<p>Am I the only person who gets so annoyed at the network (and now Internet) coverage of the Olympics???
Yes, I get a thrill when they play the SSB and it is an American standing on the podium, but the build-up is ridiculous.</p>
<p>The commentary and profiles center so much on 5-6 athletes, then when they flop - there is nothing left. The sports people talk about how Anmericans know so little about these winter sports, but they don’t do anything to help you learn! When a skier doesn’t do well, and a say French skier wins - you don’t know if this is a “stunning upset” or just the way it goes! How about a discussion of how the World Cup works, and how the Olympics fits into the standings?</p>
<p>I guess part of the problem is that with the games 6 hours ahead - there is no drama except manufactured drama for those with the Internet.</p>
<p>Sorry, for the pointless rant - but now I feel better, I don’t know anymore about winter sports than I did, but the bobsled still looks like fun.</p>
<p>We get the Canadian channels here and the coverage is WAY better in every which way. </p>
<p>Yesterday morning at about 6:30 AM, we had on the downhill event and we were taping it for our D. We left at 7:15 AM to travel to her collegiate ski race and we were able to bring the tape because the Canadian channel had it on so early (live). Lots of kids on her team wanted to know the results but my D asked us not to tell her until she watched it. </p>
<p>Cangel…the French skier is a stunning upset, by the way. The thing with ski racing is that The World Cup is really a better indicator as to who is tops…with results from many races added up in one season. If you go by one race, such as at the Olympics and it comes down to tenths or hundredths of a second and the conditions of that one course, etc., it is hard to gauge who is the best racer overall but it is just who was the best that day on that one hill. </p>
<p>This past weekend, for instance, my D had pretty good race results. In fact, in slalom, it was her best college result yet. However, several top skiers crashed, and those girls usually go faster than my D. But on this given day, she did better…she survived and stayed up. Is she a better skier than they are? Likely not but on that day she was. </p>
<p>Those of us living in SE Michigan that love the winter Olympics are very thankful that we have access to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) coverage, which is 1000% better than NBC, and they only have one channel, whereas NBC has at least four, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and USA.</p>
<p>If you have a satellite, see if you can access CBC or the Canadian equivalent of ESPN, which is called TSN.</p>
<p>Also from SE Michigan and a CBC watcher. I figure that in a few more Olympics, I may even understand curling! (Do the US channels even cover curling?)</p>
<p>(Did everyone see Apollo Ono try to trip up the lead skater by touching the edge of his skate, and see the other skater pull his foot away, causing Ono to slip?)</p>
<p>There was an interesting bit on “Granny Luge” the other day. She’s being sponsored by the Red Hat Society, hence her purple and red helmet.</p>
<p>I agree, the coverage is awful. Especially last night for the men’s halfpipe. How many times did we hear how rare it was for Shaun White to be in the 2nd qualifying round?</p>
<p>Although I give the opening ceremonies commentators points for pointing out the ridiculous disco music being played for the athletes’ entrance.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen all of the coverage, so I don’t know if my observations are completely valid. However, I quite frankly don’t watch the Olympics for the sports coverage. If I were truly interested in snowboarding and ice racing, etc., I’d watch those sports throughout the winter when they are broadcast. Quite frankly, I don’t watch them, and I’ll bet that most people watching the Olympics have a similar disinterest in the sports themselves.</p>
<p>However, I used to be a HUGE Olympic viewer. The reason I watched the Olympics was BECAUSE of the much maligned “Up Close and Personal” segments that they used to do on athletes from around the world. That and the coverage of attractions in the region of the host country. This (getting to know about other people and regions), to me, was what the Olympics were all about - the sports were secondary. After getting to “know” a biathelete through an “Up Close and Personal” segment, it gave a reason to watch the event, even though there were no Americans with any chance of medaling. </p>
<p>It seems as if the coverage lately has been too sports related and too American focused. I much prefer the old format. I think it was ABC that really knew how to do the Olympics.</p>
<p>Fundingfather - that’s something I miss, too. I didn’t realize until you said it. I love it when Americans win, but when another country has big stars in one of these sports, I always liked hearing about them, made me appreciate the event. We seem to be covering the same 5 people.</p>
<p>I saw a curling event once live, in Montreal at the Winter Carnival - sorry, I don’t think it will replace football or figure skating as a big spectator sport, but I’m not much on watching horseshoes either ;). I will say this, it is like boules, watching for a few minutes makes you want to give it a try, even if you know you will be a miserable failure - like bobsled.</p>
<p>Curling is a fabulous sport! You have to watch it for more than 5 minutes to even get a hint as to the strategy involved and the talent required to pull off the difficult shots.</p>
<p>Again, watch it on a Canadian feed if possible, because their announcers truly know the sport and can explain what is going on.</p>
<p>I have tried curling a few times and I usually end up on my butt. It is a lot more difficult than it looks to sweep a stone down the sheet and into the rings (trying to mix in a few curling terms to show that I know what’s going on).</p>
<p>I also find it a wonderful sport to watch during a hangover… The only noise is that of the stones clicking against each other…that, and the shouting, of course.</p>
<p>Another hater of the NBC coverage over the last lo-these-many years. I can’t stand it that there’s nothing on in the first half of the day here when we could be watching live coverage. DH says it’s just that it “won’t sell” and I’m sure he’s right. Would be nice if every 2 years, the network decided it would provide a public service (yeah, right). What I truly don’t get is why they’re not using their ancillary networks - MSNBC, CNBC, USA for live coverage.</p>
<p>Bring back ABC Sports and Roone Arledge is what I say.</p>
<p>side note: I wonder if I get CBC? I’m close enough. Is it a premium channel? One of the local networks you get? or what?</p>
<p>My greatest dislike is Dick Buttons. He can take a beautiful, brilliant, inspiring performance and turn it into bunch of jingoistic claptrap in the blink of an eye, and can tear four years of hard work apart with a misplaced adjective. I find him wholly despicable, and turn the sound off as best I can when he’s on, though that means I miss the music. :(</p>
<p>The Up Close and Personal pieces would be fine if they showed them IN ADDITION to the competition, but in actual practice they are shown INSTEAD OF the competition. </p>
<p>Another problem is they have grown increasingly maudlin over the years. If you are simply an enormously talented athlete who trains hard and sacrifices for years to achieve your Olympic dream, you have no chance of being featured in an Up Close and Personal. No, you gotta have a lachrymose story to go with it.</p>
<p>So what we end up with is a 10 minute fluff piece that earns a full 4 hankie rating on the weep-o-meter, followed by 2 minutes of spliced highlights of the actual competition. </p>
<p>So this is why they get much-maligned. People tune in expecting to view an athletic competition and get everything but.</p>
<p>“People tune in expecting to view an athletic competition and get everything but.” </p>
<p>I’m not sure I agree with that. If they really were interested in the sport, why don’t the tune in when it is on Saturday afternoon all winter long. I’ll bet the ratings for winter sports are below that of bowling. I think what is special about the Olympics is that it is a gathering of the world for peaceful competition. By just showing the sport, without the personal angle, this is lost. Instead it just becomes: “lets see if a Yank can bring home another gold medal in some sport involving careening down an ice slope at 80 mph.” I’d rather know a bit about the other competitors so that I can cheer for them as well - especially since they are going to win anyway.</p>
<p>coureur - my DH salutes you. You have spoken his sentiments exactly. (post #17)</p>
<p>But, yes, done right, the UCandP would supplement, not supplant, the events coverage.</p>
<p>Clearly, our cc panel of self-designated experts could do a better job. Shall we start on our collaborative resume now? Anyone have a connection at the networks? :p</p>
<p>Oh, I disagree with the jingoistic US-centric approach as well. In NBC-land the athletes from other countries are viewed not as worthy competitors and great athletes in their own right, but as obstacles standing in the way of Americans achieving their deserved rewards.</p>
<p>Although by no means is the US the only country guilty of this (living in San Diego, I’ve seen Mexican coverage of the summer games), but we do take it absurd heights.</p>