Apparently ESPN is not willing to increase its bid for the tournament. (I also read that CBS lost money on the tournament this year, which is good, because their coverage was abysmal.) Perhaps this means the NCAA has recovered from its temporary bout of insanity and will not expand the men's tournament to 96 teams ... then again, if they really do get 98% of their money from this tournament, it's hard to see them passing that up. Of course, they could easily raise a ton of money from, say, a I-A football tournament, but that's logical and so it won't happen yet.
NBC is still a terrible network for sports. It's painful to sit through an NHL playoff game and watch the same repetitive ads for the same repetitive shows I wasn't going to watch anyway. (Of course, the NBC promos fill sports that I suppose would otherwise go to things like the GEICO commercials. Could the NHL have found a worse partner than GEICO with its not-funny-five-years-ago cavemen? Besides Cash4Gold, that is.)
The Big Ten is really thinking about expansion, and I mean Really Considering It. Naturally, people fall into two categories on this: those who believe it should be Notre Dame or no one, and those who are making realistic assumptions. Yes, Notre Dame is an excellent geographic fit, yes, they already play a number of schools in a number of sports ... but have you seen this list? Notice who's not on it? If you think that doesn't matter, think again. The Big Ten is looking for schools who can, well, read. Schools with weak or nonexistent academic reputations need not apply. (Sorry, Cincinnati and Louisville.) Athletics are also important (sorry, Iowa State), but if the schools aren't good overall fits, they aren't getting an invitation.
Also, you may have noticed that the Big Ten has asked before. Several times. Each time, Notre Dame has said something like "oh hell no", except in a properly Catholic sort of way. (That's something else to remember: ND has more in common with Marquette and Boston College than with Purdue and Michigan.) Of course, that made sense back when people watched NBC and Notre Dame football wasn't a punchline. (Thanks, Charlie, for your decided schematic advantage. No one can replace what you brought to Notre Dame football.) With the advent of the Giant Big Ten Moneymaker (aka Big Ten Network), pretty much any school is in play. (Don't believe this? Keep in mind that Northwestern gets more money from BTN than Texas gets from the Big 12's deal, and UT gets more from that deal than any other school does. Some Texas football games are only on pay-per-view. All Indiana football games are televised. Don't think people in Texas don't know this.)
In the old days, yeah, it would have been ND, maybe Syracuse, maybe Missouri. Now, if positioned properly, the Big Ten could ask just about anyone, and they may expand by three (or even five?) rather than one.
I still think if they're looking at fourteen, it has to be Texas, Texas A&M, and one more. If you look at the list of non-Big Ten schools in the AAU, there simply aren't three "available" schools that would make a good package. Cal, Stanford, Colorado? Great idea, but not happening. If anything, Colorado would head to the Pac-X after the Big Ten expands. Pitt isn't a bad match, but there really aren't any other Big East schools that justify expansion to 14. Vanderbilt is a solid academic school that offers very little athletically, and there are doubts whether or not a school would even leave the SEC. Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia sounds nice, but Virginia is probably the only school that would care about leaving the ACC even the slightest, and I doubt you'd get them without Virginia Tech, who's not an AAU member and thus is off the list.
I guess we might find out soon ...
Finally, A.J. Pierzynski is a cheater, which surprises absolutely no one. Unfortunately, he's not nearly the exception. Despite what some would have you believe, professional sports are not filled with fair play and sportsmanship. A lot of people will do anything they can get away with and more things they can't, which you can tell any time you watch a game. Blame Pierzynski for being a cheating cheater, but keep in mind that the home plate umpire let him do it.
A profile of zlionsfan
- zlionsfan
- Indiana, United States
- I like cats. I play a lot of games. Sometimes I develop web-based applications; this keeps my current employer from firing me too often. My favorite color is blue, or maybe green.
Showing posts with label nbc sucks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nbc sucks. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Random thoughts
The US rolls into the gold-medal game.
Anticlimactic. The Finns looked completely overmatched ... you'd never guess that these were the top two teams remaining in the draw. (Yes, in case you've not been paying attention, #2 Sweden and #3 Russia are out. It's #6 Canada and #7 Slovakia to decide who will face the Americans Sunday.)
And despite all that, Gary Bettman is still too stupid to realize how valuable this is for the sport. Maybe it's because he's afraid that people will actually like hockey if they watch it; that would explain the contract with Vs. (And with NBC, the least-competent sports network in history. Why Bettman thought it was a good idea to pay NBC to show NHL games, I'll never know.) Obviously the NHL needs to stop for the 2014 Olympics in Russia, which means Bettman will probably be "negotiating" this until 2013. I hope he retires before he completely destroys the NHL.
Jim Bunning is a stupid prick.
Sorry, there's no other way to put it. It will be a boost for the Republicans when this jackass is out of office. (It'll be a boost for America too; I would guess there is at least one rational Republican in Kentucky. Whether or not he or she runs for the Senate is anyone's guess.)
Purdue's dream is over.
There are a lot of ways to look at this (I recommend the link that shows what to look for when someone goes down with a knee injury), but it boils down to this: prior to the injury, Purdue's ceiling was a national championship, and their floor was probably an Elite Eight appearance. Now, the ceiling is probably a Final Four appearance, and the floor is a second-round NCAA loss. Even if Keaton Grant continues to play solid basketball, that leaves Purdue with three productive players and a lot of smaller parts, and if they face a team that can limit at least two of the productive players, it'll be very difficult for the Boilers to win.
Watch how Purdue handles their next two big games, at home against Michigan State and then their Saturday game in the Big Ten tournament ... those are the most favorable matchups against good teams Purdue is likely to have. If the Boilers look bad in either or both games, or if they lose any others (the conference wrapups against Indiana and Penn State or the Friday tournament game), sell your Final Four tickets.
The Free Press is full of lying liars and doesn't care if you know or not.
Michigan is not going to be crushed under the NCAA's thumb. Rich Rodriguez is not Satan. Mistakes were made, perhaps some bad decisions were made, but it is not what the Freep would have you believe, not that this bothers them in the slightest.
The Freep is out to get Rodriguez and Michigan, much as the Indianapolis Star likes to crap on Purdue at every opportunity, although in this particular instance the Freep has crossed into territory not even Bob Kravitz will occupy.
Follow the link above and read some other mgoblog posts about the situation. You'll see what I mean.
How can I be so confident? Even OSU blogs agree with mgoblog. Basically, sane people believe that a) Michigan is getting screwed by this coverage while b) USC is getting away with pretty much everything. An OSU blog (and coach, by the way) supporting UM? Dogs and cats, living together. Yep, it's the apocalypse.
Anticlimactic. The Finns looked completely overmatched ... you'd never guess that these were the top two teams remaining in the draw. (Yes, in case you've not been paying attention, #2 Sweden and #3 Russia are out. It's #6 Canada and #7 Slovakia to decide who will face the Americans Sunday.)
And despite all that, Gary Bettman is still too stupid to realize how valuable this is for the sport. Maybe it's because he's afraid that people will actually like hockey if they watch it; that would explain the contract with Vs. (And with NBC, the least-competent sports network in history. Why Bettman thought it was a good idea to pay NBC to show NHL games, I'll never know.) Obviously the NHL needs to stop for the 2014 Olympics in Russia, which means Bettman will probably be "negotiating" this until 2013. I hope he retires before he completely destroys the NHL.
Jim Bunning is a stupid prick.
Sorry, there's no other way to put it. It will be a boost for the Republicans when this jackass is out of office. (It'll be a boost for America too; I would guess there is at least one rational Republican in Kentucky. Whether or not he or she runs for the Senate is anyone's guess.)
Purdue's dream is over.
There are a lot of ways to look at this (I recommend the link that shows what to look for when someone goes down with a knee injury), but it boils down to this: prior to the injury, Purdue's ceiling was a national championship, and their floor was probably an Elite Eight appearance. Now, the ceiling is probably a Final Four appearance, and the floor is a second-round NCAA loss. Even if Keaton Grant continues to play solid basketball, that leaves Purdue with three productive players and a lot of smaller parts, and if they face a team that can limit at least two of the productive players, it'll be very difficult for the Boilers to win.
Watch how Purdue handles their next two big games, at home against Michigan State and then their Saturday game in the Big Ten tournament ... those are the most favorable matchups against good teams Purdue is likely to have. If the Boilers look bad in either or both games, or if they lose any others (the conference wrapups against Indiana and Penn State or the Friday tournament game), sell your Final Four tickets.
The Free Press is full of lying liars and doesn't care if you know or not.
Michigan is not going to be crushed under the NCAA's thumb. Rich Rodriguez is not Satan. Mistakes were made, perhaps some bad decisions were made, but it is not what the Freep would have you believe, not that this bothers them in the slightest.
The Freep is out to get Rodriguez and Michigan, much as the Indianapolis Star likes to crap on Purdue at every opportunity, although in this particular instance the Freep has crossed into territory not even Bob Kravitz will occupy.
Follow the link above and read some other mgoblog posts about the situation. You'll see what I mean.
How can I be so confident? Even OSU blogs agree with mgoblog. Basically, sane people believe that a) Michigan is getting screwed by this coverage while b) USC is getting away with pretty much everything. An OSU blog (and coach, by the way) supporting UM? Dogs and cats, living together. Yep, it's the apocalypse.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Curling? Really?
Sure.
Definitely a sport (scoring involved)
Lots of strategy
Casual people can actually play it
Slower pace allows explanation of strategy
Unfamiliar to many Americans
Ruined by commercials
Wait, what? Ruined?
Yes. NBC is making the same mistake that networks made with soccer for 20-30 years in the US, repeatedly killing its televised popularity as participation in the sport soared. (This would be akin to buying a home above list price these days.) Just as ESPN tried to force soccer into their standard sporting template during the World Cup and got bashed repeatedly for ignoring live action, NBC cuts away from live play to show commercials in the middle of an end, usually not even bothering to show the shots you missed while they were away. The stranger part is that they'll come back from commercial after the 5th end (the halfway point), then cut to commercials again, then miss the first couple of rocks in the 6th.
If you want to increase the popularity of a sport on television, you have to show it in a manner that supports the sport. NBC, of course, is the network least capable of doing this on the planet, and thus we get the exact opposite.
Look, more people in the US are going to be watching the Olympics right now than would watch all of the individual sports combined during the years in between. Now is the chance to teach people about it ... show something like Canada vs. Great Britain, so you've got skilled teams with the crowd reacting to each shot, and show the whole thing. Talk about strategy, scoring, everything. Get people involved. And instead of burying your snout even deeper in the trough of advertising money, lift your piggy head, take a deep breath, and let the sport speak for itself. We've already seen the same commercials 20 times over anyway: the Olympics are just like all other televised sports in that you get the same commercials over and over again, except there are so many days that the commercial overkill happens after a day or two instead of weeks.
It makes me sad. There are people at NBC who are responsible for nothing other than sports coverage, and they're obviously so bad at their jobs that trained monkeys would be offended if asked to replicate the work. Yet they are still employed. Dear NBC, hire me at half what they're making, and I'll make your sports coverage ten times better.
Pros:
Definitely a sport (scoring involved)
Lots of strategy
Casual people can actually play it
Slower pace allows explanation of strategy
Cons:
Unfamiliar to many Americans
Ruined by commercials
Wait, what? Ruined?
Yes. NBC is making the same mistake that networks made with soccer for 20-30 years in the US, repeatedly killing its televised popularity as participation in the sport soared. (This would be akin to buying a home above list price these days.) Just as ESPN tried to force soccer into their standard sporting template during the World Cup and got bashed repeatedly for ignoring live action, NBC cuts away from live play to show commercials in the middle of an end, usually not even bothering to show the shots you missed while they were away. The stranger part is that they'll come back from commercial after the 5th end (the halfway point), then cut to commercials again, then miss the first couple of rocks in the 6th.
If you want to increase the popularity of a sport on television, you have to show it in a manner that supports the sport. NBC, of course, is the network least capable of doing this on the planet, and thus we get the exact opposite.
Look, more people in the US are going to be watching the Olympics right now than would watch all of the individual sports combined during the years in between. Now is the chance to teach people about it ... show something like Canada vs. Great Britain, so you've got skilled teams with the crowd reacting to each shot, and show the whole thing. Talk about strategy, scoring, everything. Get people involved. And instead of burying your snout even deeper in the trough of advertising money, lift your piggy head, take a deep breath, and let the sport speak for itself. We've already seen the same commercials 20 times over anyway: the Olympics are just like all other televised sports in that you get the same commercials over and over again, except there are so many days that the commercial overkill happens after a day or two instead of weeks.
It makes me sad. There are people at NBC who are responsible for nothing other than sports coverage, and they're obviously so bad at their jobs that trained monkeys would be offended if asked to replicate the work. Yet they are still employed. Dear NBC, hire me at half what they're making, and I'll make your sports coverage ten times better.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Yes, this
NPR's Linda Holmes says it very well: NBC has no idea what it's doing.
If the IOC had any brains (and many would argue they've been missing said brains for a long time), they'd do whatever is necessary to yank the exclusive contract for US television rights and award it to a network that actually shows sports. In an era where people watch live sports on TVs, computers, phones, and who knows what else, NBC continues to show tape-delayed events. (Hey look, guys, isn't this cool? Who do you think will win ... how did you know? Was that on the World Wide Web somewhere? We've got to get that someday.)
I think we are rapidly approaching an era where broadcast networks are no longer equipped to show sports. (And a cheer goes up from the non-sports-fan contingent.) Don't laugh: I'm not the only one who thinks this. Notice what ABC and ESPN are doing? You've obviously seen that Monday Night Football is on "cable", and that didn't ruin the football universe. ABC is shifting more events to ESPN, including NASCAR events ... there are ABC affiliates in the South that are not happy with this, but I don't know that too many people care.
Unfortunately for the people who don't have cable and can't stream events, that's where things are heading. ESPN could cover the NCAA tournament 10 times better than CBS can, and CBS knows it: when they offered $1 billion for what I think was a seven-year contract to get the rights back after ESPN snagged the first-round games and did them superbly, they were doing it to protect valuable territory, just like NBC did with the Olympics, and just like the NCAAs have surpassed CBS' ability to cover them well, the Olympics have surpassed NBC's ability to cover them ... at all.
If some people are upset, you might be doing something right. If everybody's upset, you must be NBC.
If the IOC had any brains (and many would argue they've been missing said brains for a long time), they'd do whatever is necessary to yank the exclusive contract for US television rights and award it to a network that actually shows sports. In an era where people watch live sports on TVs, computers, phones, and who knows what else, NBC continues to show tape-delayed events. (Hey look, guys, isn't this cool? Who do you think will win ... how did you know? Was that on the World Wide Web somewhere? We've got to get that someday.)
I think we are rapidly approaching an era where broadcast networks are no longer equipped to show sports. (And a cheer goes up from the non-sports-fan contingent.) Don't laugh: I'm not the only one who thinks this. Notice what ABC and ESPN are doing? You've obviously seen that Monday Night Football is on "cable", and that didn't ruin the football universe. ABC is shifting more events to ESPN, including NASCAR events ... there are ABC affiliates in the South that are not happy with this, but I don't know that too many people care.
Unfortunately for the people who don't have cable and can't stream events, that's where things are heading. ESPN could cover the NCAA tournament 10 times better than CBS can, and CBS knows it: when they offered $1 billion for what I think was a seven-year contract to get the rights back after ESPN snagged the first-round games and did them superbly, they were doing it to protect valuable territory, just like NBC did with the Olympics, and just like the NCAAs have surpassed CBS' ability to cover them well, the Olympics have surpassed NBC's ability to cover them ... at all.
If some people are upset, you might be doing something right. If everybody's upset, you must be NBC.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
NBC sucks
So ems texts me and asks me if I'm watching tennis on NBC. Of course I don't notice because I'm out of the room or whatever. So she calls, all excited, it's in the fifth set. I'm thinking hmm, Federer let Soderling hang around for two more sets? She says no, Federer's losing in the fifth set.
Whereupon I discover that she's watching last year's Wimbledon final. Except that she doesn't realize it. (She's not much of a tennis fan, so it's understandable she didn't pick up on details about the match.)
The problem is that Federer dispatched Soderling quickly, and of course the guide will show French Open Final for the entire time ... but instead of showing a crawl at the bottom of the screen to let you know what's going on (like every other network in the world would), or putting something up on the screen, NBC stupidly airs part of that match unedited ... complete with their "LIVE" text at the bottom of the score.
Why is this bad? Well, imagine that you don't know much about tennis, so you figure you'll watch the French Open for a bit. You tune in to see this. You don't know clay or grass or what, you don't know any of that, so you're watching this epic match, and all excited ... and then when it's over, NBC cuts back to Federer talking about the jackass fan. You don't realize what happened. In fact, you might be confused. Why is Federer smiling if he just lost? And if there's no one to explain it to you, it might discourage you from following the sport.
Okay, that's a lot of words. A better explanation? It's bad because it's clearly incorrect. That was absolutely not live. NBC should know better, except that they haven't done a good job on sporting events since they lost the AFC games to CBS. The only reason they do NHL games is because the NHL is desperate and NBC isn't paying rights fees, and they're doing the Olympics because they tricked the IOC into a long-term deal back before the IOC knew what it was doing. (I mean, not that they know now.)
So anyway, NBC Sports sucks. again.
Update: ESPN sent me a survey about tennis coverage. I told them "don't be like NBC", oh yes I did.
Whereupon I discover that she's watching last year's Wimbledon final. Except that she doesn't realize it. (She's not much of a tennis fan, so it's understandable she didn't pick up on details about the match.)
The problem is that Federer dispatched Soderling quickly, and of course the guide will show French Open Final for the entire time ... but instead of showing a crawl at the bottom of the screen to let you know what's going on (like every other network in the world would), or putting something up on the screen, NBC stupidly airs part of that match unedited ... complete with their "LIVE" text at the bottom of the score.
Why is this bad? Well, imagine that you don't know much about tennis, so you figure you'll watch the French Open for a bit. You tune in to see this. You don't know clay or grass or what, you don't know any of that, so you're watching this epic match, and all excited ... and then when it's over, NBC cuts back to Federer talking about the jackass fan. You don't realize what happened. In fact, you might be confused. Why is Federer smiling if he just lost? And if there's no one to explain it to you, it might discourage you from following the sport.
Okay, that's a lot of words. A better explanation? It's bad because it's clearly incorrect. That was absolutely not live. NBC should know better, except that they haven't done a good job on sporting events since they lost the AFC games to CBS. The only reason they do NHL games is because the NHL is desperate and NBC isn't paying rights fees, and they're doing the Olympics because they tricked the IOC into a long-term deal back before the IOC knew what it was doing. (I mean, not that they know now.)
So anyway, NBC Sports sucks. again.
Update: ESPN sent me a survey about tennis coverage. I told them "don't be like NBC", oh yes I did.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Stanley Cup Finals, Game 1: Detroit 3, Pittsburgh 1
I'd love to give a more detailed recap, but frankly WTHR sucks balls and I can't do it. I still don't understand why they spent so much time giving us so little useful information. It was pathetic, really. (Especially when they actually went off the air for a bit, and not my satellite either: DirecTV had no signal to transmit. Embarrassing.)
And this is why networks are working themselves out of the sports business. For one thing, they cover sports so infrequently, they have to borrow guys (and gals) from the networks that do cover it. For another, they're at the mercy of the local stations: there are thousands of stories during NFL season about local affiliates screwing over the fans in various ways. Here, it wasn't NBC's fault that WTHR ruined the broadcast, but it happened nonetheless, and it reflects poorly on NBC.
You see, the networks used to be everything to everybody, and they still think they can do that. The problem is that for cable and satellite customers, specialized channels long ago eclipsed most of what the networks offer, and the irony is that digital channels will do the rest. Why bother to watch the regular weather on WTHR news when you can watch their weather channel 24/7?
The networks are just sheep any more, only bothering to feed people whatever the other networks seemed to have done well. I think if Fox decided to put on dead air between 8 and 8:30 on Thursdays, the others would follow suit because they'd think there must be something to it.
I never thought I'd look forward to Vs covering the Cup finals, but I guess I am now.
Anyway, the Penguins played well, but the Wings played better. We heard the same tired storyline as last season (Can the veterans hang with the young, fast Penguins, especially Crosby and Malkin?), and it played out pretty much the same as before. The Wings also have fast players (remember Helm's breakaway) and the Penguins also have old players, so let's put that one to rest. The Penguins have health and the Wings don't, that's about it ... but it was the Wings who had the depth (yet again) to win Game 1. Lidstrom played only a little bit under his usual numbers, and Babcock was able to roll four lines the whole game.
The extreme lack of penalty calls might favor the Pens a little (or not - Detroit's penalty kill has been atrocious so far), but aside from that, unless Bylsma has something up his sleeve for Game 2, we're going to see a repeat of last year's Finals.
I have to admit that I didn't think Detroit would make it this far when the playoffs started, but honestly, they've just done the same things they did last season. The talking heads want this to be an exciting series and want Pittsburgh's young guns to carry the day (everyone loves an underdog), but I just don't see it yet.
Game 2 tomorrow night. A Detroit win forces the Pens to win four of five; a Pittsburgh win means the Penguins can hold serve to win the series.
And this is why networks are working themselves out of the sports business. For one thing, they cover sports so infrequently, they have to borrow guys (and gals) from the networks that do cover it. For another, they're at the mercy of the local stations: there are thousands of stories during NFL season about local affiliates screwing over the fans in various ways. Here, it wasn't NBC's fault that WTHR ruined the broadcast, but it happened nonetheless, and it reflects poorly on NBC.
You see, the networks used to be everything to everybody, and they still think they can do that. The problem is that for cable and satellite customers, specialized channels long ago eclipsed most of what the networks offer, and the irony is that digital channels will do the rest. Why bother to watch the regular weather on WTHR news when you can watch their weather channel 24/7?
The networks are just sheep any more, only bothering to feed people whatever the other networks seemed to have done well. I think if Fox decided to put on dead air between 8 and 8:30 on Thursdays, the others would follow suit because they'd think there must be something to it.
I never thought I'd look forward to Vs covering the Cup finals, but I guess I am now.
Anyway, the Penguins played well, but the Wings played better. We heard the same tired storyline as last season (Can the veterans hang with the young, fast Penguins, especially Crosby and Malkin?), and it played out pretty much the same as before. The Wings also have fast players (remember Helm's breakaway) and the Penguins also have old players, so let's put that one to rest. The Penguins have health and the Wings don't, that's about it ... but it was the Wings who had the depth (yet again) to win Game 1. Lidstrom played only a little bit under his usual numbers, and Babcock was able to roll four lines the whole game.
The extreme lack of penalty calls might favor the Pens a little (or not - Detroit's penalty kill has been atrocious so far), but aside from that, unless Bylsma has something up his sleeve for Game 2, we're going to see a repeat of last year's Finals.
I have to admit that I didn't think Detroit would make it this far when the playoffs started, but honestly, they've just done the same things they did last season. The talking heads want this to be an exciting series and want Pittsburgh's young guns to carry the day (everyone loves an underdog), but I just don't see it yet.
Game 2 tomorrow night. A Detroit win forces the Pens to win four of five; a Pittsburgh win means the Penguins can hold serve to win the series.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
That's not really him, right?
So I've got the NBC pregame show muted, because it's usually full of crap like all pregame shows. (Keys to winning: stop the other team.) But I look up, and I see a man who looks suspiciously like the worst GM in NFL history. Sure enough, that's him.
What's he doing? Spouting some crap about how the Lions aren't that far away from winning.
The old Dan Patrick would have ripped him to shreds, right? Right? This one? Well, I could only stomach about ten seconds before I muted it again, but it sure didn't sound like he was holding Millen's feet to the fire.
What a joke. The only reason for Millen to appear on TV is to apologize for all the damage he did to that franchise.
What's he doing? Spouting some crap about how the Lions aren't that far away from winning.
The old Dan Patrick would have ripped him to shreds, right? Right? This one? Well, I could only stomach about ten seconds before I muted it again, but it sure didn't sound like he was holding Millen's feet to the fire.
What a joke. The only reason for Millen to appear on TV is to apologize for all the damage he did to that franchise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)