Originally Posted by vaticanplum
Throw in the Red Sox, who also get a lot of coverage, and that's essentially the whole Eastern seaboard and the Midwest's only truly large city you're talking about there. They are much bigger markets, many more cable subscribers in sheer numbers. Essentially, they're paying for it. ESPN loses viewers and money if they don't give a nod to their biggest markets.
If the Reds win consistently, they'll get more fans. If they get more fans, there's more money in it for ESPN, and we will see more of them. That's the way it works. I still maintain that having Freel as the #2 play was completely acceptable and doesn't smack of any bias whatsoever.
Like Herd Fan says, this is why FSN exists. No reason to watch ESPN if you don't want to.
Okay....so let me get this right....
First you tell me that I'm wrong for not showing proof that ESPN doesn't cover Reds games at times....then you explain to me why they don't cover them?