's a lot of hockey left. I'm very excited.. but it's getting overblown. I think a lot of people are under the impression that this game was a lot more important. That game wasn't a medal game, but it was more important than playing for seeds. There's no comparison to the the 1980 game whatsoever IMO. The USA team is talented, it's full of NHL players. They should have competed.
I don't know what the mindset was like back in 1980 around the hockey team. Were they expected to compete at all?
Somewhat off-topic.. a friend of mine texted me and asked what Rick Nash did that was so bad. I told him he assisted on a goal. He asked if he was playing for the US or Canada. I told him Canada. He said "why the fuck is he playing for Canada?" I responded "He's Canadian?" He then called me and explained how big of a traitor Rick Nash was because he played for Team Canada instead of Team USA and that he's glad he lost.
Upvote
0
3074326;1663502; said:And this was for seeding purposes.
That game wasn't a medal game, but it was more important than playing for seeds. There's no comparison to the the 1980 game whatsoever IMO. The USA team is talented, it's full of NHL players. They should have competed.
I don't know what the mindset was like back in 1980 around the hockey team. Were they expected to compete at all?
Somewhat off-topic.. a friend of mine texted me and asked what Rick Nash did that was so bad. I told him he assisted on a goal. He asked if he was playing for the US or Canada. I told him Canada. He said "why the fuck is he playing for Canada?" I responded "He's Canadian?" He then called me and explained how big of a traitor Rick Nash was because he played for Team Canada instead of Team USA and that he's glad he lost.
The Soviet team waxed them 10-3 a few days before the games, so they were given virtually no chance to beat them.
Upvote
0
scott91575
Resident hater
To be the #1 seed (which would be huge since it's a much easier draw) the US needs Sweden/Finland to go to OT or for Sweden to win by 5 goals or less. Right now Sweden is up 1-0 at the end of 1.
The amazing part is Canada and Russia will meet in the quarterfinals (assuming Canada beats Germany). One of them will not medal.
As for the #1 seed, it's important since the #1 seed will play the Switzerland/Belarus winner in the quarters. By far the easiest of the quarterfinal match ups. Plus no Russia, Canada, or Sweden in that side of the draw if the US is the #1 seed.
The amazing part is Canada and Russia will meet in the quarterfinals (assuming Canada beats Germany). One of them will not medal.
As for the #1 seed, it's important since the #1 seed will play the Switzerland/Belarus winner in the quarters. By far the easiest of the quarterfinal match ups. Plus no Russia, Canada, or Sweden in that side of the draw if the US is the #1 seed.
Upvote
0