View Single Post
Old
04-19-2011, 11:47 AM
  #74
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
I'm just happy ESPN didn't get this for the announcers. Maybe I'm in a minority, but the less Gary Thorne the better. Sorry, but I just think he's a terrible announcer. Too much and mis-timed inflection, too much mis-pronunciation; that far outweighs a good broadcast voice. But I digress...

Don't think it matters who got this contract. If you're paying $2B, you can bet that broadcaster would take care of that investment and do a ton so they could actually see a return on it. I just don't think that ESPN would have been the best caretaker.

Possible lockouts/strikes in MLB and the NBA play a part, but only in the short term. If ESPN got this contract, they would have parts of the four major sports. And unless my math and history are terribly off, the NHL would rank at best as the third priority of these four (and yes, I know they wouldn't be that high on the list).
Even if it hasn't be explicitely said, seems fairly obvious that they would love to keep VS from becoming a rival. If this could help keep VS from gaining a real foothold, that $2B might not seem like too high a price. Any company wanting what is essentially a monopoly have made crazier purchases.

I'd rather have a middling sports broadcaster have this as their flagship, than a huge broadcaster having it as one of many. Who is going to put more effort into growing and maintaining it's relevance?

cws is offline   Reply With Quote