Last night in Toronto, Capitals sniper Alexander Ovechkin wore a Coach's Corner T-shirt while warming up before the game. On the back was written "RESPECT".
For those not in the loop, that is Don Cherry's CBC segment. The segment where Cherry has blasted Ovechkin this season for his goal celebrations.
It was a sign that Ovechkin is ready to move on from the micro-controversy that has been clouding over him since a fateful game against Tampa Bay when he scored his 50th goal of the season. After hitting on a wrist shot, taken just inside the blue line to the left of Lightening goalie Mike McKenna, Ovechkin dropped his stick and pantomimed that he couldn't pick it up, it was too hot.
On the scale of celebrations, it was far from the worst. It was Terrell Owens running to midfield after scoring a touchdown against Dallas. There was no disrespect, no taunting. Ovechkin was having a lark, like he does with most of his goals. One remembers him running on the ice or jumping into the boards after big goals. He is not one to simply smile and raise a hand when he scores. Rather, he wears his emotion on his sleeve.
And this wears on some people's patience.
Don Cherry is one. He disagrees with what Ovechkin does and compares it to Jerome Iginla, who rarely does anything much after scoring. If Ovechkin is excitable, Iginla is workmanlike in his poise. After scoring his 50th last season against Vancouver, he put his stick up in the air and hugged a couple players.
Cherry makes a few points. By celebrating so much, he opens himself up to criticism. A parallel to baseball, as poised by Cherry, is fitting: if you stare too long at a home run, you're likely to get thrown at. That happens. In hockey, Ovechkin may find that he's getting a few more elbows thrown his way and that referees might decide to let them play.
Cherry keeps at it, though. "They're laughing at you, Alex" he opined this past weekend. He found the stick-play more then harmless. A taunt. Rubbing it in. Think of the poor Lightening, all the way down in the standings.
Here he oversteps, and not just because Ovechkin is has 50 goals because he's on a good Capitals team — if anything, the Capitals are a good team because Ovechkin has 50 goals. He reads too far into Ovechkins actions and leads one to wonder if in Cherry's ideal world, there would have be no celebrations and pitchers can throw at hockey forwards.
Unaddressed by Cherry was Cliff Ronning in the 1991 Smythe finals, Theo Fleury in the 91 Smythe semi-finals or Teemu Selanne setting the goal record for a rookie.
One wonders if the shirt will be addressed on Saturday by Cherry. It's a show of respect, yes, but the shirt means something else too: he's tired of talking about it.
What's a better sign then what Ovechkin did last night after scoring his 51st against the Maple Leafs? After crossing in front of Leafs goalie Martin Gerber, he pulled the puck in, waited for Gerber to bite and backhanded the puck past him.
And then he hugged some teammates with what looked to me like a hand pointing up to the press box.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sidney Crosby is a player under pressure
Second in an ongoing series at current athletes
There’s this ad in Canada right now for Tim Horton’s that stars Sidney Crosby. He’s riding a bus – presumably with the rest of the Pittsburgh Penguins – out in some kind of countryside.
The bus breaks down, Crosby looks out the window and sees a group of kids playing hockey on a pond. And grabbing his stick, skates and gloves (nice to know he keeps those handy), he goes out and plays with them while a light snow begins to fall.
It’s a cute ad, though it’s one I like a bit for an entirely unrelated reason. And it’s one of many, many ads that prominently feature one Sidney Patrick Crosby, currently of the Pittsburgh Penguins. His likeness is attached to everything from clothing (including the stuff he wears in that Tims ad) to Gatorade.
The NHL is hitching its wagon to Crosby. He is the face of the league, hockey’s spokesperson and maybe the best talent to come out of Canada in a long, long time. Already the captain of the Penguins at the young age of 21, he’s already tearing into the league; he led the league in scoring in his second season by putting up the Gretzky-like 120 points – before he turned 20.
Fair or unfairly, that is a shadow he is gong to have to with. The shadow of Gretzky will always lie on hockey, but especially so on Crosby, as it has on every Canadian player in recent memory, from Eric Lindros to Alexandre Daigle. But for Crosby, it is perhaps the best comparison that could be made.
Like him he wears a high number. Like him he’s got a great scoring touch – but is just as likely to set somebody else up instead. Like him, he started his career on a young team brimming with talent. And like him, Crosby came into the league with a ton of hype.
Gretzky lived up to his, putting up unreal numbers in a time where scoring was at a peak. His 200 plus point seasons are unlikely to ever be repeated, let alone broken. Even now, close to a decade after his final game, his name is still shorthand for greatness in hockey.
This has to weigh down on Crosby. He a great talent, yes, but the entire league sometimes seems to pivot on his shoulders. Gretzky never had to save anything from oblivion.
He started immediately after the NHL cancelled an entire season. He is, through no fault of his own, the savior of hockey, the player who will rescue the sport from cable-TV obscurity.
The NHL he inherited was a league in it’s worst shape in decades, since the halcyon days of Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier. The league had moved from ESPN to OLN, a small network best known for broadcasts of fishing and the Tour de France and an occasional game on NBC. The NHL had just endured a lockout that cancelled a season – the first time an entire season had been cancelled in a major pro sport. Scoring was down.
Hockey was in danger of losing its position as the fourth sport in the US. Some would even argue it already had: to NASCAR.
So along came this baby-faced kid, not even old enough to vote, who was supposed to change all of this. He was supposed to be a tremendous talent, somebody that the NHL could latch itself to.
He thusly was prominently featured on NBC’s game of the week. He is in almost innumerable ads. He is the face of hockey in North America, to the North American fan. And this must certainly have put an incredible amount of pressure upon him.
Sidney Crosby is cranky. He has been called a whiner. He jawbones at referees, he argues for calls and it has been written that other players think he’s soft. This was most evident earlier this year, when he complained a hit from Alexander Ovechkin was dirty.
So, yes, he does complain. But no other player has the same circumstances he does; the expectations, the pressure, the hype and the weight.
Back to that ad I like so much. I don’t like it for it’s contrived scenario, or for it’s forced punch line. I like it for what I think it unconsciously shows about Crosby.
He gets away, but he’s still known. He escapes to a backwoods pond but everybody still recognizes him. He smiles because he loses himself in the game. He’s away from all the lights, from all the hype and the noise and the talk and the expectations…
Phil Dusenberry, the former chairman of BBDO North America, once wrote that advertising is not about ideas, but insights. What insight, then, is behind that ad? Was it an attachment of hockey being an escape for Crosby? Or was it an extension of earlier ads that showcased his history with minor hockey? Or was it even saying something at all?
I remember a couple years ago, Crosby was on the Tonight Show. He brought along the dryer he used to shoot pucks at in the basement of his parents house, back when he was growing up. That was how he used to practice his shot. Not against an older brother, not against a family friend, not against his dad. But by shooting pucks into an open dryer.
A solitary activity, turned by his talent, into him charged with saving a professional sport from obscurity.
It’s a heavy weight for a kid who’s barely old enough to order a beer.
There’s this ad in Canada right now for Tim Horton’s that stars Sidney Crosby. He’s riding a bus – presumably with the rest of the Pittsburgh Penguins – out in some kind of countryside.
The bus breaks down, Crosby looks out the window and sees a group of kids playing hockey on a pond. And grabbing his stick, skates and gloves (nice to know he keeps those handy), he goes out and plays with them while a light snow begins to fall.
It’s a cute ad, though it’s one I like a bit for an entirely unrelated reason. And it’s one of many, many ads that prominently feature one Sidney Patrick Crosby, currently of the Pittsburgh Penguins. His likeness is attached to everything from clothing (including the stuff he wears in that Tims ad) to Gatorade.
The NHL is hitching its wagon to Crosby. He is the face of the league, hockey’s spokesperson and maybe the best talent to come out of Canada in a long, long time. Already the captain of the Penguins at the young age of 21, he’s already tearing into the league; he led the league in scoring in his second season by putting up the Gretzky-like 120 points – before he turned 20.
Fair or unfairly, that is a shadow he is gong to have to with. The shadow of Gretzky will always lie on hockey, but especially so on Crosby, as it has on every Canadian player in recent memory, from Eric Lindros to Alexandre Daigle. But for Crosby, it is perhaps the best comparison that could be made.
Like him he wears a high number. Like him he’s got a great scoring touch – but is just as likely to set somebody else up instead. Like him, he started his career on a young team brimming with talent. And like him, Crosby came into the league with a ton of hype.
Gretzky lived up to his, putting up unreal numbers in a time where scoring was at a peak. His 200 plus point seasons are unlikely to ever be repeated, let alone broken. Even now, close to a decade after his final game, his name is still shorthand for greatness in hockey.
This has to weigh down on Crosby. He a great talent, yes, but the entire league sometimes seems to pivot on his shoulders. Gretzky never had to save anything from oblivion.
He started immediately after the NHL cancelled an entire season. He is, through no fault of his own, the savior of hockey, the player who will rescue the sport from cable-TV obscurity.
The NHL he inherited was a league in it’s worst shape in decades, since the halcyon days of Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier. The league had moved from ESPN to OLN, a small network best known for broadcasts of fishing and the Tour de France and an occasional game on NBC. The NHL had just endured a lockout that cancelled a season – the first time an entire season had been cancelled in a major pro sport. Scoring was down.
Hockey was in danger of losing its position as the fourth sport in the US. Some would even argue it already had: to NASCAR.
So along came this baby-faced kid, not even old enough to vote, who was supposed to change all of this. He was supposed to be a tremendous talent, somebody that the NHL could latch itself to.
He thusly was prominently featured on NBC’s game of the week. He is in almost innumerable ads. He is the face of hockey in North America, to the North American fan. And this must certainly have put an incredible amount of pressure upon him.
Sidney Crosby is cranky. He has been called a whiner. He jawbones at referees, he argues for calls and it has been written that other players think he’s soft. This was most evident earlier this year, when he complained a hit from Alexander Ovechkin was dirty.
So, yes, he does complain. But no other player has the same circumstances he does; the expectations, the pressure, the hype and the weight.
Back to that ad I like so much. I don’t like it for it’s contrived scenario, or for it’s forced punch line. I like it for what I think it unconsciously shows about Crosby.
He gets away, but he’s still known. He escapes to a backwoods pond but everybody still recognizes him. He smiles because he loses himself in the game. He’s away from all the lights, from all the hype and the noise and the talk and the expectations…
Phil Dusenberry, the former chairman of BBDO North America, once wrote that advertising is not about ideas, but insights. What insight, then, is behind that ad? Was it an attachment of hockey being an escape for Crosby? Or was it an extension of earlier ads that showcased his history with minor hockey? Or was it even saying something at all?
I remember a couple years ago, Crosby was on the Tonight Show. He brought along the dryer he used to shoot pucks at in the basement of his parents house, back when he was growing up. That was how he used to practice his shot. Not against an older brother, not against a family friend, not against his dad. But by shooting pucks into an open dryer.
A solitary activity, turned by his talent, into him charged with saving a professional sport from obscurity.
It’s a heavy weight for a kid who’s barely old enough to order a beer.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
March Madness Running Blog - Day one, part 2
A quiet night up here, mostly toggling around between two games (one online, one on TV), with a lot of time spent on American/Villanova, which I'll get to later.
***
It wasn't — as I'm so wont to say — a classic; it wasn't even a game that I'll remember much about come next spring, but the last few minutes of Clemson/Michigan was fun to watch.
Clemson had their chances to win and after the Wolverines only hit one of two from the line late, some 15 or so seconds to tie it up. That's a lot of time to move it up court, set something up and take a shot, even two. But some solid defence by Michigan kept Clemson far along the outside and with the clock running out, the Tigers forced up a long shot that wasn't even close. 63-59 for the Wolverines.
***
I didn't watch any of the Minnesota/Texas game, but I'm not surprised Texas pulled away with that one. The Gophers were buried deep in the big 10 which I thought was a weak conference to begin with.
***
It was one of those games where a small, scrappy team found it's stroke and looked to topple the favourite. American University, a 14 seed, was way out in front of Villanova, a three that one wagers goes deep on most brackets.
Right at the start of the second hald, American had a huge lead on Villanova, but slowly it fell away. Not because Nova did anything special, but because American went cold, hitting just two of 15 from downtown - they only pulled away in the first half by hitting those long shots.
When you live by the three, you die by the three.
Granted, they began to switch to playing inside, but they didn't have the kind of presence to keep up with Villanova at that game. It wasn't long before they pulled away and an upset became a blowout.
***
Gonzaga was kind of the same, minus the three-ball. They just outlasted Akron, which couldn't keep up with them and pulled away with about five minutes left, when they went on a monster 19 to one run . After that, it was barely a contest - final score 64-77, and not even that close.
***
It wasn't — as I'm so wont to say — a classic; it wasn't even a game that I'll remember much about come next spring, but the last few minutes of Clemson/Michigan was fun to watch.
Clemson had their chances to win and after the Wolverines only hit one of two from the line late, some 15 or so seconds to tie it up. That's a lot of time to move it up court, set something up and take a shot, even two. But some solid defence by Michigan kept Clemson far along the outside and with the clock running out, the Tigers forced up a long shot that wasn't even close. 63-59 for the Wolverines.
***
I didn't watch any of the Minnesota/Texas game, but I'm not surprised Texas pulled away with that one. The Gophers were buried deep in the big 10 which I thought was a weak conference to begin with.
***
It was one of those games where a small, scrappy team found it's stroke and looked to topple the favourite. American University, a 14 seed, was way out in front of Villanova, a three that one wagers goes deep on most brackets.
Right at the start of the second hald, American had a huge lead on Villanova, but slowly it fell away. Not because Nova did anything special, but because American went cold, hitting just two of 15 from downtown - they only pulled away in the first half by hitting those long shots.
When you live by the three, you die by the three.
Granted, they began to switch to playing inside, but they didn't have the kind of presence to keep up with Villanova at that game. It wasn't long before they pulled away and an upset became a blowout.
***
Gonzaga was kind of the same, minus the three-ball. They just outlasted Akron, which couldn't keep up with them and pulled away with about five minutes left, when they went on a monster 19 to one run . After that, it was barely a contest - final score 64-77, and not even that close.
March Madness Running Blog - Day one
A pretty quiet opening day by most stretches of the imagination. Two 16 vs 1 games that aren't even close, a couple of blowout wins and no major upsets.
A couple early game notes, though:
Memphis is crazy lucky they got away with one today. They rode a great shooting day by Roburt Sallie into a win. He was lights out, hitting 10 of 14 from downtown and finished with 35 points as Memphis survived a scare by Cal State Northridge. It was a close one throughout the second half and Memphis only pulled away when Cal went without a basket for four minutes. It was fun for a while, but ended anticlimactically.
Butler/LSU was a pretty solid game, but not really as close as it looked - it was of those games where teams free throws late. I found it kind of dull, to be honest.
UNC and UConn both had convincing wins where they crushed 16 seed teams, but I can't imagine anybody who didn't expect that. I didn't see any of Texas' victory over BYU, nor any of Purdue's win, so I can't comment on them.
The closest thing to an upset I've seen today was Maryland putting up a win over Cal, but I'm wont to call it an upset. Maryland has put together a solid season against good teams: they beat UNC and put Duke and Wake Forest (they later beat Wake in the conference tournament) to the test while remaining unranked. They play smart defence and don't turn the ball over often. I wouldn't sleep on them.
A couple early game notes, though:
Memphis is crazy lucky they got away with one today. They rode a great shooting day by Roburt Sallie into a win. He was lights out, hitting 10 of 14 from downtown and finished with 35 points as Memphis survived a scare by Cal State Northridge. It was a close one throughout the second half and Memphis only pulled away when Cal went without a basket for four minutes. It was fun for a while, but ended anticlimactically.
Butler/LSU was a pretty solid game, but not really as close as it looked - it was of those games where teams free throws late. I found it kind of dull, to be honest.
UNC and UConn both had convincing wins where they crushed 16 seed teams, but I can't imagine anybody who didn't expect that. I didn't see any of Texas' victory over BYU, nor any of Purdue's win, so I can't comment on them.
The closest thing to an upset I've seen today was Maryland putting up a win over Cal, but I'm wont to call it an upset. Maryland has put together a solid season against good teams: they beat UNC and put Duke and Wake Forest (they later beat Wake in the conference tournament) to the test while remaining unranked. They play smart defence and don't turn the ball over often. I wouldn't sleep on them.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Canadian net neutrality is also a sports issue
The issue of Net Neutrality isn't exactly one that most, if any, sports fan really concerns themselves with — if indeed they've even heard of it at all.
But it's one they should be worried about, because it's directly effecting the way sports broadcasting will head. And they should be warned — it's a two pronged, complex issue.
The big part of this issue is that the bulk of the internet is controlled by the few, that a few internet providers can distribute bandwidth as they see fit: for a fictional example, an ISP (let's say Comcast) can allot more bandwidth and show higher quality video for their services then that of their competitors (let's say Hulu). Therefore, there is more incentive for their users to watch their videos then any others.
This isn't illegal, but it's not fair either.
In the sports world, we already see this to an extent: ESPN's online video wing is ESPN360, where they show original programming, live streams of ESPN networks and out of market games. And they only let certain ISPs (who themselves have to pay for this service) allow users to see ESPN360. And ESPN can block a competitor from seeing these. For example, Comcast, who have their own competing sports network, aren't on the list of participating providers.
Again, this isn't illegal, but for sports fans it's grossly unfair, like how Rogers Cable subscribers are being punished by CTV/Globemedia and not able to see TSN2.
In Canada, the CRTC is holding meetings about Candian Content in New Media and on Monday both Score Media and a representative of the NHL spoke at it. Both spoke of their rights as content providers on the internet, but it was Score Media who made the most compelling case.
They're the little brother in the world of Canadian sports broadcasting. They don't own the rights to anything major: they don't show baseball, don't show the NHL or curling. Their forte, for a long time, has been Canadian college sports (the CIS in particular), basketball and horse racing. And one of their main competitors, Rogers, is one of the biggest internet providers in Canada.
They would want protection from any kind of digital limitations that Rogers could, in theory, put on them - such a limit in bandwidth, for example. And they want protection against US media infringement into Canada - like from ESPN360.
It's the same problem that radio and television have faced in the past. Because Canada is a nation that looks to the US for so much of our entertainment, it would all too easy to be swallowed up by US media. Thusly, there are minimum amounts of Canadian content that all radio and TV stations have to reach. It's a tad socialist, yes, but it's there to protect the "Canadian Identity".
In the world of sports, this would translate to why we have TSN, which shows Canadian-based sports and programming, then just a feed of ESPN (or even ESPN Canada).
And the argument is that this should also extend online as well.
So online, the CTRC is looking into placing similar restrictions - that TSN.ca can't just show the exact things that ESPN360 does, but that they should reflect Canadian broadcasting standards.
As they should. Canadian sports would all to easily be swallowed up by ESPN, who thanks to a major stake in TSN, would be able to have a virtual monopoly in online video. It would be all too easy for TSN shut out their rivals by exclusively showing marquee programming.
And there's even the worst-case scenario, where Rogers could limit access to the site on their ISPs.
All Canadian sports fans are already being subjected to this squabbling nonsense with TSN2. The CRTC should step in now and set regulations for Canadian content and net neutrality before this issue comes to a head.
But it's one they should be worried about, because it's directly effecting the way sports broadcasting will head. And they should be warned — it's a two pronged, complex issue.
The big part of this issue is that the bulk of the internet is controlled by the few, that a few internet providers can distribute bandwidth as they see fit: for a fictional example, an ISP (let's say Comcast) can allot more bandwidth and show higher quality video for their services then that of their competitors (let's say Hulu). Therefore, there is more incentive for their users to watch their videos then any others.
This isn't illegal, but it's not fair either.
In the sports world, we already see this to an extent: ESPN's online video wing is ESPN360, where they show original programming, live streams of ESPN networks and out of market games. And they only let certain ISPs (who themselves have to pay for this service) allow users to see ESPN360. And ESPN can block a competitor from seeing these. For example, Comcast, who have their own competing sports network, aren't on the list of participating providers.
Again, this isn't illegal, but for sports fans it's grossly unfair, like how Rogers Cable subscribers are being punished by CTV/Globemedia and not able to see TSN2.
In Canada, the CRTC is holding meetings about Candian Content in New Media and on Monday both Score Media and a representative of the NHL spoke at it. Both spoke of their rights as content providers on the internet, but it was Score Media who made the most compelling case.
They're the little brother in the world of Canadian sports broadcasting. They don't own the rights to anything major: they don't show baseball, don't show the NHL or curling. Their forte, for a long time, has been Canadian college sports (the CIS in particular), basketball and horse racing. And one of their main competitors, Rogers, is one of the biggest internet providers in Canada.
They would want protection from any kind of digital limitations that Rogers could, in theory, put on them - such a limit in bandwidth, for example. And they want protection against US media infringement into Canada - like from ESPN360.
It's the same problem that radio and television have faced in the past. Because Canada is a nation that looks to the US for so much of our entertainment, it would all too easy to be swallowed up by US media. Thusly, there are minimum amounts of Canadian content that all radio and TV stations have to reach. It's a tad socialist, yes, but it's there to protect the "Canadian Identity".
In the world of sports, this would translate to why we have TSN, which shows Canadian-based sports and programming, then just a feed of ESPN (or even ESPN Canada).
And the argument is that this should also extend online as well.
So online, the CTRC is looking into placing similar restrictions - that TSN.ca can't just show the exact things that ESPN360 does, but that they should reflect Canadian broadcasting standards.
As they should. Canadian sports would all to easily be swallowed up by ESPN, who thanks to a major stake in TSN, would be able to have a virtual monopoly in online video. It would be all too easy for TSN shut out their rivals by exclusively showing marquee programming.
And there's even the worst-case scenario, where Rogers could limit access to the site on their ISPs.
All Canadian sports fans are already being subjected to this squabbling nonsense with TSN2. The CRTC should step in now and set regulations for Canadian content and net neutrality before this issue comes to a head.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Is Sports Journalism Dead?
Sometime in late 2008 - perhaps November 18th, the date of the first post - Phoenix Suns centre and quote machine Shaquille O'Neal launched an account on Twitter, an unfiltered look into whatever he felt like saying, was thinking and felt like sharing with his fanbase.
Since then, he's posted over 640 updates which include everything from pictures of him lying in bed or shopping at Wal Mart, his take on popular culture and his opinion about the league, the game and the players he plays against.
This is both the best and the worst thing to happen to the NBA and to sports journalism since Bill Simmons first started writing about baseball games while he was still watching them.
And the fact almost nobody realizes that is what's wrong with everything with sports media.
Recently, I read Will Litech's excellent book of essays, "God Save The Fan". In it, he argues that Deadspin - and by extension other sports blogs - are going to make sports journalism obsolete, since nobody needs it anymore. Fans don't need to have games reported to them, since they can see them themselves on cable. Or watch the highlights on Sportscenter, or even YouTube. There are so many, many options for fans these days that they don't need the fourth estate.
This is true. But not new.
ESPN effectively drove the stake into the heart of newspaper sports sections years ago, about the same time that Sportscentre stopped aping popular culture and became popular culture - a pretty big distinction (a process itself started by former ABC Sports head honcho Roone Alridge, when he created the Halftime Highlights segment on Monday Night Football in 1971).
With that, sports media had effectively reached a crux: if somebody needed to know the score, they didn't have to wait until the next day, only until Sportscenter. It was almost as if sports sections weren't read for news, but for opinion within.
Jump forward about 10, 15 years. The rise of the web. A former sportswriter - and then bartender - launches a website where he writes about sports and calls himself The Boston Sports Guy. And don't laugh when you read this, but Bill Simmons' website was the most important thing to happen to sportswriting since BIll James first started writing about baseball. It's a proto-blog, if ever there was one. It's the first time in a long time that a fan began writing about his teams in a format that was widely accessible.
While he may not have been the first person to do this, he was by far the most successful at it: it's about a decade since he started writing online - I found references to him bartending until 1997, but nothing I'd take as definitive - and he's evolved into one of ESPN's biggest personalities. That's no easy feat.
His brand of personality-driven opinion has rippled across the internet. While not every sports blogger is a fan of his, they all owe him a small debt. He didn't report on sports, he just wrote what he thought about them. He wrote about games as they happened (his live diaries are live blogs in all but name).
This style caught on, and as more people began to write their own blogs, another barrier fell; if people could post their opinion and read anybody else's on the internet, why would they keep reading a columnist? What would any person have to say that a columnist doesn't? Was this the point when newspaper columns started being contrarian? When some writers - I'm not going to name names - started lashing out more.
Taking it a step further, there are several sites, such as this one, where users can upload their own sports writings for all to see. It's extraordinarily easy to get almost all the opinion you could ever want from those sites alone. As sites like this one continue to grow, why would we still need newspaper columnists?
As Will Litech pointed out in another essay, ESPN's show Around The Horn is rarely a vehicle for discussion, but sportswriters yelling at each other for 30 minutes. This model seems to go hand in hand with the direction sports media seems to be headed - opinion is cheap and it sells. The only downside is that when you see these professional reporters, the people who cover sports for a living, yelling all the time, making fools of themselves (in one memorable case, eating dog food), how can we take them - or their opinion - seriously?
Another effect ESPN has had, one that Litech didn't address, is how it's elevated the players into popular culture. Not just superstars, who would have been there anyway (my mom, who has never watched an entire NBA game, knows who Wilt Chamberlain is, for instance), but the smaller stars, the ones who may not have been widely known otherwise. People like Chris Bosh, Baron Davis and Steve Nash - all of whom use Twitter.
With that, these stars suddenly have a way to talk directly to fans, the same ones who have the blogs. They don't have to go through the normal outlets - the team beat writer, the local columnist, the talk radio host - anymore. They can just talk directly to their fans.
Greg Oden did this, with a blog on Yardbarker. Terrell Owens had a message board where he would reply to posts and answer questions. Chris Bosh's YouTube account arguably helped him get to the 2007 All-Star game. Shaq's Twitter account has over 300 thousand people following it - 8th most on the site.
They don't need the fourth estate. We don't need the fourth estate. They don't offer anything we can't already find and what they do offer seems less about making a point as it does about making waves. In short, they're irrelevant - and if they are, why should we even care about them at all?
Since then, he's posted over 640 updates which include everything from pictures of him lying in bed or shopping at Wal Mart, his take on popular culture and his opinion about the league, the game and the players he plays against.
This is both the best and the worst thing to happen to the NBA and to sports journalism since Bill Simmons first started writing about baseball games while he was still watching them.
And the fact almost nobody realizes that is what's wrong with everything with sports media.
Recently, I read Will Litech's excellent book of essays, "God Save The Fan". In it, he argues that Deadspin - and by extension other sports blogs - are going to make sports journalism obsolete, since nobody needs it anymore. Fans don't need to have games reported to them, since they can see them themselves on cable. Or watch the highlights on Sportscenter, or even YouTube. There are so many, many options for fans these days that they don't need the fourth estate.
This is true. But not new.
ESPN effectively drove the stake into the heart of newspaper sports sections years ago, about the same time that Sportscentre stopped aping popular culture and became popular culture - a pretty big distinction (a process itself started by former ABC Sports head honcho Roone Alridge, when he created the Halftime Highlights segment on Monday Night Football in 1971).
With that, sports media had effectively reached a crux: if somebody needed to know the score, they didn't have to wait until the next day, only until Sportscenter. It was almost as if sports sections weren't read for news, but for opinion within.
Jump forward about 10, 15 years. The rise of the web. A former sportswriter - and then bartender - launches a website where he writes about sports and calls himself The Boston Sports Guy. And don't laugh when you read this, but Bill Simmons' website was the most important thing to happen to sportswriting since BIll James first started writing about baseball. It's a proto-blog, if ever there was one. It's the first time in a long time that a fan began writing about his teams in a format that was widely accessible.
While he may not have been the first person to do this, he was by far the most successful at it: it's about a decade since he started writing online - I found references to him bartending until 1997, but nothing I'd take as definitive - and he's evolved into one of ESPN's biggest personalities. That's no easy feat.
His brand of personality-driven opinion has rippled across the internet. While not every sports blogger is a fan of his, they all owe him a small debt. He didn't report on sports, he just wrote what he thought about them. He wrote about games as they happened (his live diaries are live blogs in all but name).
This style caught on, and as more people began to write their own blogs, another barrier fell; if people could post their opinion and read anybody else's on the internet, why would they keep reading a columnist? What would any person have to say that a columnist doesn't? Was this the point when newspaper columns started being contrarian? When some writers - I'm not going to name names - started lashing out more.
Taking it a step further, there are several sites, such as this one, where users can upload their own sports writings for all to see. It's extraordinarily easy to get almost all the opinion you could ever want from those sites alone. As sites like this one continue to grow, why would we still need newspaper columnists?
As Will Litech pointed out in another essay, ESPN's show Around The Horn is rarely a vehicle for discussion, but sportswriters yelling at each other for 30 minutes. This model seems to go hand in hand with the direction sports media seems to be headed - opinion is cheap and it sells. The only downside is that when you see these professional reporters, the people who cover sports for a living, yelling all the time, making fools of themselves (in one memorable case, eating dog food), how can we take them - or their opinion - seriously?
Another effect ESPN has had, one that Litech didn't address, is how it's elevated the players into popular culture. Not just superstars, who would have been there anyway (my mom, who has never watched an entire NBA game, knows who Wilt Chamberlain is, for instance), but the smaller stars, the ones who may not have been widely known otherwise. People like Chris Bosh, Baron Davis and Steve Nash - all of whom use Twitter.
With that, these stars suddenly have a way to talk directly to fans, the same ones who have the blogs. They don't have to go through the normal outlets - the team beat writer, the local columnist, the talk radio host - anymore. They can just talk directly to their fans.
Greg Oden did this, with a blog on Yardbarker. Terrell Owens had a message board where he would reply to posts and answer questions. Chris Bosh's YouTube account arguably helped him get to the 2007 All-Star game. Shaq's Twitter account has over 300 thousand people following it - 8th most on the site.
They don't need the fourth estate. We don't need the fourth estate. They don't offer anything we can't already find and what they do offer seems less about making a point as it does about making waves. In short, they're irrelevant - and if they are, why should we even care about them at all?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Trade deadline winners and losers not so easily defined
The old adage when to comes to trades is not “why does this work for both teams”, or even “Does the trade work for player X?” , but “Who won?”. Like everything else in sports, it comes down to winning, bettering your foe.
Of course, this doesn’t mean much.
When you sit down and really think about it, why would a general manager readily agree to a trade where his team takes a significant blow? Where it puts his team at a disadvantage? It wouldn’t make sense, unless he’s trying to pull a George Costanza.
So really, most trades aren’t really wins or losses for either team, they’re just a reshuffling of the deck, as it were.
Take last season’s blockbuster trade: Marion Hossa (and Pascal Dupuis) to Pittsburgh for a bundle of prospects and a draft pick. Pittsburgh was widely thought to have “won” the trade and in a sense they did: they went to the NHL finals. But during the off-season, Hossa left to sign with Detroit. But two of the prospects (Angelo Esposito and Colby Armstrong) are still with Atlanta (though Erik Christensen was traded early in March to Anaheim).
Who really won that trade, then? Did anybody win? Both teams got what they wanted out of it – Atlanta some prospects to help rebuild the team; Pittsburgh bolstered it's lineup for a deep playoff run. Wouldn't it be fair to say that nobody really won that trade?
Of course, this isn’t to say every trade works for both sides. One needs only to look back to early 1992, when the Toronto Maple Leafs picked up Jamie Macoun, Ric Nattress, Kent Maderville, Rick Wamsley and Doug Gilmour for Gary Leeman, Alexander Godynyuk, Jeff Reese, Michel Petit and Craig Berube. A huge ten player deal, that, when viewed in present context, was completely lopsided in Toronto’s favour.
But forgotten is why Calgary made that deal - they had problems with all of the players sent to Toronto. For example, Gilmour bailed on the Flames over his paycheque. He took the team to arbitration in December of 1991 and was awarded a salary of $750 thousand, much less then the $1.2 million he was looking for. So on Janurary 1st, Gilmour told Doug Risebrough he was leaving the team.
He was traded to Toronto shortly after, the key part of a deal that Toronto Globe and Mail writer David Shoalts called a “moving of malcontents”. Leaf defenceman Todd Gill summed up the mood at the time of the trade: "(It) should be pretty good for both teams. I hope this change can get a few guys on our team going."
Even in such an extreme example, it’s not always so clear-cut to call a winner or loser in trades. Essentially, Calgary got rid of a player who didn’t want to play and got one back who would only score 11 more NHL goals – but cleared the dressing room of players who had been causing problems for the team all season. All of the players sent to Toronto were having contract problems with the team. One had even threatened to leave the Flames for the national team. At the same time, Toronto was considered a bad team that had just picked up some good players – but nobody was predicting two straight runs to the conference finals in the next two seasons.
Which brings me to this season’s trade deadline. The biggest, arguably most important move was Calgary’s acquisition of Olli Jokinen and Jordan Leopold. While nobody is now calling them favourites to win the Cup – Dallas, Detroit and Boston still hold those – they are being called the winners of their trades.
But as history has shown, isn’t it a little early to make those calls? Shouldn’t we – the pundits, the fans, etc – wait just a little bit first?
Lost in the orgy of information on trade deadline Wednesday – over eight hours of debate and opinion on two different channels can hardly be called anything else – was the most basic rule of every trade: you make it to improve your team, either by addition or subtraction. But that doesn’t make for riveting television – it’s exactly why The Sports Reporters is a non-entity and why Around The Horn is on five times a week.
One then supposes that the real winners on trade deadline day are the networks, who turned a fairly meaningless day where nothing much important into a huge TV event.
After all, it’s not like any of the teams are winning or losing because of the day.
Of course, this doesn’t mean much.
When you sit down and really think about it, why would a general manager readily agree to a trade where his team takes a significant blow? Where it puts his team at a disadvantage? It wouldn’t make sense, unless he’s trying to pull a George Costanza.
So really, most trades aren’t really wins or losses for either team, they’re just a reshuffling of the deck, as it were.
Take last season’s blockbuster trade: Marion Hossa (and Pascal Dupuis) to Pittsburgh for a bundle of prospects and a draft pick. Pittsburgh was widely thought to have “won” the trade and in a sense they did: they went to the NHL finals. But during the off-season, Hossa left to sign with Detroit. But two of the prospects (Angelo Esposito and Colby Armstrong) are still with Atlanta (though Erik Christensen was traded early in March to Anaheim).
Who really won that trade, then? Did anybody win? Both teams got what they wanted out of it – Atlanta some prospects to help rebuild the team; Pittsburgh bolstered it's lineup for a deep playoff run. Wouldn't it be fair to say that nobody really won that trade?
Of course, this isn’t to say every trade works for both sides. One needs only to look back to early 1992, when the Toronto Maple Leafs picked up Jamie Macoun, Ric Nattress, Kent Maderville, Rick Wamsley and Doug Gilmour for Gary Leeman, Alexander Godynyuk, Jeff Reese, Michel Petit and Craig Berube. A huge ten player deal, that, when viewed in present context, was completely lopsided in Toronto’s favour.
But forgotten is why Calgary made that deal - they had problems with all of the players sent to Toronto. For example, Gilmour bailed on the Flames over his paycheque. He took the team to arbitration in December of 1991 and was awarded a salary of $750 thousand, much less then the $1.2 million he was looking for. So on Janurary 1st, Gilmour told Doug Risebrough he was leaving the team.
He was traded to Toronto shortly after, the key part of a deal that Toronto Globe and Mail writer David Shoalts called a “moving of malcontents”. Leaf defenceman Todd Gill summed up the mood at the time of the trade: "(It) should be pretty good for both teams. I hope this change can get a few guys on our team going."
Even in such an extreme example, it’s not always so clear-cut to call a winner or loser in trades. Essentially, Calgary got rid of a player who didn’t want to play and got one back who would only score 11 more NHL goals – but cleared the dressing room of players who had been causing problems for the team all season. All of the players sent to Toronto were having contract problems with the team. One had even threatened to leave the Flames for the national team. At the same time, Toronto was considered a bad team that had just picked up some good players – but nobody was predicting two straight runs to the conference finals in the next two seasons.
Which brings me to this season’s trade deadline. The biggest, arguably most important move was Calgary’s acquisition of Olli Jokinen and Jordan Leopold. While nobody is now calling them favourites to win the Cup – Dallas, Detroit and Boston still hold those – they are being called the winners of their trades.
But as history has shown, isn’t it a little early to make those calls? Shouldn’t we – the pundits, the fans, etc – wait just a little bit first?
Lost in the orgy of information on trade deadline Wednesday – over eight hours of debate and opinion on two different channels can hardly be called anything else – was the most basic rule of every trade: you make it to improve your team, either by addition or subtraction. But that doesn’t make for riveting television – it’s exactly why The Sports Reporters is a non-entity and why Around The Horn is on five times a week.
One then supposes that the real winners on trade deadline day are the networks, who turned a fairly meaningless day where nothing much important into a huge TV event.
After all, it’s not like any of the teams are winning or losing because of the day.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
As usual, Jays are a non-televised-factor
Another year, another summer with Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.
But Toronto sports fans need not worry; the Jays aren't making an appearance on FOX's game of the week. Again. At this point - Toronto hasn't had a "Game of the week" for as long as I remember - one starts to wonder if there's a vendetta against Canada's team.
One could argue that it's because the Jays are a lackluster team that doesn't win a lot. But just look at some of the teams who are being televised:
- Baltimore, 68 wins -93 losses (one game)
- Detroit, 74-88 (six games)
- Seattle, 61-101 (one game)
- Oakland, 75-86 (one game)
- Texas, 79-83 (four games)
- Atlanta, 72-90 (eight games)
- San Francisco, 72-90 (four games)
None of those teams are over .500. And yet they're all being showcased for games of the week.
Granted, the Jays aren't alone. Joining Toronto on the no-show list are Kansas City, Washington, Cincinnati, Colorado and Pittsburgh. And with them lies the case that media markets have something to do with teams being broadcasted. Granted, Pittsburgh is the 26th largest TV market in North America and Kansas City is 27th. Yet Washington is the 7th largest market. Denver is 18th. Those are significant markets.
So then why is Toronto - the fourth largest city in North America - again ignored? Is it because FOX doesn't have a station in Toronto (never mind that basic cable in the GTA includes FOX)? Would something that petty come into effect?
One can only wonder.
But Toronto sports fans need not worry; the Jays aren't making an appearance on FOX's game of the week. Again. At this point - Toronto hasn't had a "Game of the week" for as long as I remember - one starts to wonder if there's a vendetta against Canada's team.
One could argue that it's because the Jays are a lackluster team that doesn't win a lot. But just look at some of the teams who are being televised:
- Baltimore, 68 wins -93 losses (one game)
- Detroit, 74-88 (six games)
- Seattle, 61-101 (one game)
- Oakland, 75-86 (one game)
- Texas, 79-83 (four games)
- Atlanta, 72-90 (eight games)
- San Francisco, 72-90 (four games)
None of those teams are over .500. And yet they're all being showcased for games of the week.
Granted, the Jays aren't alone. Joining Toronto on the no-show list are Kansas City, Washington, Cincinnati, Colorado and Pittsburgh. And with them lies the case that media markets have something to do with teams being broadcasted. Granted, Pittsburgh is the 26th largest TV market in North America and Kansas City is 27th. Yet Washington is the 7th largest market. Denver is 18th. Those are significant markets.
So then why is Toronto - the fourth largest city in North America - again ignored? Is it because FOX doesn't have a station in Toronto (never mind that basic cable in the GTA includes FOX)? Would something that petty come into effect?
One can only wonder.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)