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.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)