After a night to think about it, I have to admit that my anger towards
ESPN has not subsided. While I understand that they really could not cut
away from the tennis match, they should have told us they were having
technical difficulties or whatever that would delay the start of the
telecast of the third period.
 
Ryan Robbins wrote:
 
> What many of you seem to be forgetting is that ESPN has contractual
> obligations. The tennis match ran long, therefore the Maine-
> Michigan game broadcast time had to be delayed. As most of you have
> pointed out, that's ESPN's policy.
>
 
This is exactly why I am so upset. ESPN has a contractual obligation to
show the first semifinal game live. ESPN was not doing a favor to the
eight college hockey fans in the country -- they are required to show a
variety of NC$$ Championship events in order to get any of the basketball,
football, and baseball games that they show.
 
 
> What about ESPN's not showing the end of the Maine-Michigan game
> live? you may be wondering.
>
> Think: the game began at 1 p.m. It went into three overtimes and
> ended after more than 4 1/2 hours. The average college hockey
> game is about 2 1/2 hours long. Have you considered the possibility
> that ESPN would have to honor its contract with golf? Who expected
> a hockey game to last more than four hours? There was probably no
> provision in ESPN's golf contract to delay broadcasting that in
> favor of the hockey game if the hcokey game ran over its expected
> time frame. I doubt anybody on this list would have put a clause
> in the golf contract giving priority to hockey if they were a
> manager at ESPN. Hockey games just don't last 4 1/2 hours.
>
 
As far as I know, such clauses are standard fare. Again, ESPN has a rule
-- the station does not leave live broadcast competitions until they are
completed. I have seen golf (as I occasionally watch -- ick, I know)
preempted in the past, and it will be preempted again. That policy, I am
certain, is reflected in all of the contracts that ESPN signs.
 
> ESPN was justified for doing what it did. It had to honor contracts.
> Most of ESPN's audience doesn't care for college hockey, regardless
> of whether its a regular season game or an NCAA semi-final game.
> Deal with it. You got to see the end of the game.
 
Unfortunately, ESPN did not honor it's own programming rules yesterday,
and some mention was made that the station had violated FCC regulations by
not announcing that it was showing the third overtime on a tape-delay
basis.
 
But this brings up one additional point -- I am not sure if ESPN broke its
contract agreement with our friends at the NC$$. In fact, my letter will
not be nearly as mean with ESPN as it will be with our "friends" in
Overland Park, Kansas. And, to all of you letter writers out there, I'd
suggest that you make sure your complaints are heard at the NC$$ offices
as well.
 
I would agree that letters to ESPN should be fairly diplomatic and just
express frustration and concern with yesterday's broadcast. But, I'd be
more pointed with the NC$$.
 
-- Craig Cheslog