Did this happen? If so, did someone write about DP's negligence of the Super match-up? I wish I wasn't sick so I could have e-mailed this in.

I didn't hear it. Surprising, but not really - I didn't write in with it because I figured everyone else would. Unless Mac added their emails to the list

_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

I emailed them a modified version of my post in the ESPN section on The Problem with ESPN.

But, I figured, even the modified version would not be something they would want to read.

Or, it just was poorly written and uninteresting. Nah.

_________________
You know me like that.

i gave him a thumbs down but they failed to read my email....

_________________
@audioidkid

My thumbs down was to Justin Craig for not pre-empting national stuff like was done for the Sox. I remember them breaking into Mike and Mike in the middle of the show when they would be doing non-Sox segments.

I know ESPN was the Sox station at the time but I would think, knowing Patrick is likely to be talking USC hoops with Will Ferrell, that contingencies might have been in place the day after the NFC title game in case the Bears won.

As I stated in another thread, they better be talking Super Bowl on 2/5. I don't care if Jerry Jones gets Vince Lombardi out of the grave to coach the Cowboys, I want a Super Bowl recap, win or lose.

_________________
You know me like that.

The fact we have to beg for Super Bowl coverage from 12-3 on WMVP (including the day after the game) is embarrassing. I turned on my car around 12:50 today and the station was tuned in. The first thing I heard was Dan say, "If Barry Bonds did steroids . . . " I was in NO WAY surpised and I popped in a CD before he could finish his sentence.

I wouldn't spend a great amount of time worrying about not getting coverage right after - there will be so much Super Bowl coverage next week you'll get tired of it. I don't think that okays them to completely abandon discussion of the topic, but oh well.

_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Agreed Scholar. It's your comment above most of us were thinking.

I'll be honest, if the Bears lose, I probably won't want to listen to any Super Bowl coverage, but that's just me. I know others feel differently.

It's more on principal at this point that, win or lose, it's the biggest sports story since the Sox World Series. And, you could argue, since there is a split in the city between Sox/Cubs, it may be the biggest Chicago sports story since the last Bears Super Bowl or at least the last Bulls championship.

This should be a huge time for a Chicago sports station. If a Chicago sports station is not 24 hours on the story the day after it happens (like they should have the day after winning the NFC to qualify for it), then what is it doing? Then you just aren't a Chicago sports station.

_________________
You know me like that.

That is the thing that bothers me. National shows don't want to talk about Bears in SB, fine. But a local Chicago Sports station should take a more active approach the day after the championship game at least. Pre-empt Mike & Mike and Dan Patrick. Bring in Coppock in the morning or just throw a couple producers in the studio and open the phone lines.

Trust me, I won't be going to the ESPN network guys for SB talk next week. I'll be tracking down an Atlanta station that will keep me abreast of the Mike Vick coverup the way Patrick did today.