Summer Olympics 2021 (er, 2020)

[Hal...]

And soccer is worse no doubt...

Worse how? A soccer match takes an hour and 45 minutes, not including stoppage time, which is usually only a few minutes. A football game takes 3 hours and a baseball game takes 17. Or at least that's how it feels.

..especially with the extra time bullshit.

It's how they break a tie. You remind me of my brother who watched soccer for the first time and then complained about the rules.

I don't want [soccer] in the olympics either...

Anything requiring a judge to tell you how well you did isn't a sport for me. I'm also not a fan of any sport being there were the Olympics isn't their biggest prize, golf, soccer, tennis, etc.

^ I agree with Nog. The Summer Olympics should be track & field, poll vault, boxing, etc. among several others. But no soccer, hoops, baseball ...and so forth.

In the first modern Olympics in 1896, there were nine sports and 43 events, including cycling, fencing, shooting, and tennis. Rowing & sailing were scheduled but cancelled for various reasons. They've been included since the second.

At the second in 1900, there were 19 sports and 95 events, including Basque pelota, cricket, croquet, golf, rugby, and tug of war. Soccer was added then, too, and I'm glad it was.

Or perhaps you guys would like to go back to the first Olympic era where all they had were the pentathlon, track & field, wrestling, boxing, pankration, and equestrian.

-----

FYI, pankration was a mix of boxing and wrestling and everything was permitted except biting, gouging, and attacking the genitals. Mixed martial arts isn't very different at all and I could see them adding something like that.

Equestrian was simply horse and chariot racing. That would be interesting. Get rid of all that jumping.

[NogbadTheBad]

Just my opinion.

[ronmac]

All of America's games were on (both softball and baseball) as well as the both medal matches for both, minimum. Not NBC proper no...

Which was precisely my point.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Anything requiring a judge to tell you how well you did isn't a sport for me. I'm also not a fan of any sport being there were the Olympics isn't their biggest prize, golf, soccer, tennis, etc.

I can't sign off on no gymnastics.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Worse how? A soccer match takes an hour and 45 minutes, not including stoppage time, which is usually only a few minutes. A football game takes 3 hours and a baseball game takes 17. Or at least that's how it feels.


It's how they break a tie. You remind me of my brother who watched soccer for the first time and then complained about the rules.




In the first modern Olympics in 1896, there were nine sports and 43 events, including cycling, fencing, shooting, and tennis. Rowing & sailing were scheduled but cancelled for various reasons. They've been included since the second.

At the second in 1900, there were 19 sports and 95 events, including Basque pelota, cricket, croquet, golf, rugby, and tug of war. Soccer was added then, too, and I'm glad it was.

Or perhaps you guys would like to go back to the first Olympic era where all they had were the pentathlon, track & field, wrestling, boxing, pankration, and equestrian.

-----

FYI, pankration was a mix of boxing and wrestling and everything was permitted except biting, gouging, and attacking the genitals. Mixed martial arts isn't very different at all and I could see them adding something like that.

Equestrian was simply horse and chariot racing. That would be interesting. Get rid of all that jumping.

It appears I missed the part where american football became an olympic sport!

And soccer just goes on and on and on...and they show so much of it. It sucks up so much time where they could show 3 other events in that time allotment. And I know its probably just me, but I can't get excited about the ivory coast playing Saudi Arabia.

But I get it...if you like the sport you want more of the sport. I'm the same way. If this was handball I'd also be defending it vehemently.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Which was precisely my point.

Ah, well, if you only watch NBC proper than I feel sorry for you. It easily has the worst coverage of the lot.

[ronmac]

Ah, well, if you only watch NBC proper than I feel sorry for you. It easily has the worst coverage of the lot.

You clearly are not understanding me. I stated that the main networks (like, NBC) would not be dedicating time to baseball. You basically stated the same thing.

Somehow, you gleaned from my statement that I watched only NBC. I never made any comment about my watching habits. In fact, there were at least five networks on my cable system showing events. I would fully expect baseball to be on one of the non-mainstream (not NBC) channels.

Get it?

[SteveSly]

Hockey was amateur for the Miracle on ice. If your idea of sport is a a bunch of multimillionaire pros crushing semi pros and amateurs by 60 points a game we have different definitions. Oh yeah the USA TV audience lapped it up. Crushingly boring. Ask any of the Dream team if they'd rather have an NBA title and you'll get the same answer every time.

Good points, although I really enjoyed hockey when it had the pros from all of the different countries playing. The original Dream Team thing was the greatest basketball team ever assembled of all time, so I thought it was cool, but I get what you are saying. The rest of the world is catching up in basketball though as the games get closer each year.

[Jerjo]

I remember in the Pan American Games, which used to be the warmup for the Olympics, the Dream Team was playing a team from South America. Jordan stole the ball and raced down the court for his trademark slam. The entire bench for the South American team stood up and cheered because they had the best damn seats in the house to see Jordan take off from the free throw line.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

You clearly are not understanding me. I stated that the main networks (like, NBC) would not be dedicating time to baseball. You basically stated the same thing.

Somehow, you gleaned from my statement that I watched only NBC. I never made any comment about my watching habits. In fact, there were at least five networks on my cable system showing events. I would fully expect baseball to be on one of the non-mainstream (not NBC) channels.

Get it?

I guess I don't get the point in singling out NBC when it has the same effects whether its shown on NBC, USA, NBCSN, etc. But since we apparently agree, woo

[ronmac]

I guess I don't get the point in singling out NBC when it has the same effects whether its shown on NBC, USA, NBCSN, etc. But since we apparently agree, woo

Not really. It's about the money. NBC has the bigger audience and, thus, can charge the most for advertising. They're not going to show baseball and drive people away.

[Hal...]

It appears I missed the part where american football became an olympic sport!

I wasn't saying that. Ron brought up how long a football game is and compared it with baseball. I was simply pointing out that when compared to those two sports, soccer is relatively short. 1¾ hours isn't very long for a sporting event when compared to 2½-3 hours for a men's tennis match, 3+ hours for football, 4+ for golf, 17 for baseball, and 3½ weeks for a cricket match.

And I know its probably just me, but I can't get excited about the ivory coast playing Saudi Arabia.

I agree. But I don't watch men's soccer anyway. There's too much flopping (falling on the ground to fake a foul by an opponent). With the exception of American football, I rarely watch men's sports. I like women's sports because in between the action, there's often eye candy. Yes, I'm a bit of a letch.

I remember in the Pan American Games, which used to be the warmup for the Olympics, the Dream Team was playing a team from South America. Jordan stole the ball and raced down the court for his trademark slam. The entire bench for the South American team stood up and cheered because they had the best damn seats in the house to see Jordan take off from the free throw line.

That's awesome.

[moecurlythanu]

I like women's sports because in between the action, there's often eye candy. Yes, I'm a bit of a letch.

Two words: Paige Spiranac.

[Rarebird]

And they're dropping baseball, softball, and karate. But keeping horse-punching... I mean, modern pentathlon. And surfing. And wall-climbing. And...

I am generally skeptical of "sports" that require judges to determine the winner. Score the most points; cross the finish line first; throw the thing farther or jump the highest. I enjoy watching good dancers, but dancing is art. It can't be quantified, by definition.

I agree as well.

b.t.w. In the past architecture, painting, music, literature and sculpture were part of the Olympic Games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_co...ummer_Olympics

[Hal...]

Two words: Paige Spiranac.

I just may have to start watching the LPGA.

[Jerjo]

I must confess that I found the Swedish women's soccer team to be fascinating.

The Olympics should be reformed in about five thousand ways but it will never happen until TV revenue sinks. The IOC is a bunch of old greedy men who are more than happy to preside over the most corrupt sports authority in the world. FIFA and the NCAA kneel in amazement at the chicanery and corruption the IOC gets away with. The pigs won't leave the trough until its empty and there's still no sign of that happening.

[Hal...]

I must confess that I found the Swedish women's soccer team to be fascinating.

I thought they were the team to beat, this year. Well, they or the Netherlands team.

[ronmac]

I must confess that I found the Swedish women's soccer team to be fascinating.

The Olympics should be reformed in about five thousand ways but it will never happen until TV revenue sinks. The IOC is a bunch of old greedy men who are more than happy to preside over the most corrupt sports authority in the world. FIFA and the NCAA kneel in amazement at the chicanery and corruption the IOC gets away with. The pigs won't leave the trough until its empty and there's still no sign of that happening.

Well, if the ratings from this year (the worst ever) are any indication....

[Hal...]

Well, if the ratings from this year (the worst ever) are any indication....

I didn't know that. But good.

That reminded me of something. Curious about the ratings for the Indy 500 this year, I looked them up. Check this out, from NBC's website (edited for length):

Sunday’s Indy 500 ranks as the most-watched Indy 500 in five years averaging a Total Audience of 5.581 million viewers on NBC — up 51% vs. last year (3.692 million), which was run on Aug. 23 due to the pandemic; and up 2% from NBC’s inaugural broadcast of the race in 2019 (5.489 million).

The race (12:48-3:57 pm ET) peaked at 7.129 million TV-only viewers from 3:15-3:30 p.m. ET as Helio Castroneves out dueled Alex Palou in the final laps to win his record-tying fourth Indy 500. The race finished with a 3.15 household rating. (emphasis added)

A household rating is a percentage of total number of viewing households, which in the US for June of 2021 was 122.5. million. So a 3.15 rating corresponds to 3.85875 million homes that tuned into the race. Which means that 3.27025 million people blew it off until the end. That's nearly as many who watched it from beginning to end.

The question remains, however, "will NBC use this as a learning experience?" Highly doubtful.

People are increasingly moving away from broadcast television to streaming services. And I think much of that is due to commercials. People are sick of that shit.

A common refrain after the race was that NBC means Nothing But Commercials.

[Scott Bails]

Hockey was amateur for the Miracle on ice. If your idea of sport is a a bunch of multimillionaire pros crushing semi pros and amateurs by 60 points a game we have different definitions. Oh yeah the USA TV audience lapped it up. Crushingly boring. Ask any of the Dream team if they'd rather have an NBA title and you'll get the same answer every time.

Hard disagree.

The Olympics, IMO, should be about the greatest athletes in the world competing against one another. Their salaries or professional status is completely irrelevant.

Well, if the ratings from this year (the worst ever) are any indication....

Speaking only from my own experience, I didn't watch as much as I typically do because NBC's coverage was absolutely awful, and it's just not the same without the crowds cheering.

[ronmac]

Speaking only from my own experience, I didn't watch as much as I typically do because NBC's coverage was absolutely awful, and it's just not the same without the crowds cheering.

I didn't watch any of it. I was following MLB. Priorities, ya know.

[Poisoned Youth]

The question remains, however, "will NBC use this as a learning experience?" Highly doubtful.

People are increasingly moving away from broadcast television to streaming services. And I think much of that is due to commercials. People are sick of that shit.

A common refrain after the race was that NBC means Nothing But Commercials.

The landscape has changed SIGNIFICANTLY in just the last 5 years. Using Nielsen to measure ratings gives an extremely incomplete and inaccurate picture. At this stage, I'd call it "deceptive" - and depending on how it's used, perhaps "fraudulent".

Streaming hasn't just changed how someone might view content, but how it should be measured. If you factor in streaming and VOD, viewership fared much better than the rating indicate. Here is one article that paints a larger picture (Yahoo's connection with NBC not withstanding).

https://sports.yahoo.com/olympics-ra...152607228.html

It also goes into some factors as to why people might not be watching much or at all.

One factor I would add to that is the sheer "glut" of content that people have access to. At this point, it is difficult to see how any one program would dominate, especially one that some viewers might view as a 'commitment' to their time they weren't willing to spend. Another factor I would add is "confusion" with the Olympic coverage. I found you would have to engage very closely on the internet to figure out what options there were and what to watch.


Now, speaking for myself, I had a very different experience than others might have. I have been using streaming services for several years and last year I turned in my cable boxes for YouTube TV. One of this service's best features is an unlimited DVR. I had hundreds of hours of Olympic coverage on various channels recorded. I watched a fair amount as well - what I wanted, when I wanted. I could fast forward through all the commercial breaks.

Additionally, by adding Olympics to my "favorites", I was also given access to a lot of VOD content in the form of shorter clips and highlights. The shorter clips would start with a commercial (you can't advance these), then play the clip. Longer clips might have an additional commercial break. This was a smart move considering the attention span and patience of today's average viewer. Being able to watch short clips that get right to the meat of a certain event or game caters to that group.


To go off point slightly...

If you get a sense of the listening habits of the typical PE member, you start to see similar patterns in changes of how we value content. It's an older demographic that tends to hang on to what they already know instead of trying new things. New things can be downloading MP3s or streaming. But new things also means new (and 'new to you') groups and artists.

The attention and growth potential that progressive artists get has diminished in each decade since the 70s. There are many factors that contribute to that, but the lack of quantity and quality of new music out there is not one of them.

Today, music is just fighting for our attention like most of the other content out there. Unlike when we grew up, the choices now are virtually endless. But often times, when faced with the decision paralysis of 1,000 choices, we tend to go back to something familiar instead. Between the streaming services I have, I know my "watch list" is so long I won't get to 20% of it in my lifetime - likely less considering the rate at which new content is coming out. It's an embarrassment of riches.

[NogbadTheBad]

I'm just anti YouTube due to their horrendous record on not remunerating artists for music.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

The landscape has changed SIGNIFICANTLY in just the last 5 years. Using Nielsen to measure ratings gives an extremely incomplete and inaccurate picture. At this stage, I'd call it "deceptive" - and depending on how it's used, perhaps "fraudulent".

Streaming hasn't just changed how someone might view content, but how it should be measured. If you factor in streaming and VOD, viewership fared much better than the rating indicate. Here is one article that paints a larger picture (Yahoo's connection with NBC not withstanding).

https://sports.yahoo.com/olympics-ra...152607228.html

It also goes into some factors as to why people might not be watching much or at all.

One factor I would add to that is the sheer "glut" of content that people have access to. At this point, it is difficult to see how any one program would dominate, especially one that some viewers might view as a 'commitment' to their time they weren't willing to spend. Another factor I would add is "confusion" with the Olympic coverage. I found you would have to engage very closely on the internet to figure out what options there were and what to watch.


Now, speaking for myself, I had a very different experience than others might have. I have been using streaming services for several years and last year I turned in my cable boxes for YouTube TV. One of this service's best features is an unlimited DVR. I had hundreds of hours of Olympic coverage on various channels recorded. I watched a fair amount as well - what I wanted, when I wanted. I could fast forward through all the commercial breaks.

Additionally, by adding Olympics to my "favorites", I was also given access to a lot of VOD content in the form of shorter clips and highlights. The shorter clips would start with a commercial (you can't advance these), then play the clip. Longer clips might have an additional commercial break. This was a smart move considering the attention span and patience of today's average viewer. Being able to watch short clips that get right to the meat of a certain event or game caters to that group.


To go off point slightly...

If you get a sense of the listening habits of the typical PE member, you start to see similar patterns in changes of how we value content. It's an older demographic that tends to hang on to what they already know instead of trying new things. New things can be downloading MP3s or streaming. But new things also means new (and 'new to you') groups and artists.

The attention and growth potential that progressive artists get has diminished in each decade since the 70s. There are many factors that contribute to that, but the lack of quantity and quality of new music out there is not one of them.

Today, music is just fighting for our attention like most of the other content out there. Unlike when we grew up, the choices now are virtually endless. But often times, when faced with the decision paralysis of 1,000 choices, we tend to go back to something familiar instead. Between the streaming services I have, I know my "watch list" is so long I won't get to 20% of it in my lifetime - likely less considering the rate at which new content is coming out. It's an embarrassment of riches.

Thanks for that article...as I wondered if those numbers were just people watching NBC proper (any/all of NBC stations) or did include streaming as well. Even I, the old luddite, streamed more this year than any other (I did slightly during RIO as I worked during some of the stuff I wanted to see).