: >
: >	On Tuesday, when it was raining in Chicago, ESPN provided 
: >bonus hockey coverage.  Now it seems as though some fans are ticked off
: >that the NY-Wash OT was replaced with the Angels-?? game.  People must
: >realize that there are more baseball fans instead of hockey fans in the U.S  
: >The baseball game was scheduled to air and advertisers money was paid so
: >they can't skip the baseball game.  Why don't you people CHILL OUT
: >and enjoy whatever coverage you can get.

Well, partly because I, as an ardent fan of both sports, would rather
see Game 3 of the NHL playoffs than Game 3 of 162 of the MLB
season (even if the bb game involves the Red Sox).	

ESPN may have had contractual obligations. I understand that part.
But it's a bit inaccurate to call us "selfish" just because we want
to watch the watch the game we love. Am I, as a baseball fan, "selfish"
when I get pissed a CBS for showing approximately one game per month?
I don't think so.

While, ESPN may have contractual obligations, we, as their consumers,
have a right to voice our displeasure with how they are serving us.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that.