Magnificent Two Weeks Over

It’s over. After seventeen days we have seen the completion of the 29^th Olympiad in Beijing, China.

Many people asked me why I didn’t post to my blog during that time. Everyone that reads here knows how much I enjoy the Olympics and know that it’s a big part of my research. And I have a very good reason why I did not post to my blog during that time.

I was actually watching the Olympics.

I had my TiVo working overtime. In addition to the content analyses that I’m working on based on NBC’s prime time coverage I was working toward updating my library of sports clips for future experiments. My goal was to get a little bit of every sport, and if possible getting clips of both male and female athletes competing in each. Some days I had my TiVo recording as much as 31 hours of coverage from the NBC family of networks: MSNBC, CNBC, USA, and Oxygen.

I figure that my TiVo over those 17 days recorded nearly 400 hours of Olympics. And while I watched a good chunk, I also fast forwarded through a lot of it. My goal in finding the sports for my collection were to have competitions that did not feature American athletes. If used in an experiment I wanted participants to feel as neutral as possible about the participants – I don’t want a feeling of patriotism and national pride to overtake any possible effects I would be researching.

Overall, I think I was relatively successful in my task. There were three sports that were not broadcast at all on any of the networks carrying the Olympics: judo, sailing, and taekwondo. Also, the networks did not broadcast men participating in the modern pentathlon – though they did broadcast the women’s competition. And then of what was supposed to be broadcast I did not get footage of women’s archery, women’s pairs in whitewater canoeing/kayaking, and men’s triathlon. I do not believe that, even though they were in the broadcast schedule, that the first two actually made it to air. And when it comes to the triathlon it was a victim of a choice I made – I chose to record the network that was airing men’s trampoline instead.

It was a great Games with many memorable moments. I can’t wait for February 12, 2010 for the upcoming Winter Games in Vancouver and for July 27, 2012 when the Summer Olympics will return in London.

Big Ten vs. Comcast

Last winter I wrote about the Big Ten Network, and how it appeared at the time ESPN was dealing with losing some of the broadcast rights to various events. (To read that post, click here.) But now another controversy has exploded with the Big Ten Network and Comcast, the nation’s largest cable service provider.

The Big Ten Network premiered on August 30th. But it still hasn’t received clearance onto Comcast. The two sides are disagreeing on where to place the channel in Comcast’s cable service. The Big Ten Network would like to see their channel placed on basic or expanded basic cable, so that the largest number of subscribers possible would have access. Comcast would like to place the network onto an upper-tier sports package so that only those cable subscribers that purchase that package can see it. And neither side will budge. Comcast says that the reason for this placement is so that subscribers that don’t want to pay for this network won’t have to.

The fees that cable providers pay to networks are an interesting phenomenon. Your cable service provider pays a fee to each and every cable network to be able to have it on their service. It could be as little as a few cents or as much as a couple of dollars per cable subscriber. The more popular the network the more they are able to charge because there is demand for it. I’m certain that networks such as MTV, ESPN, and CNN charge much higher fees per subscriber than do the American Life Network, Logo, or the National Geographic Channel. However, as the channels gain popularity they can increase how much they charge the service providers.

Though I can not find any precise numbers, my guess is one of the sticking points between the two sides is how much the Big Ten Network is asking for. They believe that they have a guaranteed audience and are probably asking for more per subscriber than the typical upstart cable network. Comcast isn’t willing to pay that amount for every subscriber they have, so they want to place it on an upper-tier channel so that they only have to pay the Big Ten Network for every subscriber that purchases that package of channels.

But it’s gotten ugly. Now that I live in Delaware I have Comcast digital cable. And I’ve started to see advertisements from Comcast about the situation. And they are taking the tone of negative political advertising. Take a look at this commercial that I was able to find on YouTube.



Wow. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. I’m sure we’ll see similar imagery this winter and spring, after the presidential primaries, when the political advertisements for the candidates running for president start.

But the problem is that Comcast is leaving something out. They may be featuring “thousands of hours” of Big Ten sports, but there are thousands more that will be on the Big Ten Network that we won’t see. When you’re talking football you will see powerhouses such as Ohio State in your programming, but how likely are you to see an Indiana University game? Not likely unless they’re playing a powerhouse. And what about basketball? There are so many games played each season, and a majority of those will not be seen by those who are serviced by the nation’s largest cable provider. Games that used to be broadcast by ESPN Plus and therefore on local stations will not be there this year. Homes in Indiana will not be able to see home IU basketball games on their TVs. And what about some of the sports that the major networks never air, like swimming and softball? Shouldn’t they have a platform too?

I’m not sure what the solution is. If the Big Ten Network drops their fees, then maybe Comcast will place it so that everyone can have access to it. Or if Comcast won’t budge then the Big Ten Network will have to accept the fact that only special subscribers can see their programming.

All I know is that here in Delaware I could have seen IU football’s season opener thanks to this network, but my cable service provider couldn’t come to terms and therefore I missed out. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.

ESPYs

We are now two weeks away from the ESPY awards. (Wow. There are award shows for everything!)

Seeing as how my research has focused on gender and sports, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the female athletes that have been nominated this year. So many male athletes get recognition all year long, yet mentions of female athletes happen much more infrequently. Hence, my mentioning of them here. Good luck to all the nominees.

Best Female Athlete of the Year

Lisa Leslie: Center, Los Angeles Sparks
Leslie became the first player ever to reach 5,000 points in her WNBA career. In addition she is only the second player to be a three time WNBA MVP.

Taryne Mowatt: Pitcher, University of Arizona Softball
Mowatt pitched every inning on Arizona’s road to the NCAA softball championship. She pitched eight complete games during the championships, over six days, consisting of over 1,000 pitches.

Lorena Ochoa: Pro Golfer, LPGA #1 Ranked Player
She was named 1996’s LPGA Player of the Year, with the fourth lowest average score per round ever for the LPGA. She posted six season wins, and earned nearly $2.5 million in prize money.

Candace Parker: Forward-Center-Guard, University of Tennessee Basketball
Parker was named the women’s NCAA player of the year. She led her team to a national championship while earning an NCAA Final Four MVP for herself.

Best Team

University of Tennessee Women’s Basketball
Earned the school’s seventh championship in women’s basketball and went 34-4 on the season.

Best Championship Performance

Serena Williams: Tennis Pro
Williams entered the 2007 Australian Open unseeded and went on to defeat five players ranked in the top 20 to win the championship.

Beat Breakthrough Athlete

Morgan Pressel: Pro Golfer
At 18 years old Pressel became the youngest woman to ever win an LPGA major championship by winning the 2007 Kraft Nabisco.

Best Coach/Manager

Pat Summitt: Coach, University of Tennessee Women’s Basketball
Summitt is the all time winningest coach in all of college basketball (men’s or women’s) and led her team to a seventh NCAA title.

Beat Upset

Rutgers vs. Duke, Women’s NCAA Basketball Tournament
Rutgers, seeded fourth, was a major underdog when facing number one seeded Duke. Rutgers won a hard fought game by a score of 53-52, taking themselves into the tournament’s Elite Eight.

Best International Female Athlete

Justine Henin: Tennis Pro
Henin is the number one ranked women’s tennis player in the world, having won last year’s French Open and appearing in the finals for the three other Grand Slam events.

Lorena Ochoa: Pro Golfer, LPGA #1 Ranked Player

Maria Sharapova: Tenis Pro
Sharapova was ranked number two in the world of women’s tennis, having won the 2006 U.S. Open at age 19.

Annika Sorenstam: Golf Pro
Annika is thought of as the best player ever in women’s golf. She had 16 top ten finishes in 2006 and is the first female golfer to reach 20 million in career earnings.

Best WNBA Player

Tamika Catchings: Forward, Indiana Fever
Catchings was named the 2006 WNBA Defensive Player of the Year.

Lauren Jackson: Forward-Center, Seattle Storm
Jackson finished the 2006 season as 2nd in field goal percentages, 4th in scoring, and 5th in rebounding.

Lisa Leslie: Center, Los Angeles Sparks

Diana Taurasi: Guard, Phoenix Mercury
Taurasi finished 2006 first in scoring, 5th in assists, and 8th in 3-point shooting.

Best Golfer

Lorena Ochoa: LPGA #1 Ranked Player

Best Female Tennis Player

Justine Henin

Jelena Jankovic
Jankovic finished 2006 ranked twelfth in the world, and is currently the world #3. In addition, in 2006 she made the semi-finals of the U.S. Open and the French Open.

Maria Sharapova

Serena Williams

Best Female College Athlete

Monica Abbott: Softball, University of Tennessee
Abbott led her team to the College World Series in 2007. In addition, during that season, she broke the records for career strikeouts, wins, shutouts, and game appearances.

Kerri Hanks: Soccer, Notre Dame
Hanks is only the 11th player to score at least 20 goals and to make at least 20 assists in a single season. In addition, she is the first player since Mia Hamm to lead the NCAA Division I women’s soccer in goals and assists in the same season.

Kara Lynn Joyce: Swimming, University of Georgia
Joyce won the 50 and 100 meter races at the NCAA championships, making her the first to ever win titles in two events for four consecutive years.

Taryne Mowatt: Softball, University of Arizona

Candace Parker: Basketball, University of Tennessee

Best Female Action Sports Athlete

Jamie Anderson: pro snowboarder
Anderson won events at Winter X and the U.S. Open.

Layne Beachley: pro surfer
Beachley won her seventh pro surfing title.

Torah Bright: pro snowboarder
Bright is the World Superpipe Champion and won a gold medal at Winter X.

Sarah Burke: pro skier
Burke won events at Winter X and the U.S. Open.

Elissa Steamer: pro skateboarder
Steamer won gold at X Games 12.

Best Female Athlete with a Disability

Jessica Long: paralympic swimmer
Long has eighteen world record performances in 2006 as well as won nine gold medals at the International Paralympic Committee Swimming World Championships.

Esther Vergeer: wheelchair tennis
Vergeer finished as world champion in 2006 for the 7th consecutive year. She has won 236 straight matches.

Stephani Victor: alpine skier
Victor has fourteen World Cup victories and won gold at the Paralymic Games.

Amy Palmiero-Winters: marathon/triathlon
Palmiero-Winters holds the work record in both the marathon and the triathlon for female amputees.

Best Outdoor Athlete

Samantha Larson: mountaineer
At 18 Larson is believed to be the youngest to have climbed the “seven summits” and did so by climbing Mount Everest in May.

Best Track and Field Athlete

Allyson Felix: 200 meters
Felix set the 2006 World Athletics Final meet record in the women’s 200m.

Sanya Richards: 400 meters
Richards won the 2006 Jesse Owens award and broke the American record for the women’s 400m.

Under Armour Undeniable Award
Best Women’s Collegiate Team

University of Arizona, Softball
Won the NCAA championship after winning through the loser’s bracket. This was their second straight championship.

University of Nebraska, Volleyball
Finished the season 33-1 and won the NCAA championship.

University of North Carolina, Soccer
Finished the season 27-1 and won the NCAA championship.

Northwestern University, Lacrosse
Finished the season 22-1 and won their 3rd consecutive NCAA championship.

University of Tennessee, Basketball

University of Wisconsin, Ice Hockey
Broke or tied six NCAA single-season team records.

Hummer Like Nothing Else Award

Diana Taurasi: Guard, Phoenix Mercury

Is the NHL dying?

The National Hockey League this past week held its first all-star game in 3 years.

No game was held in 2005 due to a labor dispute. No game was held last year due to the number of players taking time to play in the Winter Olympics.

The all-star game in 2004 was aired on ABC. It aired on a Sunday afternoon and had approximately 2 million viewers.

This year the game aired on Versus, the network formerly known as the Outdoor Life Network. It garnered a 0.7 Nielsen rating, which translates to approximately 673,000 viewers.

There was definitely drop off due to the game airing on a cable network that is not carried by all cable service providers. The potential audience was much smaller than when it aired on ABC in 2004.

But did the long labor dispute in 2005 hurt the game? Is overall interest in the league waning?

The NHL better put a plan in action if they want to increase audience size in the short term, and hopefully survive as a professional sports league in the long term.

Complying with Title IX-At What Price?

James Madison University has made the decision to cut ten of its varsity sports. This is being done so that the university can become Title IX compliant.

Being dropped are men’s indoor and outdoor track, men’s cross country, men’s wrestling, men’s swimming, men’s gymnastics, men’s archery, women’s gymnastics, women’s archery, and women’s fencing.

Moves such as this baffle me. Is the elimination of opportunities to students what was in mind when Title IX was enacted?

The original intention for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was to ensure that female students had the same opportunities as male students in schools that receive some form of federal financial assistance. Exactly, what Title IX says is:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

While the original intent of this was to equalize academic opportunities, Title IX has become synonymous with athletics.

The NCAA can enact sanctions on any university that is not deemed compliant under Title IX. Schools can be considered compliant in one of three ways.

1. Have the percentage of male and female athletes exactly (or nearly exactly) match the percentage of male and female students.

2. Show a consistent increase in the number of opportunities available to women in an effort to reach the equal percentages.

3. Prove that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students.

James Madison was already a university with one of the largest number of intercollegiate sports. In total they had 28 sports. The problem was that while 61% of the student population is female only 51% of the student athlete population is female.

In an effort to reach compliance these 10 sports were eliminated. With these ten sports removed, 61% of all student athletes are now women.

But is this really complying with the original intent of the law? I’m a big supporter of Title IX, but I can’t imagine that those who enacted it really intended it to take away opportunities to anyone in an effort to get “equality.” Now 144 athletes at James Madison are without a sport, 8 of which were at James Madison on an academic scholarship. The funding that was going to these ten sports will now, however, provide more scholarships to women’s golf, tennis and swimming, and will allow men’s golf and tennis to have athletes on scholarship.

I understand that it is not always economically feasible to have more female sports than male sports. That is a fact of collegiate athletics. It was probably not cost effective for James Madison to add more women’s sports. But the question I have is, were they wanted or needed? If James Madison was meeting the athletic wants and needs of its female population, wouldn’t it have been compliant under the third prong of its test even though only 51% of their student athletes were female?

I do think that the NCAA and those who enact Title IX have to give serious thought as to its implementation, particularly since it seems to be doing the opposite of what it originally intended: it’s taking away opportunities instead of adding them.