It isn't very often that Caught Looking gets to cover a new kind of sporting event, but the 2012 Summer Olympics is the first Olympic competition since this blog's inception in April 2010. Given that this blog was started in order to take stock of my fan experiences at another international sporting event - the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa - I'm proud that Caught Looking has survived long enough to weigh in on its first Olympics. Moreover, the Summer Olympics is one of my favorite sporting traditions and the 2012 games from London have been especially entertaining so far - in spite of the fact that I never have any idea when any specific events are going to be televised (or on what channel).
Most sporting events classify as "appointment television" - fans tune in to a specific channel at a specific time to watch specific teams compete. In fact, this is the crux of the argument that sports networks like ESPN use to explain why they will still be so valuable while other channels have had their advertising revenues completely eroded by ad-skipping DVRs. For me, the Olympics is completely different. Part of the reason that I enjoy the summer games so much is precisely because I don't plan ahead to watch specific events. Instead, I flip on NBC, NBC Sports or one of the other channels airing Olympic competition and watch whatever the NBC programmers tell me to watch.
People complained a lot during 2008 in Beijing, and continue to complain through the start of the London games, about hearing Olympic results on the news or online before they have the chance to watch the tape-delayed events at night during prime time. I ask: Don't these people work? Sure, during March Madness my productivity drops dramatically as I replace spreadsheets and powerpoints with video players and Game Trackers, but even I can stop myself from checking Olympics results and wait until I get home to watch the action in person. And in those instances when I do hear about results in advance, that doesn't really take away from my ability to enjoy it on TV later in the evening. I don't really watch the Olympics to see who won as much as I watch it to see amazing feats of athleticism in obscure sports that I don't get to watch on a regular (or even annual) basis.
Take today's mens 4 x 200M freestyle relay in swimming. I already know, as does most of the world probably, that the USA took the gold and that Michael Phelps won his record-setting 19th medal. Does that mean I don't want to watch it on NBC tonight? Of course not! If this were just another baseball game or round of golf, seeing the score would have been enough - after all, there's always another baseball game to catch tomorrow or another round of golf to follow next weekend. I won't get the chance to see the USA go for 4 x 200M gold for another four years, however, and by then the greatest male swimmer of all time will have already retired. I'm excited to go home after work tonight, flip on the TV and watch whatever's on NBC in prime time. When it comes to the Olympics, I trust the NBC programmers to make my viewing decisions for me, whether or not I've already learned of the final result.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Not Yet Ready to Rumble
As many professional sports team as there are in New York, I would argue that there are no real New York sports rivalries. The Mets and the Yankees are in separate leagues, so they don't compete head-to-head often enough to really be considered rivals (the 2000 World Series not withstanding). The same can be said of the Giants and the Jets, who have never met in the Super Bowl and play each other in the regular season just once every four seasons. While the Rangers, Devils and Islanders compete head to head for the NHL's Atlantic Division crown every year, I don't consider New York hockey to be a true rivalry, either. With three teams it's hard to create real drama on a yearly basis, and the Rangers vs. Islanders rivalry has been dulled by the fact that the Isles haven't been competitive in a decade.
This is why I'm so excited about the prospect of a true New York NBA rivalry between the Knicks and the newly relocated Brooklyn Nets. While it still remains to be seen if the Nets can drum up enough of a fan base to make Knicks vs. Nets close to a 50/50 proposition, I like what I'm seeing so far. The Nets will open the 2012-13 season, and the brand new Barclays Center, with a game against the Knicks on November 1, and the trash talk between the two franchises has already begun. Nets president Brett Yormark requested the Knicks as his team's first home opponent, apparently not worried about having his new arena taken over by the blue-and-orange-clad Knicks faithful. Later in the week, Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz taunted the Knicks and their fans by saying: "It won't be long before a championship banner so elusive for the Knicks over the past forty years will be hanging in its rightful place from the rafters at Barclays Center."
Yormark was certainly right last week when he said that "[The Nets] are now part of the conversation, and I can’t say [they] were in New Jersey.” Part of the talk will revolve around the Nets new arena, which I had the opportunity to take a tour of this past Thursday afternoon. With just over two months to go before the arena officially opens (to host a preseason NHL game between the Islanders and the Devils, actually), the Barclays Center still has a long way to go before being NBA game ready (see the photo, below). But while there's still a lot of construction left to go, it's already clear that the incredible new Brooklyn arena - combined with the sure-to-be-awesome renovations currently going on at Madison Square Garden - will only add to the Knicks-Nets rivalry.
Barclays is going to have a lot of elements that MSG won't, including a glass-walled practice court that fans can look directly into, an open area behind one of the baskets (or, in the case of a concert, behind the stage) that allows fans to get a great glimpse of the playing surface immediately after walking into the arena, and subway access from nine subway lines (MSG is accessible from only six). As a Knicks fan, I actually hope that Manhattanites don't overtake Barclays this season and give a true Brooklyn-based Nets fan base the chance to develop. I'm excited about the prospect of having a real New York-area rivalry to debate - something I haven't really had since Islanders vs. Rangers was actually a thing back in the 1990s.
This is why I'm so excited about the prospect of a true New York NBA rivalry between the Knicks and the newly relocated Brooklyn Nets. While it still remains to be seen if the Nets can drum up enough of a fan base to make Knicks vs. Nets close to a 50/50 proposition, I like what I'm seeing so far. The Nets will open the 2012-13 season, and the brand new Barclays Center, with a game against the Knicks on November 1, and the trash talk between the two franchises has already begun. Nets president Brett Yormark requested the Knicks as his team's first home opponent, apparently not worried about having his new arena taken over by the blue-and-orange-clad Knicks faithful. Later in the week, Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz taunted the Knicks and their fans by saying: "It won't be long before a championship banner so elusive for the Knicks over the past forty years will be hanging in its rightful place from the rafters at Barclays Center."
Yormark was certainly right last week when he said that "[The Nets] are now part of the conversation, and I can’t say [they] were in New Jersey.” Part of the talk will revolve around the Nets new arena, which I had the opportunity to take a tour of this past Thursday afternoon. With just over two months to go before the arena officially opens (to host a preseason NHL game between the Islanders and the Devils, actually), the Barclays Center still has a long way to go before being NBA game ready (see the photo, below). But while there's still a lot of construction left to go, it's already clear that the incredible new Brooklyn arena - combined with the sure-to-be-awesome renovations currently going on at Madison Square Garden - will only add to the Knicks-Nets rivalry.
While it still needs work, it's clear that the Barclays Center is going to be a great venue.
Barclays is going to have a lot of elements that MSG won't, including a glass-walled practice court that fans can look directly into, an open area behind one of the baskets (or, in the case of a concert, behind the stage) that allows fans to get a great glimpse of the playing surface immediately after walking into the arena, and subway access from nine subway lines (MSG is accessible from only six). As a Knicks fan, I actually hope that Manhattanites don't overtake Barclays this season and give a true Brooklyn-based Nets fan base the chance to develop. I'm excited about the prospect of having a real New York-area rivalry to debate - something I haven't really had since Islanders vs. Rangers was actually a thing back in the 1990s.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Switching Dugouts
There's been a lot of high profile MLB trade activity this week that is certain to impact the NL and AL playoff races - Hanley Ramirez to the Dodgers, Anibal Sanchez and Omar Infante to the Tigers, and Wandy Rodriguez to Pittsburgh included. With the trading deadline still six days away, we're likely to see another big deal or two before the end of the month. Regardless of what happens between now and July 31, though, I doubt we'll see any deals more interesting and unusual than the one that sent Ichiro Suzuki from Seattle to the Yankees on Monday afternoon. With the Yankees already in Seattle to open a three-game series at Safeco Field, Ichiro only had to walk across the infield to join his new teammates.
This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. From time to time, teams will make trades while playing each other and the impacted players don't have to travel before joining their new teams - they just hand their home whites in for a new set of road greys (or vice versa) and they're good to go. Nor is this the first time that a local legend like Ichiro was traded away from the team with which he has spent his entire career since his rookie season in 2001. Whereas a few decades ago the notion of a franchise player like Ichiro being traded mid-season would have been absurd, the new financial realities of baseball and the outfielder's desire to be traded to a competitive team combined to send the Japanese legend to New York in exchange for two prospects.
What's so interesting, though, is the fact that Seattle fans had no opportunity to process the Ichiro trade and its ramifications / meaning before seeing him, up close and personal, in a Yankees uniform. In addition to his many on-field accomplishments, Ichiro's presence and international appeal make him arguably one of the most important Major League Baseball players of my lifetime. While he wasn't the first Japanese import to play in the Majors, Ichiro's constant production for Seattle since his rookie season (when he won both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards in helping to lead Seattle to a 116-46 record and an ALCS appearance) has set the standard for Nippon Professional Baseball players (especially position players) migrating to MLB. He has been the face of not only the Mariners for the past decade, but for Japanese Major Leaguers and MLB's international expansion efforts as well.
So when Ichiro got traded to the Yankees and Mariners fans got to (had to?) see him play against them at Safeco Field that very night, I wondered if the local Seattle fans would be able to fully process and appreciate all that he has meant to their city and baseball as a whole. While many argue that Ichiro has always been overrated (and, if you believe in the value of OBP over AVG you might have to concede that point), you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of players that have meant more to their teams and to the game of baseball that Ichiro Suzuki. Normally, there's a window between a player getting traded and his return to his original team that lets the fans process the player's departure - fans get exited about the player's return, secondary market ticket prices skyrocket and the media flocks to cover the story. Due to the quirky circumstances of the Ichiro-to-New York deal, however, the newest Yankee might not have gotten the respect he deserves from the Mariners faithful.
This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. From time to time, teams will make trades while playing each other and the impacted players don't have to travel before joining their new teams - they just hand their home whites in for a new set of road greys (or vice versa) and they're good to go. Nor is this the first time that a local legend like Ichiro was traded away from the team with which he has spent his entire career since his rookie season in 2001. Whereas a few decades ago the notion of a franchise player like Ichiro being traded mid-season would have been absurd, the new financial realities of baseball and the outfielder's desire to be traded to a competitive team combined to send the Japanese legend to New York in exchange for two prospects.
What's so interesting, though, is the fact that Seattle fans had no opportunity to process the Ichiro trade and its ramifications / meaning before seeing him, up close and personal, in a Yankees uniform. In addition to his many on-field accomplishments, Ichiro's presence and international appeal make him arguably one of the most important Major League Baseball players of my lifetime. While he wasn't the first Japanese import to play in the Majors, Ichiro's constant production for Seattle since his rookie season (when he won both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards in helping to lead Seattle to a 116-46 record and an ALCS appearance) has set the standard for Nippon Professional Baseball players (especially position players) migrating to MLB. He has been the face of not only the Mariners for the past decade, but for Japanese Major Leaguers and MLB's international expansion efforts as well.
So when Ichiro got traded to the Yankees and Mariners fans got to (had to?) see him play against them at Safeco Field that very night, I wondered if the local Seattle fans would be able to fully process and appreciate all that he has meant to their city and baseball as a whole. While many argue that Ichiro has always been overrated (and, if you believe in the value of OBP over AVG you might have to concede that point), you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of players that have meant more to their teams and to the game of baseball that Ichiro Suzuki. Normally, there's a window between a player getting traded and his return to his original team that lets the fans process the player's departure - fans get exited about the player's return, secondary market ticket prices skyrocket and the media flocks to cover the story. Due to the quirky circumstances of the Ichiro-to-New York deal, however, the newest Yankee might not have gotten the respect he deserves from the Mariners faithful.
Was Ichiro's standing ovation at Safeco Field anything more than routine?
Monday, July 23, 2012
The End of Penn State Football
As with many of the most heavily covered sports stories, I feel compelled to post about Penn State and Joe Paterno even though I don't really want to. At this point, it would be a lot easier and more comfortable for me to try and forget about the horrible things that have happened on and around the Penn State campus over the past several years and focus on the happier side of sports. Given the fact that the story is all over SportsCenter and every sports website this morning, however, I probably need to weigh in with my two cents. After all, what kind of lesson would I be setting for my young readers (assuming I have any) if I ignored every unpleasant issue - especially one that deals with the treatment of children?
As you've likely heard by now, this weekend Penn State decided to take down the Joe Paterno statue that formerly sat outside of Beaver Stadium, the school's football facility. In my opinion, this was undoubtedly the right move. As Jesse Palmerly eloquently put it this morning on SportsCenter, the Paterno statue formerly stood for Penn State's dominance on the football field and was a monument to one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football. After the unfolding of the Penn State scandal, however, the statue had become a symbol for everything wrong with the university's athletic department, morphing into a lightning rod for controversy. Had the school allowed the statue to stay up, it would have sent the clearly inappropriate message that sports success trumps human rights, and the scandal would have taken away from any future athletic or academic accomplishments by the school.
Now that the statue is down, the next step was the announcement of the unprecedented punishments levied by the NCAA against the Penn State football program. While the school did not receive the dreaded "death penalty," the school did get "a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998" in addition to a loss of scholarships. As much as I think the Penn State staff involved in the child abuse scandal deserve to be punished, I'm not sure I think these athletic penalties send the right message. According to a source, the anticipated penalties are "considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable." Is this the proper course of action?
Before we jump to the seemingly most popular conclusion - that the events at Penn State were so horrible that any punishment is justified - we need to think through the likely impact of these athletic sanctions. First off, there's the issue that these penalties will be levied "without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing," which is highly unusual and arguably inappropriate. Moreover, though, there's the issue of who will be most negatively impacted by the NCAA penalties. Whereas the NCAA should be trying to punish the people most directly involved with the scandal, I would argue that a loss of scholarships and bowl appearances will mostly hurt innocent bystanders. Current and future players who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky will have their college careers derailed. The residents of State College, PA - many of whom depend on the football program to boost the local economy - will have their lives negatively impacted by the local economic slowdown sure to follow the implementation of the penalties. The $60 million penalty will have financial ramifications on the school's entire athletic department, not just the football program - especially when you consider the loss of football-related revenues almost certain to follow the sanctions. The Penn State football program is effectively destroyed, and a lot of innocent people will go down with it.
If the Penn State scandal involved recruiting or athletics in some direct way, I'd be all for sanctions. Once schools break the NCAA's rules, I believe that they deserve to be punished and should have any improper advantages reversed. But to me, the Penn State scandal is so much bigger than anything having to do with sports and the NCAA sanctions send a message that terrible crimes can be righted by destroying a football program. Not only do these NCAA penalties mainly hurt people that were in no way attached to the Penn State scandal, but they also suggest that things can be made right for the affected children by taking scholarships, bowl appearances and dollars away from a football team. I'm all for prosecuting the accused Penn State staff to the fullest extent of the law, but in my opinion the NCAA sanctions are a huge step in the wrong direction. Just as sports success doesn't trump human rights, sports penalties shouldn't be used to make up for human mistreatment.
As you've likely heard by now, this weekend Penn State decided to take down the Joe Paterno statue that formerly sat outside of Beaver Stadium, the school's football facility. In my opinion, this was undoubtedly the right move. As Jesse Palmerly eloquently put it this morning on SportsCenter, the Paterno statue formerly stood for Penn State's dominance on the football field and was a monument to one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football. After the unfolding of the Penn State scandal, however, the statue had become a symbol for everything wrong with the university's athletic department, morphing into a lightning rod for controversy. Had the school allowed the statue to stay up, it would have sent the clearly inappropriate message that sports success trumps human rights, and the scandal would have taken away from any future athletic or academic accomplishments by the school.
Now that the statue is down, the next step was the announcement of the unprecedented punishments levied by the NCAA against the Penn State football program. While the school did not receive the dreaded "death penalty," the school did get "a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998" in addition to a loss of scholarships. As much as I think the Penn State staff involved in the child abuse scandal deserve to be punished, I'm not sure I think these athletic penalties send the right message. According to a source, the anticipated penalties are "considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable." Is this the proper course of action?
Before we jump to the seemingly most popular conclusion - that the events at Penn State were so horrible that any punishment is justified - we need to think through the likely impact of these athletic sanctions. First off, there's the issue that these penalties will be levied "without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing," which is highly unusual and arguably inappropriate. Moreover, though, there's the issue of who will be most negatively impacted by the NCAA penalties. Whereas the NCAA should be trying to punish the people most directly involved with the scandal, I would argue that a loss of scholarships and bowl appearances will mostly hurt innocent bystanders. Current and future players who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky will have their college careers derailed. The residents of State College, PA - many of whom depend on the football program to boost the local economy - will have their lives negatively impacted by the local economic slowdown sure to follow the implementation of the penalties. The $60 million penalty will have financial ramifications on the school's entire athletic department, not just the football program - especially when you consider the loss of football-related revenues almost certain to follow the sanctions. The Penn State football program is effectively destroyed, and a lot of innocent people will go down with it.
If the Penn State scandal involved recruiting or athletics in some direct way, I'd be all for sanctions. Once schools break the NCAA's rules, I believe that they deserve to be punished and should have any improper advantages reversed. But to me, the Penn State scandal is so much bigger than anything having to do with sports and the NCAA sanctions send a message that terrible crimes can be righted by destroying a football program. Not only do these NCAA penalties mainly hurt people that were in no way attached to the Penn State scandal, but they also suggest that things can be made right for the affected children by taking scholarships, bowl appearances and dollars away from a football team. I'm all for prosecuting the accused Penn State staff to the fullest extent of the law, but in my opinion the NCAA sanctions are a huge step in the wrong direction. Just as sports success doesn't trump human rights, sports penalties shouldn't be used to make up for human mistreatment.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Viva Las Vegas?
Yesterday I returned from a three-day business trip to Las Vegas, Nevada. Naturally, much of the conversation there revolved around whether or not the city should have some sort of professional major league sports team. Given that Sin City is, according to Wikipedia, the 31st largest city in the United States (making it larger than a number of pro sports cities including Sacramento, Kansas City and Buffalo) and one of our country's entertainment capitals, many find it surprising that one of the major leagues hasn't expanded to Vegas. After yet another visit to the city, however, I remain glad that Vegas sports has been limited to UNLV, the Las Vegas Motor Speedway and the Las Vegas 51s of the Pacific Coast League.
Most opponents of professional sports in Las Vegas base their arguments around gambling, and talk about how a Vegas-based team would be more prone to game fixing, point shaving or other unethical behavior. For me, however, this isn't too much of a concern. At this point in the evolutionary cycles of gambling and sports, if players, coaches or referees wanted to tamper with an otherwise fair game, they don't need to be in Las Vegas to do it. So, if I'm not worried about the gambling, why don't I want a pro team located down the road from the Strip? More than anything, I just don't think a team based in Las Vegas would be financially successful.
Las Vegas is all about glitz and glamour, and the city is filled with forms of entertainment that deliver along those lines. A professional baseball team isn't going to do the trick for most of Vegas's ~40 million annual visitors. We all know by now that professional hockey outside of the NHL's core markets doesn't really work, and there's no reason that the cash-rich NFL would force a team into Las Vegas (especially when Los Angeles is still open). If Vegas were to get a team it would have to be an attention-starved NBA franchise (picture Semi-Pro's "Love Me Sexy"-singing Flint Tropics ABA team). Even with a few NBA franchises potentially looking to relocate I wouldn't recommend Sin City, however.
First, there's too much competition from other forms of entertainment. Every hotel and casino on the Strip offers concerts and shows nightly, so you can't treat Las Vegas as a typical one-sport NBA city like San Antonio or Sacramento. Second, so many of the people roaming the Strip are tourists, making season ticket sales very hard to come by. NBA teams use season tickets to stabilize annual revenues and build a loyal fan base, and Las Vegas lacks a large pool of upper class residents. Third, other than casinos there aren't a ton of large companies based in the area, which could make sponsorships hard to sell. Tack on concerns about gambling, all of the distractions for the players and other ethical concerns, and a professional sports team in Las Vegas seems like a disaster in the making.
This isn't to say, however, that I don't think sports have a place in the city. One thing that Las Vegas does incredibly well is large events - conventions, for example, drive tons of business for the city. With the right venue(s) in place, I see no reason why Vegas couldn't host a Super Bowl some day. The city hosted the 2007 NBA All Star game and holds an annual NASCAR race, so it's already identified itself as a potential host for big time sporting events, and the Super Bowl is 10% game and 90% party anyway. For large, one-off sporting events, I'm all for giving Las Vegas a shot. For an NBA team that would have to play there more than 40 nights a year, though, I just don't see it happening.
Most opponents of professional sports in Las Vegas base their arguments around gambling, and talk about how a Vegas-based team would be more prone to game fixing, point shaving or other unethical behavior. For me, however, this isn't too much of a concern. At this point in the evolutionary cycles of gambling and sports, if players, coaches or referees wanted to tamper with an otherwise fair game, they don't need to be in Las Vegas to do it. So, if I'm not worried about the gambling, why don't I want a pro team located down the road from the Strip? More than anything, I just don't think a team based in Las Vegas would be financially successful.
An NBA arena on the Las Vegas Strip? Don't count on it.
Las Vegas is all about glitz and glamour, and the city is filled with forms of entertainment that deliver along those lines. A professional baseball team isn't going to do the trick for most of Vegas's ~40 million annual visitors. We all know by now that professional hockey outside of the NHL's core markets doesn't really work, and there's no reason that the cash-rich NFL would force a team into Las Vegas (especially when Los Angeles is still open). If Vegas were to get a team it would have to be an attention-starved NBA franchise (picture Semi-Pro's "Love Me Sexy"-singing Flint Tropics ABA team). Even with a few NBA franchises potentially looking to relocate I wouldn't recommend Sin City, however.
First, there's too much competition from other forms of entertainment. Every hotel and casino on the Strip offers concerts and shows nightly, so you can't treat Las Vegas as a typical one-sport NBA city like San Antonio or Sacramento. Second, so many of the people roaming the Strip are tourists, making season ticket sales very hard to come by. NBA teams use season tickets to stabilize annual revenues and build a loyal fan base, and Las Vegas lacks a large pool of upper class residents. Third, other than casinos there aren't a ton of large companies based in the area, which could make sponsorships hard to sell. Tack on concerns about gambling, all of the distractions for the players and other ethical concerns, and a professional sports team in Las Vegas seems like a disaster in the making.
This isn't to say, however, that I don't think sports have a place in the city. One thing that Las Vegas does incredibly well is large events - conventions, for example, drive tons of business for the city. With the right venue(s) in place, I see no reason why Vegas couldn't host a Super Bowl some day. The city hosted the 2007 NBA All Star game and holds an annual NASCAR race, so it's already identified itself as a potential host for big time sporting events, and the Super Bowl is 10% game and 90% party anyway. For large, one-off sporting events, I'm all for giving Las Vegas a shot. For an NBA team that would have to play there more than 40 nights a year, though, I just don't see it happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)