Guest Vern Gagne Posted February 3, 2002 Report Posted February 3, 2002 Does anyone think that ESPN goes a little overboard on it's Super Bowl coverage. They have about 20 people covering the game. They have a 3 hour NFL Countdown, how could you discuss one game for 3 hours.
Guest JAMES900 Posted February 3, 2002 Report Posted February 3, 2002 Well in the uk it's like that for the fa cup only they have about 4 hours worth of build up, they usually fill these countdowns with interviews and reviews of the teams seasons. Still my intrest was lost once the dolphins were out.
Guest Tony149 Posted February 3, 2002 Report Posted February 3, 2002 ESPN goes overboard a lot on sports events they like i.e. Super bowl, etc. They didn't even do that for the first ever XFL game, which was a big event in it's own right. Although, they do broadcast NFL games so that's to be expected. For those who might ask, yes, I actually liked the XFL. BUT Fox Sports Net bashed it really hard.
Guest Eraser2K2 Posted February 3, 2002 Report Posted February 3, 2002 ESPN is the only sports channel that matters, as I think is evident as Fox Sports has cancelled its news program already. 3 hours isn't that much for the Super Bowl, and its a lot better than watching some stupid singers on Fox. Now only if they hyped the Stanley Cup Finals like this.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted February 3, 2002 Report Posted February 3, 2002 Headline Sports is better than ESPN.
Guest Choken One Posted February 4, 2002 Report Posted February 4, 2002 I think 3 hours is theight amount as long as it's not all "X and O's". Remember Super Bowl XXXIII got like 6 hours of hype for a game that was built around the two coaches with no personaity and The fact it was Elway's swan song. I flipped between both Fox and ESPN and felt ESPN for the most part was better, whie Fox was singers and various stuff.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now