Brett Hull says Versus "ridiculously bad channel"

[mack 44]

I can't stand any of it. I hate their announcers and would almost want to hear Buffalo's or Washington's announcers over that. Granted I haven't caught but one period on Versus this year, but it has no attraction/appeal outside of hockey. Let's face it, hockey's not attractive enough to sell to the general public anyway and having it on this public access channel isn't going to help.

[TBLfan 25]

I can't stand any of it. I hate their announcers and would almost want to hear Buffalo's or Washington's announcers over that. Granted I haven't caught but one period on Versus this year, but it has no attraction/appeal outside of hockey. Let's face it, hockey's not attractive enough to sell to the general public anyway and having it on this public access channel isn't going to help.

That's not even funny, you crossed the line! The VS announcers aren't THAT bad!

VS does suck. I mean I just flipped to VS and they had a guy talking about water on 1/2 the screen, a 1/4 of the screen was taken up by a fish tracker and the last 1/4 of the screen just showed water. I'd rather watch an infomercial for oxi-clean... I wonder why no one watches VS?

[Trooper 8]

Well if nothing else it might stop ESPN from taking all those free "shots" at the sport..... as for a being a "waste of money".....I think it would do a couple of things..besides possibly reducing the "cheap shots"....

It would get "face time" as long as the story kept some interest. It would also show that the NHL itself has some of the character the game expects it's players to exhibit, when confronted with cheap shots..and maybe glean some fan credibility by showing that it too is prepared to defend itself..instead of just woosing out....think what impact that might have on it's supporters...Hockey needs a rallying point...and Jessica Simpson, as recently suggested, may not be the answer....Nothing like the possibility of a good conspiracy to get people riled up.

You can't sue someone for criticizing a product.

[MDE3 0]

Well if nothing else it might stop ESPN from taking all those free "shots" at the sport..... as for a being a "waste of money".....I think it would do a couple of things..besides possibly reducing the "cheap shots"....

It would get "face time" as long as the story kept some interest. It would also show that the NHL itself has some of the character the game expects it's players to exhibit, when confronted with cheap shots..and maybe glean some fan credibility by showing that it too is prepared to defend itself..instead of just woosing out....think what impact that might have on it's supporters...Hockey needs a rallying point...and Jessica Simpson, as recently suggested, may not be the answer....Nothing like the possibility of a good conspiracy to get people riled up.

You can't sue someone for criticizing a product.

You mean if GM came out and said "Toyota products are really a joke, and nobody wants to use them", then they would not be liable? I think those laws vary somewhat when you are effectively a competitor, or your products serve a competitive market, and where the overwhelming substance of your commentary could be percieved as trying to deliberately defame a competitor for financial gain.

A substantiated analyses which criticizes a product by a qualified independant evaluator would be one thing, unsubstantiated generic broadsides when issued by a competitor in the guise of "objective commentary", which could have demonstable financial benefit for the commentator, or it's company, is quite another.

If it could be percieved that the intent of this commentary over time was to create enough negative impact that clients (fans or potential fans) would begin to believe the commentary (as opposed to analyses), then the motive of the criticism would come into play. Where this commentary was promoted explicitly as an Ad for ESPN's products, then they would also be safe.

However the fact that these critiques are issued in many cases by unqualified commentators, who are percieved as sports experts by the general public, when in fact many know little about the sport of hockey, has the public believing that these critiques have some objectivity...something which is not terribly accurate. It's the motive of the commentary which creats the liability.

[Jim A 4]

Vs is learning, not great coverage but then again if you typically don't have access to CBC,etc..you don't know what your missing...

Poker definitely doesn't buy time on ESPN..it has a huge demographic and ratings that are fantastic for cable...

the problems go way beyond a somewhat national contract....an article in the NYT had a recent Devils game on FSNY listed at 0.1 in its area..which is.......736 people tuned in....

the death of the NHL doesn't mean the death of sport..however...that those who play aren't watching, says grave things about its state...I'm the perfect example...go to 1-2 games a year (more this year thanks to a very kind hookup) but really...I don't wake up and go I've gotta to see a game...I'd rather play 4x a week...

[Chadd 916]

Poker definitely doesn't buy time on ESPN..it has a huge demographic and ratings that are fantastic for cable...

They did at first, before the ratings were there.