When I was younger ESPN was good for sports. At least it seemed that way to me back when I didn't have cable and I would watch it at someone else's house. I remember thinking that having all that sports coverage right there all the time would be worth the price of cable. Of course back then most of the major sports were on broadcast channels and ESPN showed a lot of hockey and even some off the beaten path events that weren't shown anywhere else. I couldn't wait to get cable so I could get all of that wonderful sports coverage.
Finally the blessed day arrived. I could afford cable. I remember the day I got it hooked up in my tiny little apartment over in Kentucky. I was glued to my couch for a week before the novelty wore off. It wasn't just sports either. Sure, I spent hours with ESPN, but I watched the History Channel and others as well, logging many an unproductive hour. Finally the obsession subsided and I began to have more of a normal life, but I could get all the highlights and scores I ever wanted.
I guess I should have noticed the changes, but I didn't. I was no longer one of the poor peons who didn't have cable, so I hardly noticed when the Reds moved exclusively to FSN. I had watched them before and I was still watching them, only more times than before. Then one day a friend came over and I had the game on. He said, "I wish I could watch the Reds, but I don't have cable." He spent a lot of time at my house over the next couple years watching games. I didn't give it much thought at the time. I knew my friend didn't make much money, but I had my cable, so his plight seemed distant. After all, I never went through that. I had always been able to watch my teams on tv, even before cable. The Reds in the summer, the Bengals in the winter, and occasionally Monday Night Football if I felt like staying up that late. You could also get quite a few college football and basketball games and even the occasional NBA game, but I never got into that much.
I think I noticed one day that ESPN no longer carried some of those little known sports I used to see on there. No more Aussie rules football or European soccer on ESPN2. They were covering the main sports more often and spending less time on those other things I used to enjoy on there. The thing I didn't notice at the time was that the more coverage the main sports got on ESPN and FSN, the more their coverage declined on regular broadcast tv. But what did I care? I was no longer one of the unfortunate poor who couldn't afford cable. Then my friend's comment came back to me. "I wish I could watch the Reds, but I don't have cable." I was at that moment mad that local sports fans were being forced to subscribe to cable in order to watch their local team.
Over time my anger has subsided somewhat and I have grown to accept the way things are, no matter how wrong it is. After all, they may have baseball, but football is still safe, right? Wrong. Next came the decision to take an established icon of American broadcasting, Monday Night Football, and deny it to anyone not subscribing to cable. This is the NFL, the league that claims to have replaced baseball as the favorite sport of the public, the sport that for years has been a mainstay of fall and winter television viewing. You could always count on the college games on Saturday, the NFL games on Sunday, and the Monday night game if you were so inclined. Anyone with a tv and a decent antenna could have this diversion over the weekend before going back to the grind on Monday. Then we hear of this ESPNU channel and their decision to put the crosstown shootout on there, a channel not even carried in Cincinnati. Then today we had another straw piled on the camel's back. I made a run down past Charleston, WV to deliver some mechanical parts to a coal mine. I made the delivery and drove at a rapid pace all the way home so I could watch the Buckeyes. It wasn't that I was expecting the game to be a nail biter or anything like that, but that's just what Saturday afternoons are for in the fall. For as long as I can remember, I have watched the Bucks on Saturdays, and they have always been on tv. I get home about 5 minutes after the start of the game, take my spot on the couch with the remote in hand and a beverage close by, and put my feet up to watch the game and...wait a minute...where is the game? The last time I checked, I don't live in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, or Southern California, so why are those teams all being shown and not Ohio State? Then I heard on ESPN radio that the game was on some college gameday package and not on regular cable or broadcast tv. I ended up at a local sports bar watching it with a few other Bucks fans I didn't know and it turned out to be a fairly enjoyable afternoon, even if I'm still tasting those onion rings.
Is there a point to this rant? I guess what I would like to know is where will the line be drawn? Are we going to get to a point where broadcast tv will be a thing of the past and everyone will have to subscribe to cable or satellite to receive any programming? Are the powers at be going to continue nibbling away at sports programming until the day comes that you won't even be able to watch a game on basic cable? Are we going to force sports fans to subscribe to extra packages that will cost more money just to watch what we all used to watch over broadcast tv? The cable companies have sports fans over a barrell, but maybe it's our fault. They introduce more channels or packages, and people continue to fork over the money just to be able to continue watching their teams. I just wonder how far it's going to go. My aforementioned friend still doesn't have cable. He's on a limited income and can't afford it. It's bad enough that he can't watch the Reds, his favorite sports team, but will there be a time when I hear him say, "I wish I could watch the Bengals, but I don't have cable."