is ESPN better than $ky?

[Crouchy]

I presume many of the people who moan about Sky are too young to remember the coverage provided by BBC and ITV before Sky started up. To say it was abysmal would be an understatement.You were given 'highlights of four or five matches (about eight minutes each) after they had shown most of a Rags match.Their attitude was shut up, pay your licence fee and think yourself lucky. The later they could get away with showing the matches the better, they made sure they didn't get in the way off all the rubbish they normally show.

Nowadays they try to pretend that they are the 'home of football', especially Linekar.

I will always be grateful to Sky for breaking the mould. Yes it has become a bit cliched, but I wonder if that is just a need to be constantly updating their coverage now that there is competition from other channels.

As for ESPN, I hate the presenters especially Waddle. They are biased towards the old 'big four' and many of their comments come into the category of the 'bleeding obvious'.

I still watch the channel, but if possible blank out the commentary.

Problem is Murdochs a robbing bastard when it comes to it and compared to the rest of europe we get nailed for prices!

On another note theres some good analysis of the european leagues on ESPN especially the bundesliga

 

[chesterbells]

For me, skys best coverage is on champions league nights where the quality of pundits and comment is much better than for prem league games, and the roundups from all the other games afterwards make it a feast of viewing midweek (which I'm hoping to be taking a lot more interest in next season).

 

[mad4city]

People seem to have forgotten how BBC & ITV had a cartel and kept the price of football down for years. If they had any sense of public service broadcasting, this might have been a good thing. They hadn't, though. The infamous deal, negotiated by David Dein (Arsenal) and Everton's representative on the Football League Management Committee (Carter?) whereby the then Big 5 (Arsenal, Everton, Rags, Liverpool and Spurs) got the lion's share of the TV money and the rest had to live off the scraps, is proof of how little they cared about the game.
Say what you like about SKY but at least half of the money is divided equally and the other half is doled out on merit (ie finishing first gets more than second place which earns more than third etc etc).
The pundits on all of the English channels do seem to be quite sychophantioc towards their own favourites (no need to list those names out, I presume) and SKY are by far the worst, in that regard. I'm quite indifferent towards ESPN - well, I am now that they did away with that cringeworthy barber who used to greet us before every City game.

One more thing... bearing in mind how those two clubs (Arsenal & Everton) were instrumental in shafting the vast majority of the football league to satisfy their own greed, isn't it really ironic to hear their managers squeal from the moral high ground about nastly little City spending all that money? All smacks of 'hookers had more class in momma's day' to me.

 

[usbluesfan]

ESPN never covers football in the States. I rely on shaky internet feeds to watch City and Villareal. They don't even show the results on the ticker- pisses me off.

 

[Plain Speaking]

My Dad watches City games on LiveOnlineFooty.com via the internet. He says the prices are much cheaper compared to sky and ESPN, (£6 for 2months). Although the feed isnt HD its not bad and he said he gets much more choice than sky and ESPN. Occasionally I think there is a little advert in the bottom corner. He can watch all the premiership games. He says sometimes it has a foreign commentary, but I suppose you can put the radio commentary next to it. Worth a thought in these "hard pressed" times!

 

[mac_coyle]

The Monday night game only is a little disappointing, but with the Sunday night game on channel 4, I've got enough to last me the week, especially if you include the college football aswell, which is generally not too far off of NFL levels with some Colleges.

College football is much better than the NFL. some of the running backs in college are nothing short of astonishing
Also liking that ESPN 30 for 30 at moment some inspiring stories on that

Watch Tom Brady and then tell me College Football is better. That is my problem with it: They run the ball too much in College and then once they get into the NFL they suck because it is a quarterback league. But im just biased as a Patriots fan.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

College football is much better than the NFL. some of the running backs in college are nothing short of astonishing
Also liking that ESPN 30 for 30 at moment some inspiring stories on that

Watch Tom Brady and then tell me College Football is better. That is my problem with it: They run the ball too much in College and then once they get into the NFL they suck because it is a quarterback league. But im just biased as a Patriots fan.

Dont get me wrong i like NFL and Tom Brady is an amazing QB, watch the Patriots when they are on. Reggie Bush showed what a college boy can do last year, but then he is different class and also lost his Heismann trophy in the same year. Do you know the percentage of players from colege called into NFL draft as i imagine its quite low?