The Olympics used to be a huge event in America, even when the games weren’t actually taking place here. But there’s a huge difference between the excitement for the Olympics this year and the excitement of four years ago, when the games were in Salt Lake City. Why is that? The competition is the same. The games themselves haven’t changed. And how many people really made it to Salt Lake to see the games live, anyway? (I was there, but I didn’t actually see any events. Those tickets are freaking expensive…especially when you’re in college.) I think there are a few reasons for the lack of buzz this year for the Olympics. Interestingly enough, many of them are linked. So pull up a chair, because I’m about to clue you in.
Reason 1: Tape Delay
In a time where we can hop on the Internet anywhere at any time, why wait to find out what happened? I bring up espn.com multiple times every day, and whether I want to or not, I see the big results of the day as the top story. Usually I don’t care that much anyway, but if I did, it’d be hard to break the habit of surfing over to that particular website.
Reason 2: America’s Competitiveness
One problem here is that we don’t know the people we’re rooting for. We had Bode Miller and Michelle Kwan shoved down our collective throats before the Olympics started, and look how that turned out. There have been other stories during the games themselves, but does anyone know what they are? We don’t know what to watch for when we don’t know the athletes ahead of time. I would have liked to know we had such a good speed skating team beforehand so that I could have watched for them. I enjoy speed skating when I have someone to root for, but if not, it’s not like there are amazing feats of athleticism going on here. It’s guys racing. That kind of event doesn’t lend itself to watching anonymous people like something such as ski jumping, or watching the guys do tricks and whatnot. That and slalom skiing and the like are things where you want to say, “Ooh, I know so-and-so is competing here…I’ll have to watch for them.”
Reason 3: Presentation
I’ve got a few gripes here, though I’m not sure how to fix them completely. I’m a TiVo viewer, and I know that gives me a skewed perspective. But come with me here, will you?
I never know when anything is on. It doesn’t matter to me. As long as I know something is on, I can tell my TiVo to record it for me, regardless of when said recording takes place. When it comes to the Olympics, however, I need to know when things are on. I don’t want to sit through figure skating so that I can see hockey or speed skating or what have you. And have you tried to navigate NBC’s website? It’s like pulling teeth to find out when any event is actually on TV. They really need to simplify the way the schedule is presented, so that I can watch what I want to watch. I know they want people to sit through the things they don’t want to see in order to get more viewers, but when you’re talking about people who are watching for very specific events, it doesn’t help. I tried to watch the Olympics live once. It seemed that for every 20 minutes of Bob Costas and commercials, there was about 5 minutes of actual competition. Now, maybe I’m in the minority here, but when I want to check out the Olympics, I’m doing so to actually watch the events. I don’t need hours of back-story for every athlete. If I didn’t know about them before the Olympics started, it’s already too late. Am I supposed to sit through hours of back-story and history of Torino so that I know what’s going on for the 10 minutes per hour of actual sports? Doesn’t seem like such a great pay-off to me.
I don’t think the problem lies within the events themselves. A lot of it is just the coverage. If we knew ahead of time about interesting athletes, and if we knew the schedule of how the events are going to be aired, it would really help people see what they want to see, and I think it would help the ratings, which is certainly what NBC is concerned about.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
A Late Super Bowl Review
Note: This post isn’t actually finished, but I’m sick as a dog right now, so I figured I’d at least publish what I did finish. More to come later.
I meant to post this last night, but I fell asleep before I even got around to writing it. So hopefully I’m not all late and wrong here.
Now let me just start out by saying that I feel the pain of the Seahawks fans. You wait and wait and wait to get to the big one, and then you’re there and you’re beaten by a team that’s won it before. Granted, the Steelers hadn’t won in about 30 years, but it still stings to lose to a franchise with such a “rich history”, and all that garbage.
It’s all been well documented how the Steelers outplayed the Seahawks on Sunday, and how Pittsburgh also had a ton of calls go their way en route to their victory. The refs were awful for sure. Not only did they screw up calls, but they screwed up huge calls in the biggest game in all of American sports. But you know what? As a fan of neither team, I’m not as outraged about the Seahawks getting screwed. Sure they got screwed, but they still could have overcome the bad calls with better play. They looked awful. It looked like the only guys playing on offense were Hasselbeck and the offensive line (who did a fantastic job against Pittsburgh’s blitz, by the way. The Steelers dropped into coverage instead of bringing more heat, and Seattle’s receivers couldn’t take it. The league MVP, Shaun Alexander, was all but invisible even with 95 yards rushing (I don’t know whether that’s his fault or whoever was calling the plays). That tight end, Stevens, pulled a choke job for the ages. And I’m sorry, but as beautifully run as the trick play was, it should never have worked. Seattle’s defense should have seen it coming a mile away. If I saw it coming, there’s no excuse for them not to have done as much. But enough of that. You know who got screwed by the refs in this one? Me. And you. And everyone else that watched the Super Bowl hoping and expecting to see a good game.
How much more competitive would the game have been if the Seahawks don’t get the touchdown in the first half taken away by a phantom offensive pass interference call? Or the non-existent hold on a play that would have taken Seattle to Pittsburgh’s 1-yard line? Every time they started driving, I’d think to myself, “Here we go! Now we get to see who steps up when it’s close!” Of course, the game was pretty close the whole time, but it was close in a non-competitive kind of way, if that makes any sense. So that’s what made me mad. Yeah, I’d be fuming about the refs if I were a Seahawks fan, and I still feel their pain, but I’m mostly disappointed because I could have seen a better game, and they took it away from me.
While I’m on the subject of the Super Bowl, I’ll address the halftime show. Yes, it sucked. But you know what? Who cares? I don’t watch the Super Bowl for a concert. I watch it for football and commercials (which also sucked this year, by the way). Some people are saying that the format is bad because the NFL is scared of another Janet Jackson incident. So am I to assume those people want to bring back the clusterhumps (word edited for profanity) that MTV used to produce? Those were unwatchable. The music was bad, the choreography was bad—everything was bad about them. There were way too many artists involved, and it was a mess. You want to see an example of a good Super Bowl halftime show? Check out U2 from 2002. That was great. Of course it helped that it was a tribute to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks, but the idea is the same. If you put an act out there that everyone can enjoy (and no, not everyone enjoys the Stones anymore), give them the stage to themselves, and let them put on a show for a few minutes, it will be fine. Try to do too much and you end up with the ADD fests that MTV put on.
I meant to post this last night, but I fell asleep before I even got around to writing it. So hopefully I’m not all late and wrong here.
Now let me just start out by saying that I feel the pain of the Seahawks fans. You wait and wait and wait to get to the big one, and then you’re there and you’re beaten by a team that’s won it before. Granted, the Steelers hadn’t won in about 30 years, but it still stings to lose to a franchise with such a “rich history”, and all that garbage.
It’s all been well documented how the Steelers outplayed the Seahawks on Sunday, and how Pittsburgh also had a ton of calls go their way en route to their victory. The refs were awful for sure. Not only did they screw up calls, but they screwed up huge calls in the biggest game in all of American sports. But you know what? As a fan of neither team, I’m not as outraged about the Seahawks getting screwed. Sure they got screwed, but they still could have overcome the bad calls with better play. They looked awful. It looked like the only guys playing on offense were Hasselbeck and the offensive line (who did a fantastic job against Pittsburgh’s blitz, by the way. The Steelers dropped into coverage instead of bringing more heat, and Seattle’s receivers couldn’t take it. The league MVP, Shaun Alexander, was all but invisible even with 95 yards rushing (I don’t know whether that’s his fault or whoever was calling the plays). That tight end, Stevens, pulled a choke job for the ages. And I’m sorry, but as beautifully run as the trick play was, it should never have worked. Seattle’s defense should have seen it coming a mile away. If I saw it coming, there’s no excuse for them not to have done as much. But enough of that. You know who got screwed by the refs in this one? Me. And you. And everyone else that watched the Super Bowl hoping and expecting to see a good game.
How much more competitive would the game have been if the Seahawks don’t get the touchdown in the first half taken away by a phantom offensive pass interference call? Or the non-existent hold on a play that would have taken Seattle to Pittsburgh’s 1-yard line? Every time they started driving, I’d think to myself, “Here we go! Now we get to see who steps up when it’s close!” Of course, the game was pretty close the whole time, but it was close in a non-competitive kind of way, if that makes any sense. So that’s what made me mad. Yeah, I’d be fuming about the refs if I were a Seahawks fan, and I still feel their pain, but I’m mostly disappointed because I could have seen a better game, and they took it away from me.
While I’m on the subject of the Super Bowl, I’ll address the halftime show. Yes, it sucked. But you know what? Who cares? I don’t watch the Super Bowl for a concert. I watch it for football and commercials (which also sucked this year, by the way). Some people are saying that the format is bad because the NFL is scared of another Janet Jackson incident. So am I to assume those people want to bring back the clusterhumps (word edited for profanity) that MTV used to produce? Those were unwatchable. The music was bad, the choreography was bad—everything was bad about them. There were way too many artists involved, and it was a mess. You want to see an example of a good Super Bowl halftime show? Check out U2 from 2002. That was great. Of course it helped that it was a tribute to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks, but the idea is the same. If you put an act out there that everyone can enjoy (and no, not everyone enjoys the Stones anymore), give them the stage to themselves, and let them put on a show for a few minutes, it will be fine. Try to do too much and you end up with the ADD fests that MTV put on.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Super Weekend Preview, Part One: UFC 57
If you’re a fight fan and a football fan, like I am, this weekend is huge. I’ll be breaking down the UFC event on Saturday night and the Super Bowl in separate posts, so I’ll start with Saturday night here.
The UFC is putting together something that rarely happens in combat sports at all, and even less often in the world of mixed martial arts. It will be the third meeting between “The Natural” Randy Couture and the UFC Light Heavyweight Champion, “The Iceman” Chuck Liddell. This will be the rubber match, with Couture having won the first match and Liddell the second. It looks to be a great match, as were the first two (though the second resulted in a first round knockout, the surprise and the significance of the bout made it classic). But first, let’s talk about a few of the undercard matches, shall we? I don’t know much about a few of the fighters, so I’ll predict what I think I know and hazard a guess on what I probably don’t.
Mike Whitehead vs. Keith Jardine
Both fighters are moving down from heavyweight to light heavy, and this prediction is only provided Whitehead has any energy at all. He walked around at about 240 or 250 if I’m not mistaken, and he’ll be cutting to 205 for this fight. If he can do it, by the time the fight comes around, he’ll be a quite a bit heavier than Jardine. I believe he’s working with Billy Rush, which, if this is the case, probably means he’ll be in excellent condition. So I’m taking Whitehead’s heavy hands in this one.
Paul “The Headhunter” Buentello vs. Gilbert Aldana
I don’t know much about the 5-0 Aldana, other than the fact that all of his wins have come by first round knockout, and that he’s fought some less-than-stellar opponents. I have to go with Buentello here, if for no other reason than because I know he has excellent striking ability and his experience far outweighs his younger opponent. But this will definitely be a slugfest that doesn’t go the distance. Someone will get knocked out.
Alessio Sakara vs. Elvis Sinosic
Sakara came out in his UFC debut and dominated Ron Faircloth until a nasty accidental kick to the groin ended the bout in a no contest. The Italian showed great hands, though his ground game is probably not stellar. Sakara has a boxing background, and make no mistake: boxers hit harder than MMA fighters. Sinosic is no slouch; a fact belied by his losing MMA record, but he’s a UFC gatekeeper for a reason. He’s not great, but certainly not top tier. That’s why UFC matchmaker Joe Silva puts him in the octagon against younger, unproven fighters—to see if they can knock him out. I believe Sakara will deliver, and in devastating fashion.
Renato “Babalu” Sobral vs. Mike Van Arsdale
I don’t know much about Van Arsdale other than the fact that he is an outstanding wrestler. He was beaten fairly soundly by Randy Couture, but he hung with The Natural on the mat, which is not easy by any stretch. Babalu couldn’t outwrestle Van Arsdale, but he’s good enough on the ground that he would be very difficult to submit. Combine that with some nasty strikes and it could be a long night for Van Arsdale. (Or a short night, depending on how you look at it.)
Frank Mir vs. Marcio Cruz
I know absolutely nothing about Crus, other than he has one professional fight. Mir, on the other hand, is a former heavyweight champion coming back from a year layoff due to injury. This is a tune up fight that will probably end rather quickly, but it will still be interesting to see how Mir does after a year of being inactive in the octagon.
Brandon “The Truth” Vera vs. Justin Eilers
Vera is a very cocky newcomer who is undefeated in five fights, and Eilers is more of a veteran, but he’s coming off of two straight fairly devastating knockout losses to Paul Buentello and Heavyweight Champ Andrei Arlovski. That having been said, Eilers hits like a freight train and will look to slug it out with Vera. The big question is whether he’ll have his confidence back. Show me a hesitant fighter, and I’ll show you a guy that’s about to lose. That Vera will be confident is a given. Eilers also pretty much has his UFC future and a bigger payday on the line. This is the last fight in his current contract, and if he loses, we probably won’t see him on the big stage for a while. And yet, for some reason I’m going with Vera. Call it a gut feeling.
Branden Lee Hinkle vs. Jeff Monson
I have no idea here, having never seen either man fight. I know Hinkle is a highly touted newcomer, and they’re probably looking to get him a win. Other than that, no clue.
Nick Diaz vs. Joe “Diesel” Riggs
Riggs will be the bigger fighter here, and has fists of dynamite. But Diaz has a granite chin and has only been knocked out once (three years ago, to a guy he’s beaten twice since). I see these two starting off standing, as Diaz always welcomes a slugfest despite being the smaller guy. Diaz is angry after his decision loss to Diego Sanchez, and has been relatively quiet since then for a guy who usually talks a little trash. On the other hand, I think Riggs is taking Diaz a bit lightly. The style matchup favors Riggs slightly, but not as much as he thinks. I think he’ll get Diaz on the ground after being frustrated by not being able to knock him out, and then he’ll start working ground and pound and get caught in a submission. This should be a great fight.
Randy “The Natural” Couture vs. Chuck “The Iceman” Liddell
Here’s what makes this fight tough for me: I never pick against either of these guys. They’re two of the best the sport has ever seen. I know Couture is 43 years old, and Liddell is on a ridiculous roll. Everything points to Liddell being able to stop Couture again. But I think Couture will take it. It may not be a repeat of the first fight, where Liddell underestimated Couture’s strikes and was pounded out. But I think Couture will look to close the distance between the fighters and try to work the clinch and take Liddell down. He won’t be over-anxious like he was the last time. Couture’s pedigree is well documented, so I won’t go into it here. Let it suffice to say he’s an insanely good wrestler with decent strikes and great clinch work. He’s the two-time Heavyweight Champ and two-time Light Heavyweight Champ. I think the thing that makes me pick Couture is that he just has so many ways he can beat an opponent, whereas Liddell is mainly a striker (rumor has it that his ground game is actually pretty good, but I’ve never actually seen it). I don’t mean that as a knock on Liddell, because he’s never needed to go to the ground, and his takedown defense is the best I’ve ever seen. But there’s just something in me that can’t bet against Couture.
So there you have it. The biggest fight of the night gets perhaps my least eloquent explanation. This card has a chance to be a classic. At worst, it would be an average card, but at best, it could just be stellar. The main event alone is worth the price of admission.
I’ll be posting my Super Bowl analysis tonight if all goes well, but we all know how that is sometimes. Anyway, until then, enjoy the fights.
The UFC is putting together something that rarely happens in combat sports at all, and even less often in the world of mixed martial arts. It will be the third meeting between “The Natural” Randy Couture and the UFC Light Heavyweight Champion, “The Iceman” Chuck Liddell. This will be the rubber match, with Couture having won the first match and Liddell the second. It looks to be a great match, as were the first two (though the second resulted in a first round knockout, the surprise and the significance of the bout made it classic). But first, let’s talk about a few of the undercard matches, shall we? I don’t know much about a few of the fighters, so I’ll predict what I think I know and hazard a guess on what I probably don’t.
Mike Whitehead vs. Keith Jardine
Both fighters are moving down from heavyweight to light heavy, and this prediction is only provided Whitehead has any energy at all. He walked around at about 240 or 250 if I’m not mistaken, and he’ll be cutting to 205 for this fight. If he can do it, by the time the fight comes around, he’ll be a quite a bit heavier than Jardine. I believe he’s working with Billy Rush, which, if this is the case, probably means he’ll be in excellent condition. So I’m taking Whitehead’s heavy hands in this one.
Paul “The Headhunter” Buentello vs. Gilbert Aldana
I don’t know much about the 5-0 Aldana, other than the fact that all of his wins have come by first round knockout, and that he’s fought some less-than-stellar opponents. I have to go with Buentello here, if for no other reason than because I know he has excellent striking ability and his experience far outweighs his younger opponent. But this will definitely be a slugfest that doesn’t go the distance. Someone will get knocked out.
Alessio Sakara vs. Elvis Sinosic
Sakara came out in his UFC debut and dominated Ron Faircloth until a nasty accidental kick to the groin ended the bout in a no contest. The Italian showed great hands, though his ground game is probably not stellar. Sakara has a boxing background, and make no mistake: boxers hit harder than MMA fighters. Sinosic is no slouch; a fact belied by his losing MMA record, but he’s a UFC gatekeeper for a reason. He’s not great, but certainly not top tier. That’s why UFC matchmaker Joe Silva puts him in the octagon against younger, unproven fighters—to see if they can knock him out. I believe Sakara will deliver, and in devastating fashion.
Renato “Babalu” Sobral vs. Mike Van Arsdale
I don’t know much about Van Arsdale other than the fact that he is an outstanding wrestler. He was beaten fairly soundly by Randy Couture, but he hung with The Natural on the mat, which is not easy by any stretch. Babalu couldn’t outwrestle Van Arsdale, but he’s good enough on the ground that he would be very difficult to submit. Combine that with some nasty strikes and it could be a long night for Van Arsdale. (Or a short night, depending on how you look at it.)
Frank Mir vs. Marcio Cruz
I know absolutely nothing about Crus, other than he has one professional fight. Mir, on the other hand, is a former heavyweight champion coming back from a year layoff due to injury. This is a tune up fight that will probably end rather quickly, but it will still be interesting to see how Mir does after a year of being inactive in the octagon.
Brandon “The Truth” Vera vs. Justin Eilers
Vera is a very cocky newcomer who is undefeated in five fights, and Eilers is more of a veteran, but he’s coming off of two straight fairly devastating knockout losses to Paul Buentello and Heavyweight Champ Andrei Arlovski. That having been said, Eilers hits like a freight train and will look to slug it out with Vera. The big question is whether he’ll have his confidence back. Show me a hesitant fighter, and I’ll show you a guy that’s about to lose. That Vera will be confident is a given. Eilers also pretty much has his UFC future and a bigger payday on the line. This is the last fight in his current contract, and if he loses, we probably won’t see him on the big stage for a while. And yet, for some reason I’m going with Vera. Call it a gut feeling.
Branden Lee Hinkle vs. Jeff Monson
I have no idea here, having never seen either man fight. I know Hinkle is a highly touted newcomer, and they’re probably looking to get him a win. Other than that, no clue.
Nick Diaz vs. Joe “Diesel” Riggs
Riggs will be the bigger fighter here, and has fists of dynamite. But Diaz has a granite chin and has only been knocked out once (three years ago, to a guy he’s beaten twice since). I see these two starting off standing, as Diaz always welcomes a slugfest despite being the smaller guy. Diaz is angry after his decision loss to Diego Sanchez, and has been relatively quiet since then for a guy who usually talks a little trash. On the other hand, I think Riggs is taking Diaz a bit lightly. The style matchup favors Riggs slightly, but not as much as he thinks. I think he’ll get Diaz on the ground after being frustrated by not being able to knock him out, and then he’ll start working ground and pound and get caught in a submission. This should be a great fight.
Randy “The Natural” Couture vs. Chuck “The Iceman” Liddell
Here’s what makes this fight tough for me: I never pick against either of these guys. They’re two of the best the sport has ever seen. I know Couture is 43 years old, and Liddell is on a ridiculous roll. Everything points to Liddell being able to stop Couture again. But I think Couture will take it. It may not be a repeat of the first fight, where Liddell underestimated Couture’s strikes and was pounded out. But I think Couture will look to close the distance between the fighters and try to work the clinch and take Liddell down. He won’t be over-anxious like he was the last time. Couture’s pedigree is well documented, so I won’t go into it here. Let it suffice to say he’s an insanely good wrestler with decent strikes and great clinch work. He’s the two-time Heavyweight Champ and two-time Light Heavyweight Champ. I think the thing that makes me pick Couture is that he just has so many ways he can beat an opponent, whereas Liddell is mainly a striker (rumor has it that his ground game is actually pretty good, but I’ve never actually seen it). I don’t mean that as a knock on Liddell, because he’s never needed to go to the ground, and his takedown defense is the best I’ve ever seen. But there’s just something in me that can’t bet against Couture.
So there you have it. The biggest fight of the night gets perhaps my least eloquent explanation. This card has a chance to be a classic. At worst, it would be an average card, but at best, it could just be stellar. The main event alone is worth the price of admission.
I’ll be posting my Super Bowl analysis tonight if all goes well, but we all know how that is sometimes. Anyway, until then, enjoy the fights.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)