My last day of work for the summer was last week, but I still woke up at 8 AM this morning. I wanted to watch Coach K's Redeem Team take on Australia live from Shanghai in their last exhibition before the Olympics. Thanks to ESPN2, I could, and the Americans won 87-76.
(One quick sidenote on Australia - their national basketball team's nickname is the Boomers. Apparently, it's slang for a large male kangaroo. Not bad, but I was really hoping for "Balleroos" or something. I guess I'll do with just the Socceroos and Olyroos.)
I love waking up at odd hours for sporting events like this. The 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan was great - I would go to sleep around 7 PM, wake up in time for a 2AM kick-off, and show up at school wide awake with a game and a half of soccer under my belt. In 2003, it was the America's Cup in New Zealand - I fell in love with sailing as I finished essays in the early hours of the morning. I found myself last year cheering on Team New Zealand (at 9 AM, from Valencia, Spain) to win the cup back from Alinghi so I could get my midnight sailing back.
Of course, these are instances when I've been able to drastically alter my internal clock and sleep schedule for sports. Also, with EURO 2008 kickoffs occuring at primetime Euro-time, they made for nice afternoon viewing for me here in the States. Globalism isn't too bad when you've got a college schedule, but one of these days, the real world will catch up to me and I won't be so lucky. I'll have to miss a sporting event because it's taking place on the other side of the world at some ungodly hour.
...but not if NBC has anything to say about it. NBC paid $3.55 billion dollars for exclusive rights to broadcast the 2000-2008 Olympics in the American market, they want to get their money's worth. This year, they're planning 3600 hours of coverage, but a couple of minute-long races are causing a bit of a ruckus.
Back in 2006, the IOC announced, at NBC's behest, that some swimming finals would be held in the morning to better line up with American primetime programming schedules. Swimming finals are traditionally held at night, and swimmers are traditionally very careful and cognizant of their body clocks. The Australian swimmers are complaining that an American company could buy an Olympic final for Michael Phelps. I think that's a little extreme, considering Phelps will have to acclimate himself to all the time differences the same way the other swimmers will.
It brings back memories of this years European Champions League Final, which was between two English sides (Chelsea and Manchester United) but was played at a neutral site in Moscow. Kickoff was at 10:45PM local time in order to have a sensible broadcast time back in the UK, but the game went to PKs and it was nearly 2 in the morning by the time the cup was raised. Not that I think any of the fans minded (the Man U fans, at least).
In this day of on demand music and video, sports remain one of the last forms of entertainment where watching it live matters. The live broadcast of a big episode of a popular TV series is still a big deal, as is the premier of a movie, but neither is as time-sensitive as a sporting event - you'll probably go online to watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy that you missed, but rather than to watch a whole game, you'll probably just watch the highlights and check the box score. Tape delays just aren't a satisfactory option for broadcasters anymore - any timeshifting will be done at the user's discretion, thankyouverymuch. Airing the swimming finals 12 hours later during primetime? Will some people will watch? Of course, but it'll lose the magic; it won't be Must-See TV, because the other half of the world has already seen it.
So that leaves two options. One option is to air the event as it occurs and let people (like me) who want to watch it find a way to watch it. NBC chose the other option: rescheduling the event, to the detriment of the local market (and possibly to the competitors) but for the benefit of the larger TV market. Who should have to change their schedules - the athletes or the fans? And wouldn't the athletes competing at their top level be in everyone's best interest?
All I know for certain is that the Spain, Argentina, and Greece are going to try packing 5 defender's inside to take away Team USA's penetration game. I also know that the 24 points St. Mary's Aussie guard Patrick Mills scored against Miami in this years' NCAA Tournament wasn't the last we'll hear from him. And I know these things because I woke up early this morning. If you missed it, here are the highlights, and here's the box score.
Showing posts with label nba global. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nba global. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Club vs. Country - Basketball Edition
Marc Cuban, the eccentric billionaire owner/superfan of the Dallas Mavericks, runs an excellent blog over at blogmaverick.com that I check every week. Whether he's talking about basketball or technology, it's great to see what one of the guys on the inside thinks, especially one as knowledgeable and straight-shooting as Mr. Cuban.
This week, it was basketball - Mr. Cuban reposted an oldie-but-a-goodie from the last Olympiad, arguing why he doesn't support NBA players playing in the Olympics. It's of note, though, that if Cuban thinks a tournament every four years is a problem, he should be glad he doesn't own a soccer team. It's known as the "club vs. country" debate in Europe, and it's in the news nearly every other week, especially when tournaments like the current Euro 2008 take place. In one corner, you've got national teams who get big money from TV deals and advertisers; and in the other corner, you've got team owners who pay the players the rest of the year and want a cut (or at least don't want to see their players get hurt). The issue is even greater in the soccer community because of more frequent tournaments and more nationalities and national leagues sharing the main stage. FIBA Americas and the World Basketball championship are only just beginning to cause the kind of problems the EPL, La Liga, Serie A and the like have long faced with EURO, the African Cup of Nations, the CONCACAF Gold Cup (not to mention the much more frequent friendlies between national teams in the soccer world).
The scheduling and cash flow become infinitely more complex because soccer is truly the world's game. Basketball is not, although the NBA is working on it. You can still describe international basketball issues (as Mr. Cuban does) as America vs. the World, or the NBA vs. the World, or in cases like this, America vs. the NBA. Even though the EPL wishes it did, nobody has the same monopoly of soccer talent that the NBA has on basketball talent. The closest thing was the G-14, a coalition of the rishest soccer clubs in Europe, and that group disbanded in February as part of an uneasy truce over national teams compensating teams for injured stars.
And as far as "And1-ing" goes, Euro 2008 is another good place to look, where a half-dozen Brazilians are playing for Poland, Turkey, and even talent-rich Spain and Portugal. If there are legitimately two countries that you identify with, I can understand the crisis, but mercenaries choosing new citizenship based on roster openings do more to cheapen the international game than a thousand endorsements ever could. The more interesting issue is coaches crossing borders. How does the equation change when your national team commitment is your full-time job? How much is representing a country and how much is just paying the bills? It can certainly be a point of pride to have a homegrown coach, but if you're paying the man, business sense and what's best for the team on the field have to factor in alongside emotions. Case in point: Russia's manager Guus Hiddink, who's passion could arguably make his fellow Dutchmen proud during the 3-1 defeat his adopted team handed the Netherlands, but I think most people in Holland are more likely to call him traitor of the year.
Or, on the other hand, you could look at Sweden's finest, Sven-Göran Eriksson, getting ready to begin his tenure as Mexico's head coach. Seriously, just look at him. It looks like there's a decent chance he didn't understand most of what was said at that press conference.
This week, it was basketball - Mr. Cuban reposted an oldie-but-a-goodie from the last Olympiad, arguing why he doesn't support NBA players playing in the Olympics. It's of note, though, that if Cuban thinks a tournament every four years is a problem, he should be glad he doesn't own a soccer team. It's known as the "club vs. country" debate in Europe, and it's in the news nearly every other week, especially when tournaments like the current Euro 2008 take place. In one corner, you've got national teams who get big money from TV deals and advertisers; and in the other corner, you've got team owners who pay the players the rest of the year and want a cut (or at least don't want to see their players get hurt). The issue is even greater in the soccer community because of more frequent tournaments and more nationalities and national leagues sharing the main stage. FIBA Americas and the World Basketball championship are only just beginning to cause the kind of problems the EPL, La Liga, Serie A and the like have long faced with EURO, the African Cup of Nations, the CONCACAF Gold Cup (not to mention the much more frequent friendlies between national teams in the soccer world).
The scheduling and cash flow become infinitely more complex because soccer is truly the world's game. Basketball is not, although the NBA is working on it. You can still describe international basketball issues (as Mr. Cuban does) as America vs. the World, or the NBA vs. the World, or in cases like this, America vs. the NBA. Even though the EPL wishes it did, nobody has the same monopoly of soccer talent that the NBA has on basketball talent. The closest thing was the G-14, a coalition of the rishest soccer clubs in Europe, and that group disbanded in February as part of an uneasy truce over national teams compensating teams for injured stars.
And as far as "And1-ing" goes, Euro 2008 is another good place to look, where a half-dozen Brazilians are playing for Poland, Turkey, and even talent-rich Spain and Portugal. If there are legitimately two countries that you identify with, I can understand the crisis, but mercenaries choosing new citizenship based on roster openings do more to cheapen the international game than a thousand endorsements ever could. The more interesting issue is coaches crossing borders. How does the equation change when your national team commitment is your full-time job? How much is representing a country and how much is just paying the bills? It can certainly be a point of pride to have a homegrown coach, but if you're paying the man, business sense and what's best for the team on the field have to factor in alongside emotions. Case in point: Russia's manager Guus Hiddink, who's passion could arguably make his fellow Dutchmen proud during the 3-1 defeat his adopted team handed the Netherlands, but I think most people in Holland are more likely to call him traitor of the year.
Or, on the other hand, you could look at Sweden's finest, Sven-Göran Eriksson, getting ready to begin his tenure as Mexico's head coach. Seriously, just look at him. It looks like there's a decent chance he didn't understand most of what was said at that press conference.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Bowl Sunday and Toboggans
Tonight is the Big Game! (Thank goodness that phrase isn't trademarked) The Pats are on the verge of completing the perfect season. There's more than enough words on the internet written about the Super Bowl because everyone in sports feels its their duty to write about it. So I'll be quick with my predictions - Giants score first, Pats dominate but never pull away, and somebody not named Eli makes a bonehead mistake in the third quarter that makes Giants fans scream obscenities but follow it up with "that's okay, but there's still time left." (My guess is it'll be Amani Toomer - I want it to be Plexiglass Burress, but he's won a Super Bowl before and I'm not expecting mistakes out of him... of course, it could still be Eli. It could always be Eli. Hide your heart, girls.) The Pats will win but won't cover - and that's the stance I took in the bet with my Jersey roommate - he wins if the Giants win OR if the Pats blow them out... I need the Pats to win by 12 or less. I still think I got the best window.
My favorite soccer blog site threw up a post today with XI Reasons Football (with the feet) is Better Than Football (with the hands). A couple good zingers in there, but I love both sports. I love the strategy and specialized athleticism of gridiron football, and I love the action, the style, and the spirit of soccer. I don't expect the world's soccer fans to embrace the NFL - despite the shared name, the two games are fundamentally different from a spectator level. An NFL game is an event - a 3 hour chunk of your day, and often a lot longer if you include the pregame show and tailgating. And there isn't a whole lot of action - theres a lot of downtime which leads to more conversation, either about the game or just general discussion. A lot like going to a baseball game - and that's why the pigskin is the new American Pastime. Soccer, meanwhile, is non-stop action (the untrained American eye will say that nothing's going on, but nobody will deny that the clock is always running). In this way, soccer flows more like a basketball game, and that (as well as the smartest global marketing team in sports) is why the NBA is catching on overseas. The NHL could translate, too, but it needs to focus on keeping an audience here before grabbing fans in London.
But naturally, TheOffside's post lead to a debate in the comments over the word "soccer." Sammy wrote:
Up north, "toboggan" means a sled. In "Southern American English," it apparently means what I would call a ski cap (or, if I was making a joke about Canada or talking about hockey, what I would call a tuque). My gut reaction was that he must be wrong - that the South must be wrong! How can they take a word that doesn't belong to them and apply it to the wrong thing? Surely North Carolinians shouldn't get to decide names for wintery things! But when you settle down, you realize that it's just another part of southern culture that's different from the culture I come from - just like calling a rotary a "traffic circle," listening to country music or deep frying an Oreo.
And this toboggan incident led me to be a lot more neutral in the "football v. soccer" debate. What's in a name? Often the Americans who demand that we call the beautiful game "football" are the Eurosnob fans who don't give the MLS a chance in the first place. For starters, here's a quick history lesson on the term "soccer." We're not the only society who uses the word this way - and even if we were, would that be so wrong? Once you get to the World Cup, most of the time, the players aren't speaking the same language anyway! I think the community of American soccer fans would do well to drop this debate and accept the fact that, over here, we call it soccer. That's just our culture. It's no less right than football.
One last Super Bowl point - the media has been so focused on revamping the SpyGate investigation that nobody has highlighted the biggest surprise of the AFC Championship - Belichick didn't keep trying to score in the fourth quarter! Why stop now? What happened to playing 60 minutes of football? The only mention I saw of this was one little paragraph in Tuesday Morning Quarterback the week after the game, and Easterbrook left it at a "What's up with that?" (Probably because he hasn't acknowledged the Pat's relentless 4th quarter effort as a source of their wins in close games this year.)
My favorite soccer blog site threw up a post today with XI Reasons Football (with the feet) is Better Than Football (with the hands). A couple good zingers in there, but I love both sports. I love the strategy and specialized athleticism of gridiron football, and I love the action, the style, and the spirit of soccer. I don't expect the world's soccer fans to embrace the NFL - despite the shared name, the two games are fundamentally different from a spectator level. An NFL game is an event - a 3 hour chunk of your day, and often a lot longer if you include the pregame show and tailgating. And there isn't a whole lot of action - theres a lot of downtime which leads to more conversation, either about the game or just general discussion. A lot like going to a baseball game - and that's why the pigskin is the new American Pastime. Soccer, meanwhile, is non-stop action (the untrained American eye will say that nothing's going on, but nobody will deny that the clock is always running). In this way, soccer flows more like a basketball game, and that (as well as the smartest global marketing team in sports) is why the NBA is catching on overseas. The NHL could translate, too, but it needs to focus on keeping an audience here before grabbing fans in London.
But naturally, TheOffside's post lead to a debate in the comments over the word "soccer." Sammy wrote:
I think the term “soccer” should be eliminated from this website. When I think of “soccer” I think of kids doing laps around a park district and eating oranges. When I think of “football” I think of the beautiful game. We won’t offend any American Football fans here.I want to share a little anecdote about this - I'm from Massachusetts, and the first winter that I was down here in North Carolina, as soon as it started getting cold one of my Southern friends started looking for his "toboggan". I said, "What on earth do you need a toboggan for? There's no snow on the ground, so we can't very well go sledding." He didn't know what on earth I was talking about, so as usual we let Wikipedia settle our dispute.
Up north, "toboggan" means a sled. In "Southern American English," it apparently means what I would call a ski cap (or, if I was making a joke about Canada or talking about hockey, what I would call a tuque). My gut reaction was that he must be wrong - that the South must be wrong! How can they take a word that doesn't belong to them and apply it to the wrong thing? Surely North Carolinians shouldn't get to decide names for wintery things! But when you settle down, you realize that it's just another part of southern culture that's different from the culture I come from - just like calling a rotary a "traffic circle," listening to country music or deep frying an Oreo.
And this toboggan incident led me to be a lot more neutral in the "football v. soccer" debate. What's in a name? Often the Americans who demand that we call the beautiful game "football" are the Eurosnob fans who don't give the MLS a chance in the first place. For starters, here's a quick history lesson on the term "soccer." We're not the only society who uses the word this way - and even if we were, would that be so wrong? Once you get to the World Cup, most of the time, the players aren't speaking the same language anyway! I think the community of American soccer fans would do well to drop this debate and accept the fact that, over here, we call it soccer. That's just our culture. It's no less right than football.
One last Super Bowl point - the media has been so focused on revamping the SpyGate investigation that nobody has highlighted the biggest surprise of the AFC Championship - Belichick didn't keep trying to score in the fourth quarter! Why stop now? What happened to playing 60 minutes of football? The only mention I saw of this was one little paragraph in Tuesday Morning Quarterback the week after the game, and Easterbrook left it at a "What's up with that?" (Probably because he hasn't acknowledged the Pat's relentless 4th quarter effort as a source of their wins in close games this year.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
