Posted on 02/05/2007 6:09:11 AM PST by Ted
I was surprised that CBS seemed to have such a difficult time handling the rain during the game. It seemed to me that their 50 yd line primary camera was most affected, with water drops on the lens during much of the game, as well as a foggy picture for whatever reason. Other cameras had the same problems.
Did they not know it was going to rain, or even that there was a chance of rain? Don't they have covers for the lenses of those high dollar cameras, or at least they could have had an intern (or maybe Katie Couric) wiping off the water every minute or so? Seriously, I have seen many sports events televised in the rain and they typically figure out how to broadcast a better picture than what we had to endure last night.
The other frustration was that there were cameras that seemed more clear, yet the director would stick with the watered up lens. Really struck me as odd considering they probably spent a little bit of money broadcasting the biggest sports event in the USA.
Must be a budget crunch at the communist broadcasting network...
I thought the rain drops were cool. Windchills down to -45 here in Wisconsin yesterday & people are complaining about a little rain? :)
CBS showed the "Colts show" instead the Superbowl (which actually had 2 teams) CBS hates the Bears team it seems.
Looked like the Bears gave up after the first quarter.
They need to show Rex the door.
The dots were REALLY REALLY BIG!!!!
Yes, I noticed that our Midwestern windchills didn't get big press until they moved east. Now it's headline news!
I did PIP with my HD and regular feed, and there was no comparison. The regular feed was so fuzzy and grey compared to the slightly foggy HD view. It was still worth it.
What game?
I just called, he has a Panasonic PT-AE900U projector. It's really fun watching sports on the far wall as long as they are broadcast in high def. The regular digital cable picture is a bit grainy; I'm not sure I would like that all the time. Good luck with your decision!
I wasn't sure whether I was more annoyed by the crummy camera work or the insipid commentary. It was the sloppiest superbowl ever, and that was only partly the result of the weather and the play.
Puppy Bowl #3 on the Animal Channel of course.
Notwithstanding that I suspect you are a Colts fan, and that Dungy and Smith are probably the two most humble and classiest of the NFL coaches, the business-first aspect of pro sports STILL cannot be ignored.
The move of the Colts in 1984 under cover of darkness, via Irsay, and their taxpayer-subsidized stadium that has had shortfalls in guaranteed revenues (which may result in the Colts being moved after 2006, or at least will result in even-greated taxpayer subsidies in a new lease contract to keep them) still shows how the business-side of the pro sport is king.
Baltimore was screwed out of a pro team, but likewise was rewarded business-wise, by Art Modell's manipulation of a sweetheart taxpayer-subsidized deal, to steal the Cleveland Browns from their city, and to replace the Colts. Then, in another sweetheart taxpayer-subsidized deal, a new Browns stadium was funded, and lo and behold, a "NEW" Cleveland Browns materialized (once the stadium deal was finalized), and on it goes.
At least the Bears stayed in Chicago (because of a large market, and taxes subsidized $400 million plus of the $660 million for rebuilding Soldier Field, whereas the White Sox new stadium results in the White Sox paying no rent since 2001). The whole pro sports business-first attitude is spilled over into the players, who sell autographs to fans, as opposed to pro athletes who used to be a team-player for life, and was a community-minded local.
The Super Bowl has crossed over from a televised football game to a week-long television show about a football game.
Its amazing how much ineptitude the old low resolution video hid from viewers. HD allows viewers to see dirty lenses, low bandwidth, poor focus, bad makeup, and Katie's frizzies. The networks really have to step-up their technical game. Keeping rain off the lens seems like it should be one of the simpler tasks.
Like having a few of those cans of compressed air...
They just need to find a way of tealing with the fogging too.
I guess to pay Perky Kate's salary, they had to make some cutbacks in the Sports Department.
Yeah, no doubt on that (I don't invite others over, I just have the tv for the sheer entertainment value). I have noticed it a lot with my TV... all of the "booboos" that I wouldn't notice otherwise. But, at least in this situation, I could still see the field, the players, the uniforms, the football, the blades of "grass" where it was fogged out when I looked at the normal feed.
Plus, television used some kind of fuzzy lens that was kinder to aging talking heads.
Several things: Yes, I am a Colts fan, too young to remember much about their Baltimore days. My understanding of the move at night was that the city was planning to pursue a court order locking down Colts assets to prevent Irsay from moving his things out of the city. Hence Irsay's decision to leave at night.
Irsay's son is the current owner and is a night and day difference from his father, with the son bringing a lot more class and less focus on money. Looking back, I think it would have been better if the Colts moniker and records had been left in Baltimore and they started fresh in Indy, same as the Browns.
Also, the Colts recently inked a long-term deal with Indy that keeps them there for quite a while. There's a new stadium being built and they're bidding to host the Super Bowl in 2011.
Yea, there's a lot of money in pro sports today, and too much taxpayer subsidization. At the same time, both the Colts and Bears, as they stand today, are a reversal of the general trends of showboating. That was at least one of the critiques you made in your original post.
Your other original critique about the business side seemed to be pointed at players wanting money not the owners and that it was detracting from the competitiveness. Again, my point stands that the salary cap has contributed to more competitiveness in the league, not less.
On the point of WHO is building the stadium: it's not the owners that will be funding this, it will be TAXPAYERS, as usual, and my point is that it is purely a business and is designed so it cannot stand on its own to meet high salaries, without SUBSIDY of the taxpayer. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts:
Financing for the $900 million Colts stadium will include a 1% Food and Beverage Tax that will authorize Marion County and the seven contiguous counties to adopt the tax.
In addition to the Food and Beverage Tax, Marion County will also be authorized to increase County Auto Rental Excise Tax from 2% to 4%, and an Innkeeper's Tax from 3% to 9%.
In addition to the adoption of local taxes, a tax on Colts stadium events will be $3 dollars a ticket for specialty sports and $1 dollar a ticket for other sports
On the point of players' salaries and lack of long-term loyalty to any individual team or its fans/city:
As to the issue of the NFL salary cap, all it has created is teams that cannot withstand injuries to first-line players, because with the salary cap, the second tier players are MUCH less skilled and paid minimally, while the star first-line players are paid league averages for starters. NO team can endure more than two or three injuries to starting lineups anymore and be competitive, as with the loss of two players of prominence, there would be no competitive team to field. For this reason, long-term contracts for players (other than top-tier, "franchise" players) are few and far between, loyalty and same-team careers are nearly unheard of now, and the players basically play a series of one-year contracts. Another contributing factor to this one-year-contract common business practice is the fact that should a player become injured, his value is not a liability in the following year, as he will simply be replaced by another first-tier player procured through free agency.
Now, with the win in this year's season under their belt, you can bet that underpaid performers (such as the offensive linemen) on the Colts' team will be talking about their salaries and lack of fairness in them, since they showed they can perform and expect to be paid fairly to do so.
I might remind you that only ONE Colts' player is paid at the top of his profession:
"When Manning signed his seven-year, $98 million contract in March 2004, he became the highest-paid player in league history."
Now, having blown all that salary cap money on ONE player, who could go down with an injury anytime, the rest of the team is underpaid and will not be satisfied as their careers continue at a below-market pay rate.
In the case of the Colts, we will see how they handle Freeey when his contract expires this year. They'll either have to cough up big bucks to keep him and declare him a 'franchise player", OR they will have to make him available to free agency and lose him. Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are the only other two highly-compensated Colts, notwithstanding the free agency acquisition of Ventari from the Patriots, and I'm sure the business aspect of the Colts will NOT be overcome by some new-found "fan loyalty". Parity? You think there is parity?
Here's the 2006 Season Standings (Division top and bottom teams shown), and compare that to past years where the salary cap did NOT exist:
AFC North
Baltimore 13-3
Cleveland 4-12
AFC -South
Indianapolis 12-4
Houston 6-10
AFC West
San Diego 14-3
Oakland 2-14
NFC East
Philadelphia 10-6
Washington 5-11
NFC North
Chicago 13-3
Detroit 3-13
NFC South
New Orleans 10-6
Tampa Bay 4-12
NFC West
Seattle 9-7
Arizona 5-11
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.