The award for the most ridiculous, self-absorbed, overzealous all sports entertainment network in the world goes to...
ESPN, for the 10th year running.
They have once again proven that outside the 4 major sports, Tiger Woods, and the Williams sisters, you're really not much of an athlete. Unless you count token consideration of Cael Sanderson and -ahem- Sarah Hughes (don't even get me started on figure skating).
No offense to college athlete of the year Sue Bird (UConn BB) but a certain swimmer from Cal who set at least 6 AR and 1 WR over the short course season would have had my vote.
Anyone else? Natalie Coughlin, female college athlete of the year as awarded by the USMS discussion crew?
-RM
Former Member
Allright, I give up.
What is the Espy award, and who won it this year?
Whatever it is, it sure got your attention. Since ESPN needs attention to make money, I guess it worked.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that the ESPY's are effectively limited to the "big four" sports. ESPN isn't really in the business of providing sports coverage for athletes -- it provides entertainment for spectators. Just like the Oscars (which generally only recognize major studio movies), the ESPY's are basically a way to promote an (entertainment) industry, so the focus is on the money-making "products."
But we swim because of the benefits we get from swimming. It may be frustrating to not see our sport get the recognition it deserves, but we shouldn't be motivated or influenced by ESPN.
OK, I will do nothing but watch swimming as millions of Americans participate in no other sports.
To those 60+ million who attend baseball every year, sorry. Same for the millions who enjoy college footbal and basketball, along with the pros.
We will be a unisport nation, not bothered by other great sports, if they even are sports and not matters of technique.
You win, Ion, I am convinced. The others be damned!
Originally posted by Ion Beza
In order to not be "...befuddled" aqua, read better my posts, then address their content.
A small correction in what I wrote: the 2000 US Olympic Trials in swimming, was covered by NBC; ESPN covered with similar defects the 2000 NCAA swimming.
2000 Olympic Trials in swimming and 2000 NCAA in swimming were covered in US respectively by NBC and ESPN, and that was to the 'understanding' of popular US culture by NBC and ESPN bosses;
my point is that there is no 'supply and demand' quality when TV bosses and 'fans' feed each other cliches;
each time there was one station monopolyzing swimming reports, with TV commentators complying to the TV bosses;
there were not 250 'supply and demand' stations to chose from, matching in US 200 000 registerd US swimmers, 40,000 registered USMS swimmers, 60 million casual swimmers, and all of these swimmers' families.
The williams sisters were not the first tennis players to have come from the wrong side of the tracks. Little Mo was a top tennis player in the 1950's. Also, both Dawn Fraser and Shirley Babashoff can from families that were more blue-collar. Shirley's dad work two jobs, so the faimily could afford a little-tract house in Fountain Valley. Many of the swimmers in the 1970's did come from upper-middle class backgrounds. What is interesting that two Anglo swimmers came from poorer backgrounds than hispanics like Pablo Morales and Dara Torres. Which also disproves another sterotype of swimming, the upper-middle class anglo.
Originally posted by aquageek
OK, I will do nothing but watch swimming...
...
Swimming, basketball, track and field (Maurice Greene (US) run the day before yesterday 100 meters in 9.89, which is better than the physical fitness of the 'ESPN Male athlete of the year 2002'), volley ball, hand ball, gymnastics, skiing, water polo, wrestling, kayak, cycling, tennis:
now we start talking sports with their respective physical fitness, and plenty of sports to choose from.
Ion:
You continue to make confusing and outlandish statements. Never in the history of the free swimming universe have we been able to watch so many sport simultaneously. I know this because last night I counted one blizillgillion sports shows on TV. Have you ever heard of Fox Sports Net? I think they may have carried a minor league cow tippin' contest the other night. Big Tex the Louisiana Tipper won, by the way.
The market for sports is the most competitive in all of TV, with every sport trying to gain attention amid the other 250 stations that carry just about everything else. I was recently able to watch the SEC swimming championships on one of the Fox Net channels.
If there is a sporting event you want to watch in America, between the satellite dish and the internet, you can almost bank on it being available these days.
It a thing called supply and demand, a beautiful thing and probably something not frequently experienced in Romania, especially when the Ruskies called the shots.
Originally posted by KeatherSwim
Did tennis get as much hype and TV coverage *before* the Williams' phenoms as it does now? I play it myself, but never paid much attention to the pro aspect of it until the last few years. I seem to recall growing up, that tennis was about like swimming in that it was a country club sport not destined for TV greatness. Now tennis has broken that mold, personally I think mainly because of a few greats that have sprung up.
That's an interesting point. There have occasionally been periods when tennis has gotten a lot of attention -- particularly when Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe were at their peaks and behaving badly. The same for Andre Agassi before he grew up. But when Pete Sampras was the top player, the media seemed bored. (Likewise, figure skating never got as much attention as during the Tonya Harding scandal.) Which I guess shows that the media is mostly interested in spectacle. Of course, it may also mean that for swimming to get attention, the swimmers would have to have tantrums and generally act like jerks -- I think I'd rather do without the attention, in that case :).
Ever notice that we "play" football, water polo, etc.? But we do not play track and field, gymnastics ,etc. That is how you tell a game from a sport..........................:p
Tall Paul has in figured out. Viewers who WATCH sports and networks who provide entertainment and sell commercial time on their network drive these awards. Sports and games are intertwined to the point where there is no differentiation between them.
I don't put much stock in these awards because money issues, politics and ratings are the driving force behind them.
Paul is right when he points out how boring swimming is for most uneducated (to swimming) viewers. Swimming is not a spectator sport. Networks create awards that serve THEIR INTERESTS and let face it; their interests are not necessarily pinning the medal on the real sports achievers of our time.
Look for the money and usually you will find the reasoning behind these awards. Power, influence and money are all intertwined. My comments here are not a value judgement, they are simply an observation as to why swimming has been snubbed for so many years.
