Jump to content

FiveRingFever

Members
  • Posts

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by FiveRingFever

  1. Well, our speculation turned out to be right about NBC and Lindsay Vonn. We don't need her to announce it tomorrow morning on NBC Today here on these boards. But she'll reveal more then.

    http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/lindsey-vonn-winter-olympics-nbc-correspondent/

    I've been putting on Today in the mornings to try and catch their Sochi stories. I didn't see Vonn at all, but I could have missed it. I did see a story on the mothers of Davis & White.

  2. The new events are definitely North America-centric. Based on the projection, Canada and the U.S. would net an additional 6 and 10 medals, respectively, in events not contested in 2010. Russia would gain 5. Also, if Canada took bronze in the luge relay instead of the U.S., which I think would be more likely, the numbers would be 7 and 9.

  3. Darnit Barcelona.. stop making the exact same post right before I was about to post it! :D

    It's the same chorus every single Olympics how NBC's model no longer is working and they need to embrace change. The thing is.. the model IS still working even after all these years. Anyone who thinks it's not needs to take a longer look at the big picture. Every single time, those claims get proven wrong when the viewership is there. How else do you explain that as many people and more watched the London Olympics, entirely on tape in primetime, than watch Beijing which was full of live coverage. And as Barcelona noted, NBC is absolutely taking risks. They're streaming everything live now (sort of.. I know the authentication issue). There's more coverage on cable than there's ever been for a Winter Olympics, including a marquee sport that's being covered live virtually in its entirety. NBC's coverage has evolved over the years. I don't know why people think otherwise. It's like all those folks who complain how NBC doesn't show things live because they want to focus on the key events NBC is saving for the bigger audience in primetime. Forgetting even all the live streaming from London, that's discounting the vast majority of the cable and NBC daytime coverage that was most definitely live. But no, since the swimming and gymnastics and track & field is on tape delay, nothing else that NBC shows live counts for anything.

    And I'll echo Barcelona's sentiments on ESPN/ABC as well. Even if they did throw some coverage on ABC, it wouldn't be the focal point. ESPN would make sure of that. They also have their tonnage of basketball to deal with, so any primetime coverage on the ESPN networks would be minimal. Like I said earlier, ESPN *could* do justice to the Olympics if they could clear their schedule of their usual slate of programming that is what really brings in the money for them. But that's not something they would be interesting in doing. So the Olympic simply wouldn't work for them, and if they tried to squeeze in the coverage in and around the rest of their programming, viewership would drop like a rock and that's the last thing the IOC wants to see.

    That's not correct. ABC would have shown a taped package in prime time much like NBC does.

    http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/olympics-will-bidding-be-a-games-changer-for-u-s-networks/

  4. We've removed many events from Track and Field / Athletics. Are the Olympics worse for not having a standing broadjump? We've ditched many "original" Olympic events. Do you want to add chariott races and running in heavy armor?

    The quesion I have for anyone who insists wrestling must be included: Have you ever bought a ticket to an Olmypic wrestling match? Ever spend an afternoon watching wrestling? Ever even watched one single match in its entirety?

    I have gone to around 20 Olympic wrestling sessions and have been to 2 U.S, wrestling trials. I also have seen Olympic softball and baseball, and I don't give a crap about squash. I think wrestling belongs in comparison to the other two sports in terms of tradition, international participation, and relatively low logistical demands. I don't think it's even close for that matter. The problem with wrestling really was its governing body. They seem to have gotten their heads out of their rear ends and made a lot of necessary changes, so I would be surprised not to see them back in 2020.

  5. Don't compare Canada to the US. Every Canadian sporting achievement and event means a lot to Canadians, because we dont win 90+ medals every games and don't have the opportunity to host major international events all the time. I'm glad that I don't root for the Americans because winning an event is just another medal, nothing more. There are no national heroes.

    I'm not comparing them, which is why I asked in the first place. I basically was wondering if Canadians beyond the Toronto area were interested in the PanAms, or if they're apathetic like Americans would be if they were held in the USA. Secondarily, I was also wondering how interest in the PanAms compared to the WWC, which, as I stated, is of particular interest to me personally. I don't think those are unreasonable questions to ask of people on this board. No offense intended.

  6. IDK in Canada but the seem to have a growing profile, because of the media coverage. But after 2015 they will go back to be non-existent in Canadian eyes.

    I was curious because they definitely wouldn't be high profile at all in the states. There was a time when the PanAms were much more popular here, and they actually were televised on a major US network. I remember some classic boxing matches back when the Cubans and Americans were two of the top teams in the world. I'm sure the PanAms would still be a good event to attend if it's in your backyard, but I can't see a lot of people shelling out for plane tickets and a hotel room to attend. It seems like the Women's World Cup is a higher profile event, but maybe that's just my perspective from following women's soccer since I first saw in in Atlanta. I actually will probably try to attend a few WWC games wherever the US team ends up, but I think I'd rather get to Toronto for an Orioles/Blue Jays game than for the PanAms.

  7. Yeah, calling snow home advantage isn't right. This isn't like NFL or Rugby where it makes little difference how the ball rolls. If the ball dies on a surface, you get into situations where players pick up injuries, bad tackles happen more often. The ref should abandon in those circumstances. I didn't see the USA game so can't say whether they were right or not.

    Having grown up in Colorado, I played in my fair share of snow games. The ball skids rather than bounces, so you have to adapt. It's certainly not dangerous to play in those conditions. If anything, you slide when you go down, so it's less hard on your body. I would take playing in snow over playing in torrential rain any day. From what I've read, the primary issue was keeping the lines visible. They had a shoveling crew out there to take care of it, so they continued. The US team has to go play in altitude on Tuesday in Mexico City, so it made sense to schedule this game in Denver. Sometimes it snows in Denver in March. Oh well.

×
×
  • Create New...