Olympic detox…Part Deux

 
Well, it's time for my biennial case of withdrawal from watching nearly wall-to-wall Olympic coverage for the last couple of weeks. Last time it was London. This time it's Sochi.

The Winter Olympics have always been my favorite. Don't get me wrong. I can just as easily get lost in the Summer Games. But, it's the Winter Games that I'm especially fond of. Not sure if it's the hockey, the skiing, or just the scenes of clean white snow that seems so pure, especially back growing up as a 10-year-old kid.

Up until 1998, we were pretty much stuck with whatever they were broadcasting on NBC (or CBS and ABC before that). Every Olympiad would add additional hours of coverage. But, it was still only a single channel.

Then, in 2002, coverage expanded exponentially by use of their family of channels; namely adding MSNBC, CSNBC. More channels equaled more coverage. Simple as that.

However, that was yet another proverbial drop in the bucket. As the Internet reached its maturity, they realized they could offer a virtual cornucopia of coverage by streaming events.

I was able to watch the local cable channel on the TV, while streaming something else on my computer. This included some sports not normally covered on broadcast TV.

You could probably count on one hand the amount of hours devoted to curling in 1998. Now, with streaming, you could watch whole matches, and ALL matches if your heart desired it!

Absolute Olympic Nirvana!

But, with NBC's ever expanding coverage came the realization that NBC's coverage could be pretty bad, leaning towards events where Americans had a good chance of taking a medal, and flipping from event to event without regard to continuity. And don't forget the commercials!

Last time around, during the London Olympics, I decided to let technology take its course, and add the BBC's coverage of the London Summer Olympics to my viewing regimen.

Absolute night and day when compared to what NBC offered. Mind you, I still watched NBC. However, my laptop was hooked into the BBC on a daily basis.

It wasn't perfect because if I joined a live event and then scrolled back to the beginning, I'd lose the feed all of a sudden when the live program ended. Then I'd have to wait till the event was cataloged before I could see how it ended.

Still, they were full events, with ALL competitors, and was commercial free! I think I watched every route of archery in 2012.

But, things were a bit complicated this time around because I did away with my television cable package in late 2012.

This meant that I only had access to the local NBC affiliate. This also meant NO hockey coverage from Sochi since they usually aired that on the NBC Sports Channel, a cable only channel.

I think the final insult was that NBC would allow anybody to watch their streaming coverage. However, if you could not prove you were subscribed to a cable or satellite provider, your signal was abruptly cut after 30 minutes, forcing you to log back in again.

With that in mind, I returned to alternate methods to get my Olympic fix. Unfortunately, the VPN I signed up for this time seemed to have problems giving me a quality signal from the BBC.

There were a couple of options to take off to the Great White North, and so I experienced my first Canadian television, other than when I used to watch Hockey Night in Canada with the NHL Network.

While the CBC does have commercials, they don't seem to be as numerous as on American television. Plus, I could stream all events on their website, only I didn't have to directly prove I was Canadian or have a Canadian cable subscription.

For the most part, the announcers were very well informed and could hold a candle to any of their American counterparts. And they knew when to simply shut up and let the pictures do the talking.

I was able to watch the whole Opening Ceremonies, and watch them live.

Not only did NBC not offer the festivities live, NBC Sports Group chairman Mark Lazarus insulted the intelligence of every American viewer, suggesting "…the colorful ceremonies would not make sense without description."

Mr. Lazarus kindly explain why you couldn't have aired it live with commentators, just like every other event you streamed…including the Closing Ceremonies!!

So this time around I never did watch any NBC coverage. It was all CBC, and even though I had started watching events live, it eventually devolved to all tape delayed as a few days of watching till the wee hours of the morning started wrecking havoc with my sleep cycle.

I will have to admit, there were times I wanted to throttle my computer, especially during any US hockey game coverage.

An American women's game didn't go by without having to hear about the "battling Lamoureux Sisters" or how Jocelyne Lamoureux played with a chip on her shoulder and liked to "mix 'em up." (a reference to the two fights that occurred during pre-Olympic action with Canada).

Then there were Glenn Healy's idiotic remarks, such as that Team Sweden didn't know who they were playing against, when referring to Sydney Crosby. This despite the fact that all but one Swedish player came from NHL teams.

Technologically, signal quality did vary from time to time, especially if I was using my laptop over a wireless connection.

I will readily admit I missed NBC's traditional end of the Olympics highlight reel set to Beethoven's Ode to Joy.

Every time I'd watch it I'd well up in tears because of the realization the Games were over and it would be a couple years before they'd be on again. (It even happened watching the YouTube clip linked above and thinking how 1996 seems just like yesterday).

Also missing was all the cultural fluff. By steaming the events it became all about the events, and not the locale. I do enjoy the cultural and historical aspects we're sometimes given, though in moderation.

So now comes the two year wait before the 2016 Summer Games, in Rio de Janeiro. With Rio being only four hours ahead of San Francisco, I'll be bombarded with lots more live coverage during a more sane part of the day. Of course, I'm sure there will be new unforeseen challenges.

I just have 892 days to figure exactly how to accomplish it all!

An open letter to the NHLPA and NHL Board of Governors

Gentlemen,

In early December the NHL Board of Governors approved a plan that included a new team realignment and playoff structure. Along with these, all teams would play each other at least once in each home city. Everyone that talked about it seemed to be greatly in favor, and it looked like a no-brainer, that it would be approved. I was shocked to find out the NHLPA pretty much stopped the plan cold in its tracks, with a virtual certainly it wouldn't be implemented for the 2012-13 season. I urge the NHLPA to reconsider the offering, and I also urge the NHL Board of Governors to consider allowing more input into the plan from the players, as it seems that has been the biggest complaint coming from their side. And if both parties have decided it is too late to work things out for next season, I urge the NHL Board of Governors to, at least, take care of the oddity of Winnipeg playing in the Southeast Division, despite being located nowhere near any of the other teams.

As a fan, I'd like to bring up my take on the points. Let me preface them all by saying I have been a full season ticket holder with the San Jose Sharks since they dropped their first puck back on October 4, 1991.

Fans have been without home-and-home series for several years now. When you went away from the balanced schedule it was said to be to save on travel costs, and to build on "natural" rivalries. While I'm sure it can be said that the travel benefits have been realized by teams on the East Coast, it can also be said the teams in the West have had some crazy road trips that call for insane amounts of travel. Just looking at mileage stats from this season's schedule there's nearly a 20,000 mile difference between the top team (Los Angeles Kings) and the the bottom three teams, who just happen to be from the New York metropolitan area (Rangers, Devils and Islanders).

To the NHLPA's problem in this, I think it's irrational to demand a sample schedule to examine things without also recognizing how hard it is to draw up a schedule every year, and how long that process takes.

It is only fair to the fans that you return to a balanced schedule so we can once again expect to see all teams play here at least once.

Realignment was also a hot button topic. Now that we have apparent stability, and are no longer practicing Franchise Roulette, it makes sense to look at the current layout, and how things might be tweaked. Obviously, you need to get the Winnipeg Jets back into the West. It's completely understandable that there was no time to make the change for the current season, and as a result they're playing more games against Florida and Tampa Bay than they are against Calgary and Edmonton. However, now is the time to fix this before having to repeat that avoidable mistake.

In looking over the approved four conference realignment it's pretty obvious it was drawn up based upon geographic lines. Makes perfectly good sense, and it does ease the burden on the westernmost teams that have, year after year, been spending the most time on the road. I will readily admit I am disappointed to see the Sharks would no longer be playing Dallas as many times, as they have become one of our biggest rivals. But, I'm eagerly anticipating more games against Vancouver.  Additionally, it breaks up the Southeast Division, which has got to be THE softest division of any of any since it's creation.

One of the complaints from the NHLPA has been the way playoff slots will be given out. Instead of the tried and true division winner, along with teams ranking in the top eight of their conference, regardless of division, the plan was to balance it out as four teams from each of the conferences. I will concede this is a big change, and creates a situation that mirrors many a complaint from fans of other sports; namely, why would a team with such a poor record make it into the playoffs over another team just because of the playoff makeup format. I would suggest scrapping that part of your plan, and go back to the top two teams from each conference, along with the next four ranked teams based purely on game results. That's enough of a happy medium to make sure most of the best teams aren't left out in the cold at playoff time, and that teams will fight extra hard to make it into the top two of their conference.

Going hand in hand with complaints about playoff structure is the NHLPA complaint that with the two eastern conferences have two less teams they would have an advantage when it comes to getting into the playoffs. While I can understand that, mathematically, I see of no easy way of pulling one team out of the middle western conference and placing it in the central, without causing a big change in rivalries.

Once last thing, and it has zero effect on schedule, player conditioning, or team layout. PLEASE don't call each of the conferences. They should be four divisions, which make up two conferences. Even before realignment that's what it was called; and I see no change in structure that would necessitate making such a strange change in terminology.

As we come careening towards the end of the current collective bargaining agreement, and what is going to, no doubt, be a very contentious negotiation, I can think of other things to cause divisiveness between the NHL and NHLPA than a schedule and realignment, and exactly how much input and/or approval they will have in such matters. What will be next, approval if a franchise wants to relocate?