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 along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
jlb1705;1663466; said: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.
jlb1705;1663466; said: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.
GoBucks1014;1663477; 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.
3074326;1663479; 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
OH10;1663481; said:If they win the gold, you'll see that happen. If they don't win a medal, no one will remember this game - so it won't matter which network it was on.
GoBucks1014;1663477; 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.
Buckeye89Fan;1663456; said:How perfect is this? USA shocks the world 30 year ago... 30 years later USA pulls another shocker in beating Canada the way they did. Unbelievable.
Jake;1663495; said:Tonight was fun, but to compare the magnitude of this win with the one in 1980 is quite a stretch. That was kids versus commies. This was NHL versus NHL.
3074326;1663502; 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.