Andrew Weise writes
 
> Frankly, I don't blame FSNE or MSC. They had contracts with
> the Celtics & Bucks to broadcast those games no matter what.
> Whether or not everyone thinks it's right to do something like
> that is beside the point. They had to honor their contract or
> there would be legal ramifications.
 
Of course; I would never suggest that they not honor the contract.  I
would say that they should not have signed such a contract in the
first place.  Maybe the NBA wields a big stick, but if sticking with
games to conclusion were the norm in broadcasting, FSNE could have
said, "Sorry, but this contract could force us to violate our
fan-friendly policy," and instead offered to contractually obligate
themselves never to show a live event that was scheduled to end less
than 90 minutes before a Celtics game.  (Which is what they do to try
and avoid situations like this.)
 
I think it's completely valid for everyone who was honked off by FSNE
cutting away from the BU-SLU game to express their displeasure with
that action.  It's true that FSNE was contractually obligated to do
so, but hopefully these complaints be considered the next time they're
deciding whether to enter into such a contract.
 
Since FSNE has chosen to deflect the blame for this incident to their
NBA contract, perhaps it would also be appropriate to send a copy of
your letters of complaint to the NBA and the Celtics, and think about
this the next time you're considering buying league merchandise or
attending a game.
 
> It's a tough position to be in,
> nonetheless. Who would have thought that this game was going
> into 4 OTs, anyway? ESPN had the same dilemma in 1995 during
> the Maine-Michigan classic.
 
And they pre-empted their regularly scheduled golf to show the first
two OTs, cutting back to the golf during the intermissions.  They
could do this because they had not put themselves in the position of
being contractually required to cut away from the game.  (Of course,
they screwed up the third OT and were not forthcoming with an on-air
explanation, but that's a different story.)
 
Another thought: the _Globe_ article mentioned that the audience share
for the Celtics game was twice that for the hockey game.  I hear
occasionally that college sports attracts a desirable advertising
demographic: the fans are more likely to be educated and have more
disposable income.  Presumably this is more true for sports other than
Squeakball and Gridiron, which attract fans from around the country in
a pro-sports-like style.  So if NBA-vs-college hockey programming
decisions are argued based on market share rather than fairness to
fans of all sports, keep in mind that one college hockey fan may equal
more than one NBA fan in the eyes of advertisers.
 
                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                 [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.