I think viewers should get medals for watching Ice Dancing. Seriously, WTF.

On the Canadian network broadcasting the Olympics, they pretty much announced the medal standings for this event hours before the competition. They even showed graphs of projected scores for all the pairs.

IMO, if you can pre-announce the standings and scores, that's just more proof it shouldn't be an Olympic sport.

They should also rethink Women's Ice Hockey until there's actually some competition. For those not follwing this stuff, Canada and the US completely dominate everyone else. It's like getting a group of random strangers off the street to play a basketball game against an NBA All-Star team.

Were the projected standings correct? Were the projected scores close?

I'm as much of a hater of sports with a judged score component as anyone, but the fact is that athletes can screw up, and no matter how much the prognosticators think they know, until you get out there and do it, you really don't know for sure. And, as we all know, the judges don't always see things the same way the rest of the world expects them to. I'd say the time wasted on doing scoring projections is more an indicator of stupid analysts with too much time on their hands rather than an indictment of the event.

Re: North American dominance of women's ice hockey, it's not like this situation is unique in the history of athletic competition. Canada basically slaughtered all comers in the early days of men's ice hockey, but eventually some other countries caught up, and now Canada may be heading for an early exit at the hands of Russia this week (U-S-A! U-S-A!)

I think the same dynamic could happen in the womens' game in the next decade or so -- it's not like the women have had a lot of time to build up their programs the way the men have, and Sweden has some success in recent years.

There are plenty of other examples where a small number of countries make a laughing stock of the rest of the world in a given sport, but that doesn't mean you stop trying. China and South Korea own table tennis. Badminton is China's to lose. The U.S. dominated basketball for a long time. Were any of these as uncompetitive as a Germany vs. Canada women's ice hockey game? Probably not, but the women have only had 3 Olympiads to get things going. Let's not pronounce the sport dead. Besides, the Canadian ladies still have plenty of time to cough one up the way the men did last night!

Re: Women's Hockey. I'm not suggesting killing the sport at all. In fact there should be more international competition, more events even. It just shouldn't be an Olympic event until the world stage is better represented.

Right, and the examples I cited all managed to survive long periods of dominance by one or two countries and still be viable events that countries are proud to send their athletes to compete in.

My guess is that the Swiss, Slovak, and Russian women enjoy their opportunity to play on the world stage and get embarrassed by the Americans and Canadians -- eliminating the sport just because they don't have much of a chance to beat them in 2010 deprives them of their dream of representing their country, and keeps their programs from developing into a dynasty of their own.

In other words, sometimes it's just about getting there and competing. Eventually, the balance of power will shift, and until then, there's always a chance for a David v. Goliath moment like the Miracle on Ice.

Hi,

Congratulations to Canada on a CLASS-ACT skate in the Ice Dancing. Even though it has been slammed <a little> by this thread, the grace, athleticism, and speed of the sport is hard to ignore. Hockey is fun too, of course!

They are the darlings of the sport this year and they deserved it.

They skated well, and genuinely seemed to appreciate the Gold Medal Ceremony. It's nice to see the winners sing the National Anthem with zeal and pride.

I have no idea why so many country's athletes are so stuck-up as not to pay this minimal amount of patriotism to the country that helped them make their dreams come true.

Just my oppinion..., your's may vary.


Ross

Not that I'm ever likely to be on a medal podium: the British national anthem is a dirge. Also (while not relevant to Team GB) it's the British national anthem; why can't England have its own, like the Scots and Welsh?

I did once sing the school song on Prefects' Green when my school won a swimming competition, though...

Really? Maybe it's because of the US-centric coverage we get on NBC**, but of the medal ceremonies I've watched, I haven't seen any athletes who weren't incredibly moved up there.

**NBC stands for "Need Better Coverage." I hate their coverage, and someone needs to take it away from them at the next Olympics.

MSNBC does an OK job with the hockey coverage. I really like how there are no commercials except during period intermissions. I love having JR as a commentator. What I don't like is how they always seem to miss the first 10-20sec after an intermission (getting back to the ice when the play is already going on kills me) and Pierre Maguire. Seriously, fuck that guy.

You'd think they'd put Olbermann on at least some of the sports coverage on MSNBC; he was one of the best regarded SportsCenter anchors, after all.

If you watch the Olympics on NBC and compare it to some other international coverage, even that of the host country, Canada, you'd swear you were watching a different event sometimes. I had to turn the channel the other day because it was just far too US-centric. It was the US-lympics, with the broadcaster pretty much skipping international competitors and showing only US and Canadian athletes.

Besides, even listening to Bob Costas for 5 minutes makes me want to put my foot through his face.

How is it really any different than sports with referees/umpires who have to make judgement calls on rules violations? I mean, some things are cut and dried (like offsides in most sports), some things should be but aren't (like baseball's strike zone, or basketball's traveling), and then others are really just up in the air (certain instances of football pass interference or impeding an opponent in soccer). There's also soccer's lack of a timekeeper and the random lengths that referees will extend the game. And mistaken calls from officials in all sports, from mistakes to unobserved rule infringement.

Honestly, I agree with you. The things I mention are largely vagaries, rather than the institutional subjectiveness of figure skating. But they can and do have effects on final scores, even if the ball entering a goal area is straightforward.

Probably because that's using subjectivity to referee the sport, versus using subjectivity to score the sport. A football ref doesn't decide how well a touchdown was executed, and score the team accordingly.

That said, I freaking love to watch the snowboarding competitions. Ice dancing freaks me out though, but mostly because the people who do it seem so damn weird.

Yeah, I took care to say "judged score component" rather than "involve judgement" or "have a subjective component." Games are won and lost on referee decisions from time to time, but sports like figure skating and gymnastics are almost entirely determined by judges, and they have components of the scores that are basically fudge factors -- how much they liked the routines. "Artistic expression" or whatever they call it. Tenths of points can be deducted for minor things that only one or two judges will see, and those same judges will ignore those same minor flaws for the next athlete, for no discernible reason.

It all boils down to how much the subjectivity of judges is called into question by informed spectators and observers of the sport, and it seems to me that it happens a lot less in sports like hockey, soccer, and basketball than it does in figure skating and gymnastics. That doesn't mean it never happens, though.

There was a blurb, just on the news, about a movement to have pole dancing made and Olympic sport.

So... Will the judges be awarding points, or will they be giving out dollar bills.

Hockey's on right now. I think they should make a second set of medals just in case the game is decided in a shoot-out. In that case the award shouldn't be for Hockey Gold either, but for "Shoot-Out gold." IMO, if you've won in a shoot-out, you haven't won a hockey game. The game is still tied.

They might as well decide the game with any number of feats or tricks normally seen in skills contests. Or keep it a tie and then add up the points from previous games. They're all equally meaningless.

EDIT: Thankfully the game ended in the scheduled overtime. It was a sudden-death overtime, which I'm not fond of, but at least it's orders of magnitude more credible than a shoot-out.

Canada Gold, USA Silver, Finland Bronze.

Same results as the babe's tournament had. How about that!

c.f. Football and pretty much any England vs. Germany game :-(

Something I found interesting, now that I understand football (soccer) better, was the strategy employed by many of the lesser Olympic men's hockey teams.

They've taken a page straight from footballers.. play passively and defend for all but the final few minutes of a game, and then go all out with your few good players for the final 2-3 minutes trying to win.

That method allows a team with only a few good players to be competitive against a powerhouse where even the fourth line is comprised of all-stars.

Weird, but almost effective enough in some of the games.

-ml

I can understand not liking shootouts to settle a game, but how can you not enjoy sudden death overtime? Both teams have had 60 minutes to win and have not been unable to do so -- what's wrong with ending it in a "golden goal" fashion? There's nothing more exciting in sports than knowing that the next goal wins.

My team was on the wrong end of it last night, but they had plenty of chances in regulation to take control of the game and could not -- so the outcome is legit, and Canada is the better team (which was what everyone thought going into the Olympics.)

Back in 2000, I watched the entirety of the longest game in NHL history, and when my team emerged victorious in the fifth overtime, it was an incredible feeling. The letdown if I was on the other end would have been just as grand -- that's just how it goes. I assume you'd prefer they just leave playoff games as a tie? Or keep going until one team happens to be ahead at the end of a full period? Or until a team wins by two? What's your preferred solution, keeping in mind the practical constraints of not playing hockey games that are as long as cricket matches?

Given the constraints, I think that golden goal is probably the best way to resolve a deadlock, but I can't stand penalty shoot-outs. That said, given that they happen fairly often, I don't understand why the English team doesn't practice for them more.

On the other hand, I've long considered that Battle Royale-style random elimination of players once the game's in overtime might work quite well...

See, I really don't have the problem with shootouts that some have. I do love the idea of teams playing until someone scores, but that could take a ridiculously long time. There are practical constraints we have to place on our sporting events, and, at the end of the day, both teams had their chances to win during regulation time. Yes, shootouts are artificial and completely remove defense and strategy from the game, but it's not like they're flipping a coin out there -- the goalie has to stop the puck/ball and the shooter has to score. It's close enough for government work.

I do, however, like the clever compromise the NHL has come up with. First try an overtime period, but with one fewer player per side to open things up. To do this in soccer you'd probably need to go to 8-on-8 or something, as 11-on-10 really isn't enough of a disadvantage to matter much in a short overtime period.

Keep playing until there's a winner. For this level of the sport, so be it if the game runs an extra hour.

If Canada had won by shoot-out, I wouldn't have considered it an olympic-calibre win. I would have simply considered that they had to shut the lights off and at the end of the day someone had to get the medal. Especially since the US team got to the finals undefeated and with more points than the Canadian team. It seriously devalues the game.

I would love to see them work out some kind of double-elimination format for the knock-out rounds of the Olympic tournament -- the idea that no team is eliminated until they've lost two games.

And especially if it could arrange things so that all four teams from the semis get an even shot at the Silver medal, too.

The current format sucks if you're like, say, Russia, and meet up with the eventual Gold medal winner before the final-four round. And even in the final-four round, the winner of the "bronze" game should still get a shot at the Silver medal if they haven't already lost to the team that otherwise would get it.

But time and television constraints..

You haven't really answered the question. They "kept playing until there was a winner" last night under the sudden death system you say you dislike. Should they have continued the overtime period to see if the US could even things up? Also, it might not just be an extra hour, it might be five extra hours like the game I cited above -- it's a rare occurrence, but 3OT playoff games are not uncommon. Given that the closing ceremonies were scheduled for 7pm, having the gold medal game go until 11pm wouldn't have been very convenient.

I'm not saying that these concerns *should* influence things, but at some point they have to. Like I said, I can understand being against shootouts (though I'm not against them at all) but I can't understand being against sudden death overtime.

I'm okay with sudden-death overtime. But the solution for your scheduling thingie above, is to simply schedule the hockey final for the day before the closing ceremony day.

-ml

I expect the constraint here -- the reason single-elimination is used in the final stages -- is the requirement that the final match decides the gold. Which is really "excitement profile management" rather than TV constraints as such...

There's probably also some sort of Arrow's Paradox in operation here, that says that not all these superficially-plausible constraints on the competition structure can be satisfied at once.

Peter

Well, one way to satisfy nearly all of those constraints, would be to implement (near-)full double elimination for the final-four.

So A&B play, and C&D play. B&D both lose, so they play each other, and the winners A&C play each other. Let's say B wins, and A wins. So then, B plays C, and the winner plays A in the gold/silver matchup.

For full double-elimination, A would get a second chance if they lost the final matchup, but that's neither needed nor practical here.

-ml