Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×
eveln

Sport is not sport. It has not been sport for a few decades, imo.

Recommended Posts

Nine will no longer host the cricket after 2020. Seven has won the rights with a $1.2 Billion bid.

 

I doubt the tampering scandal has anything to do with it, no doubt the bids were probably finalised some time before that.

What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

" What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA. "

 

Which basically boldly says that the game ( most games ) is all about the money. I'd like to see a massive decline in seats on bums bums on seats right across all the sports arenas. Really put a dint in the monetary value of them all.

 

edit : lol I knew there was something not quite right with the crossed out bit

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've already fucked the ODIs by getting rid of the tri-series format which worked so well for 30+ years. If Pak vs WI doesn't get 35,000 in the stadium they deem it a fail which is ridiculous.

As it is, watching 5 games in a row of Aus vs Eng gets a bit boring. At least with a third team it adds some variety even if they're only making up the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nine will no longer host the cricket after 2020. Seven has won the rights with a $1.2 Billion bid.

 

I doubt the tampering scandal has anything to do with it, no doubt the bids were probably finalised some time before that.

What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA.

 

free to air is a dead man walking

 

within the next decade it will only be watched by desperate people who will tolerate advertising content exceeding 50% of air time, and will finally choke itself to death selling even more advertising spots thereaffter, to a completely disinterested non-targeted ausience

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...it will only be watched by desperate people who will tolerate advertising content exceeding 50% of air time, and will finally choke itself to death selling even more advertising spots thereaffter, to a completely disinterested non-targeted ausience

Unfortunately, ads won't kill it: there are whole channels with nothing *but* ads, and they still have viewers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you are citing the obvious here. Sport has always been a business, one only needs to look at football around the world in its various incarnations to recognise that.

 

The business of winning is what all sports are about. There is not a competition out there that is not predicated on there being a winner and a loser, with the winner going on until such a point that they win the prize. Whether that be a glorious trophy and a million dollars in prize money, or a voucher for the local butcher, it has always been a business.

 

Rule changes are made to sell the game. When people got sick of the grappling in the NRL, rules were introduced to reduce the instances of grappling. The UFC have had bans placed upon what is known as the '12-6 elbow' due to the fear instilled by fake martial art practitioners breaking bricks with the move. Head kicks to a downed opponent have been banned due to the inability to sell a product containing them.

Warnings for stalling in boxing, restrictions on field placement in cricket, engine specifications in racing, and the new rules in MLB designed to 'speed up the pace of the game' are all designed to sell the product to the advertisers over the masses. This has always been the case.

 

However the reality is that there is a ruleset at the base of it all. This ruleset doesn't always make sense. Basketball banned dunks to stop teams loading up on tall players. Then they introduced the three point line to encourage shorter players. Both seemed to be detrimental to the game at the time. The end result is a product with well defined rules that players have adapted to, resulting in a product that is far superior to the initial offering. Seeing Steph Curry drain three point shots is a highlight of his games.

 

Once the initial moaning subsides, and the obvious commentary of 'sport not being sport anymore' dies off, the spectacle will return and the changes will be forgotten as changes and will be simply considered to be the status quo.

 

What is the purpose of your commentary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel you are citing the obvious here. Sport has always been a business, one only needs to look at football around the world in its various incarnations to recognise that.

 

The business of winning is what all sports are about. There is not a competition out there that is not predicated on there being a winner and a loser, with the winner going on until such a point that they win the prize. Whether that be a glorious trophy and a million dollars in prize money, or a voucher for the local butcher, it has always been a business.

 

Rule changes are made to sell the game. When people got sick of the grappling in the NRL, rules were introduced to reduce the instances of grappling. The UFC have had bans placed upon what is known as the '12-6 elbow' due to the fear instilled by fake martial art practitioners breaking bricks with the move. Head kicks to a downed opponent have been banned due to the inability to sell a product containing them.

Warnings for stalling in boxing, restrictions on field placement in cricket, engine specifications in racing, and the new rules in MLB designed to 'speed up the pace of the game' are all designed to sell the product to the advertisers over the masses. This has always been the case.

 

However the reality is that there is a ruleset at the base of it all. This ruleset doesn't always make sense. Basketball banned dunks to stop teams loading up on tall players. Then they introduced the three point line to encourage shorter players. Both seemed to be detrimental to the game at the time. The end result is a product with well defined rules that players have adapted to, resulting in a product that is far superior to the initial offering. Seeing Steph Curry drain three point shots is a highlight of his games.

 

Once the initial moaning subsides, and the obvious commentary of 'sport not being sport anymore' dies off, the spectacle will return and the changes will be forgotten as changes and will be simply considered to be the status quo.

 

What is the purpose of your commentary?

First things first : Hello and welcome :)

 

I am assuming your question is to me the poster of the OP .

 

" Obvious updates to the " game " will always occur with the strength of technology used to record it. With that in mind, it seems logical that rules and regulations would seem to be

stricter today than in times past. And so they must. Humans haven't suddenly become ' holier than thou ', and people like Mr Johns seem to have more thought for the enjoyment

( and money ) from the people who fill the stadium for their pleasure. I have to wonder why sloppy play is considered by Mr Johns to be more important to the game than the players

making the effort to improve their " game " skill. Would it be more about new players being able to play without having to have a decent skill for the game, meaning the " game " goes

on and keeps the money rolling in for the sponsors and rest of the huge works and jerks that are seen as needed ? To keep the pay checks coming in ? And also, when the players are seriously injured there will always be someone

just capable of filling the slot ?"

 

The above is a quote from my OP. I think it states my commentary pretty well. It seems you don't have an issue with rules adapting to suit the pay scale so to speak. Does that mean you'd be willing to think of ball tampering as not cheating per say ?

Or players not adhering to the rules of the day so's the play looks to be more fluid ... so the play would look a bit like a dance maybe, rather than a sport ?

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×