BBC coverage!!!

We've now lost the picture 3 times in 5 minutes. This is appalling.

Looks like all the license fee cash that was meant for infrastructure has been spent on compensation to all of Jimmy Savile's victims and countless other pay offs because of dirty BBC presenters from the 70s and 80s.

A well thought argument which made an interesting read, well done

The BBC is a brilliant and vital institution and we should never even look to get rid of it. Without the BBC we'd find ourselves with the same model as the US commercial model that they've always had, which results in almost every show having around three ad breaks in it. At least the BBC acts as a competitive network which keeps amount of advertisements on other channels slightly in check as they don't want to alienate their audiences.

Also it manages to provide better coverage of sporting events due to this lack of advertisements. Compare it to ITV's sports coverage, as they are the BBC's main rivals, the quality is hugely significant in BBC's favour.

Outside of sport the BBC is one institution which doesn't have to pander to the masses, as it doesn't have to get a huge audience to achieve higher advertising funds, hence why it creates some of the greatest documentaries and intelligent comedies in house as opposed to I'm a Celebrity without the X Factor.

BBC and the License Fee need to be kept.

Looseheaded wrote:The BBC is a brilliant and vital institution and we should never even look to get rid of it. Without the BBC we'd find ourselves with the same model as the US commercial model that they've always had, which results in almost every show having around three ad breaks in it. At least the BBC acts as a competitive network which keeps amount of advertisements on other channels slightly in check as they don't want to alienate their audiences.

Also it manages to provide better coverage of sporting events due to this lack of advertisements. Compare it to ITV's sports coverage, as they are the BBC's main rivals, the quality is hugely significant in BBC's favour.

Outside of sport the BBC is one institution which doesn't have to pander to the masses, as it doesn't have to get a huge audience to achieve higher advertising funds, hence why it creates some of the greatest documentaries and intelligent comedies in house as opposed to I'm a Celebrity without the X Factor.

BBC and the License Fee need to be kept.

Hear Hear

The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content and I can't think of a rugby pundit on its payroll who I actually enjoy watching. I hear a lot of people complain about the price of Sky Sports but if you actually watch a lot of sport and don't restrict yourself to one sport either, it is worth every penny. I wouldn't really use lack of advertisements as an argument to support the BBC's coverage of sport seeing as most people need to get up to get a beer and/or go for a slash at some point during a three-hour broadcast anyway.

Otherwise, I can't really fault the BBC.

Cryptoyourisan wrote:The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content and I can't think of a rugby pundit on its payroll who I actually enjoy watching. I hear a lot of people complain about the price of Sky Sports but if you actually watch a lot of sport and don't restrict yourself to one sport either, it is worth every penny. I wouldn't really use lack of advertisements as an argument to support the BBC's coverage of sport seeing as most people need to get up to get a beer and/or go for a slash at some point during a three-hour broadcast anyway.

Otherwise, I can't really fault the BBC.

Fair enough. I personally despise Sky coverage and feel their commentators are just awful. Outside of how expensive it is, it also fails to show the matches I'm interested in (London Welsh mainly) whereas BBC covers the Robocop.

I do really enjoy the BBC coverage and with the exception of Guscott can't find myself overly angry at any of their presenting staff/commentators/pundits.

Looseheaded wrote:

Cryptoyourisan wrote:The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content and I can't think of a rugby pundit on its payroll who I actually enjoy watching. I hear a lot of people complain about the price of Sky Sports but if you actually watch a lot of sport and don't restrict yourself to one sport either, it is worth every penny. I wouldn't really use lack of advertisements as an argument to support the BBC's coverage of sport seeing as most people need to get up to get a beer and/or go for a slash at some point during a three-hour broadcast anyway.

Otherwise, I can't really fault the BBC.

Fair enough. I personally despise Sky coverage and feel their commentators are just awful. Outside of how expensive it is, it also fails to show the matches I'm interested in (London Welsh mainly) whereas BBC covers the Robocop.

I do really enjoy the BBC coverage and with the exception of Guscott can't find myself overly angry at any of their presenting staff/commentators/pundits.

I can understand those comments about Barnes & Morris, but I feel all the BBC pundits are just as bad if not worse (then there's Inverdale), and on the plus side SKY have Lynagh, Fitzpatrick, Wallace, Quinnell, Ryan & Greenwood.

BBC Sport was at its pinnacle during the Olympics, I've not seen sports coverage done better anywhere else.

Consider this:

All Olympic events had video coverage, and all were available to be streamed online in HD, not only that but the user also had the ability to rewind live streams.

There were no adverts, inbetween events there were analysis

All events were available on demand immediately after they had finished

Quite frankly, I would sacrifice some poor punditry if it meant I could have an advert free game both on TV and online

radelven wrote:

Looseheaded wrote:

Cryptoyourisan wrote:The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content and I can't think of a rugby pundit on its payroll who I actually enjoy watching. I hear a lot of people complain about the price of Sky Sports but if you actually watch a lot of sport and don't restrict yourself to one sport either, it is worth every penny. I wouldn't really use lack of advertisements as an argument to support the BBC's coverage of sport seeing as most people need to get up to get a beer and/or go for a slash at some point during a three-hour broadcast anyway.

Otherwise, I can't really fault the BBC.

Fair enough. I personally despise Sky coverage and feel their commentators are just awful. Outside of how expensive it is, it also fails to show the matches I'm interested in (London Welsh mainly) whereas BBC covers the Robocop.

I do really enjoy the BBC coverage and with the exception of Guscott can't find myself overly angry at any of their presenting staff/commentators/pundits.

I can understand those comments about Barnes & Morris, but I feel all the BBC pundits are just as bad if not worse (then there's Inverdale), and on the plus side SKY have Lynagh, Fitzpatrick, Wallace, Quinnell, Ryan & Greenwood.

I suppose Sky do have Scott Hastings who is without doubt the worst commentator in rugby. I still cringe at him repeatedly referring to Edinburgh as Scotland and going on about how Dan Parks takes a tape-measure onto the pitch with him. Not quite as funny as Paul Wallace's moment of glory.

Looseheaded wrote:

Cryptoyourisan wrote:The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content and I can't think of a rugby pundit on its payroll who I actually enjoy watching. I hear a lot of people complain about the price of Sky Sports but if you actually watch a lot of sport and don't restrict yourself to one sport either, it is worth every penny. I wouldn't really use lack of advertisements as an argument to support the BBC's coverage of sport seeing as most people need to get up to get a beer and/or go for a slash at some point during a three-hour broadcast anyway.

Otherwise, I can't really fault the BBC.

Fair enough. I personally despise Sky coverage and feel their commentators are just awful. Outside of how expensive it is, it also fails to show the matches I'm interested in (London Welsh mainly) whereas BBC covers the Robocop.

I do really enjoy the BBC coverage and with the exception of Guscott can't find myself overly angry at any of their presenting staff/commentators/pundits.

Ah, so the problem is that you actually prefer watching a load of shoite!

Cryptoyourisan wrote:The BBC's sports coverage is gash and has been for a long time. It's light-years behind that of ESPN and Sky in terms of analysis and content

I couldn't disagree with you more. Stuart Barnes, Dewi Morris, Miles Harrison? Sky Sports is an abomination of a rugby channel.

Don't watch it then.

I take it you did`nt watch Italy versus the All Blacks then on ESPN ?the commentators were pants.It was painful at times even making comments about players who were`nt even playing.

emack2 wrote:I take it you did`nt watch Italy versus the All Blacks then on ESPN ?the commentators were pants.It was painful at times even making comments about players who were`nt even playing.

I was at the match in Rome, great atmosphere brilliant day out.

emack2 wrote:I take it you did`nt watch Italy versus the All Blacks then on ESPN ?the commentators were pants.It was painful at times even making comments about players who were`nt even playing.

Hardly a fair comparison - from what I can tell, the normal Kiwi guys were commentating for the coverage in NZ and most Italians living abroad and watching the game on ESPN can probably speak English anyway. The Scotland - Fiji coverage was in black and white, although apparently that was more due to Fijian infrastructure than anything. The ESPN coverage for French games used to be fairly rudimentary but, again, why spend a lot of money on it when proportionally few viewers will be watching it? Compare that to the BBC, who have generally had coverage of Scottish games at home and they still managed the screw it up.

If you are talking about solid coverage week in, week out and analysis from people who actually watch games rather than generic commentators (Butler and Cotter), clueless blonds (Douglas and Logan), excitable retards (Davies, Guscott and Nicol) and a complete pleb (Inverdale), Sky and ESPN dump on the BBC from a great height. Phil Matthews and Keith Wood are alright, I suppose (I'm not Irish). Sky Sports has traditionally covered the Premiership and Heineken and Amlin, so I think you can give them a pass for the occasional failure to know trivia about players they wouldn't usually cover. Again, compare that to, for example, that bird (don't think it was Douglas or Logan) grilling Simon Danielli for signing for Glasgow when he'd signed a contract extension for Ulster at the time.

Looseheaded wrote:The BBC is a brilliant and vital institution and we should never even look to get rid of it. Without the BBC we'd find ourselves with the same model as the US commercial model that they've always had, which results in almost every show having around three ad breaks in it. At least the BBC acts as a competitive network which keeps amount of advertisements on other channels slightly in check as they don't want to alienate their audiences.

Also it manages to provide better coverage of sporting events due to this lack of advertisements. Compare it to ITV's sports coverage, as they are the BBC's main rivals, the quality is hugely significant in BBC's favour.

Outside of sport the BBC is one institution which doesn't have to pander to the masses, as it doesn't have to get a huge audience to achieve higher advertising funds, hence why it creates some of the greatest documentaries and intelligent comedies in house as opposed to I'm a Celebrity without the X Factor.

BBC and the License Fee need to be kept.

Couldn't have put it better.

Galted wrote:

Looseheaded wrote:The BBC is a brilliant and vital institution and we should never even look to get rid of it. Without the BBC we'd find ourselves with the same model as the US commercial model that they've always had, which results in almost every show having around three ad breaks in it. At least the BBC acts as a competitive network which keeps amount of advertisements on other channels slightly in check as they don't want to alienate their audiences.

Also it manages to provide better coverage of sporting events due to this lack of advertisements. Compare it to ITV's sports coverage, as they are the BBC's main rivals, the quality is hugely significant in BBC's favour.

Outside of sport the BBC is one institution which doesn't have to pander to the masses, as it doesn't have to get a huge audience to achieve higher advertising funds, hence why it creates some of the greatest documentaries and intelligent comedies in house as opposed to I'm a Celebrity without the X Factor.

BBC and the License Fee need to be kept.

Couldn't have put it better.

Second that! Simply put Loosehead summed up what I repeatedly try and say in arguments (or should we say debates) about the BBC but in a much more coherent fashion.

BBC is brilliant at documentaries, news, sport and educational/nature programmes. Comedy, drama/soaps and series are dreadful though IMO.

GunsGerms wrote:BBC is brilliant at documentaries, news, sport and educational/nature programmes. Comedy, drama/soaps and series are dreadful though IMO.

At the moment the comedies/dramas aren't great to be fair but in the past they've produced the best of the best with Monty Python,Blackadder,Only Fools and Horses,A Touch of Frost,etc!

One thing I'd love to see as a sports fan is a BBC sports channel to try and give Olympic sports that usually struggle to get any coverage outside the Olympics a chance for instance.