USA 5, Canada 3: It wasn’t a miracle, but it was thoroughly American

Last week I wrote about how the Olympics are more like prime-time TV reality/dramas than actual sporting events. Of course, in the Winter games the men’s hockey tournament a notable exception to that.

Last night, in one of the most highly anticipated games in international play recent history, Team USA topped pre-tourney favorite Canada in a wild, intense, spectacular game that completely changed the landscape of what the knock-out phase leading to the Gold medal final will be (the US has the #1 seed and a bye, Canada must now go through Russia and likely defending champ Sweden just to make the final). But the totality of the change involved runs much deeper than that: last night’s win showed what American hockey in international play was, is and always should be.

Canada is of course, the birthplace of hockey, and with the Games on home ice this time, anything short of the gold would be far beyond disappointing, it would emotionally and psychologically catastrophic to them. Against the US, they played messy and tight with the weight of their country on their shoulders.

On the other hand, Team USA scraped, clawed and willed themselves to victory last night: blocking shots in front, fending off furious Canadian chances, hustling to every loose puck (including the most inspired empty-net goal ever), and making the most of their scoring opportunities. And of course, incredible, courageous goaltending from Ryan Miller.

Much has been made of Team USA’s youth – it’s true, they have the youngest squad in the tournament. As such, many experts dismissed this group as too inexperienced to be one of the main contenders (only 3 guys have Olympic experience). But as has been the case in past events – not just in the Olympics or even hockey, but any high-profile competition –  teams with chemistry and that play with a passion and sense of purpose (which combined with loose, nobody believes-in-us mindset) can overcome inexperience and emerge victorious.

That, and commercials. Or should I say, lack of commercials.

Both the American and Canadian teams are full of NHL players. Canada is comprised of top-level talent, a veritable all-star line on every shift. The US team is completely pro as well, but their fresh young legs can keep working hard through games that whiz by nearly commercial-free, compared to your average NHL game that breaks for commercials at nearly every whistle, giving time for older players to regroup.

This US squad was constructed with the type of players that teams of Olympic glories past had. Not only are they spry, but they are a fast, hungry, scrappy, tenacious, eager, hard-nosed, hard-checking and gutty group reminiscent of the legendary gold medal-winning 1960 and 1980 teams.

This seems to have been the philosophy of team GM Brian Burke (who put together Anaheim’s 2007 Stanley Cup team) all along. He left off old-timers Mike Modano, Keith Tkachuk and Bill Guerin, and high-priced Scott Gomez in favor of young guns like Patrick Kane, physical presences like Jack Johnson and big-game winners like Chris Drury. The Squaw Valley group (the last from the US to beat Canada in the Olympics before last night) had much the same in the old-school Cleary and Christian brothers; of course the Lake Placid miracles of Eruzione, Mark Johnson and Jim Craig are forever known as the “scruffy college kids” that beat the unbeatable Soviet pros. Contrast that with the 1998 collection of prima donnas, including Hull, Roenick and Chelios, that whined, pouted and temper-tantrumed their way to an ugly 6th place finish in Nagano.

Despite being the home of the top pro league in the world, hockey will never come first in the United States. But once every few years, if Team USA can cling to that tough, young, underdog, overachiever mentality; they can capture the country and embody the true, quintessential American spirit of industriousness, patriotism and against-the-odds triumph.

Today is the 30 year anniversary of the Miracle on Ice. By this time next week, a team of upstart Americans could once again be making a trip to the White House with gold medals in hand. But even if they don’t, what happened last night proves that US hockey is once again on right track: last night, they got their soul back.

Six guys? Six? That’s it? SIX?!?!!??: NBC’s Olympics coverage hits a new low

NBC has, over the years, received a ton of criticism for their Olympics coverage. Most of it usually deals with the fact that most events are not shown live, but on tape and crammed into prime-time.

Now, rarely do I watch the prime-time replay of an afternoon Yankees game – even if I haven’t learned the final score. Sports that aren’t live just don’t hold the same interest for me. I just deal with the fact I missed the game and move on. But the Olympics are more like a prime-time drama than an actual sporting event. I have to stay away from all things ESPN for 2 weeks, for fear of knowing outcomes before they are televised, which is annoying; but let’s face it: Olympic figure skating is not a sport, it’s Beverly Hills 90210 on ice. 

Personally, I like the tape-delay prime-time formula for the Olympics. I don’t want to miss things because I’m not in front of the television. But I don’t need to see every heat of the women’s 1500 short-track speed skating, though. I just need the announcers to do a quick prep of the major players involved and what happened in the prelims. Then show me the gold medal final. Then move on to the next event. That’s fine for me, I can digest an entire Olympiad that way.

Some events though, are a bit different. The men’s downhill is one of them. It’s kind of like the winter equivalent of the 100 meter dash: you want to know who the fastest guy alive is. Traditionally, the downhill is showcased in the first weekend of the games, it kinda gets the whole party started. This year, Vancouver has had a spell of drastic weather extremes in only the first few days, as such the men’s downhill got pushed from Saturday to Monday.

So NBC was behind the 8-ball through no fault of their own: their grand plan for last night was always to show the popular pairs skating for the bulk of the telecast.  But the way they played this hand was shockingly and embarrassingly bad:

– NBC kicked last night off at 8 PM EST with coverage of the tape-delayed downhill. Fine.

– Lead alpine events announcer Tim Brando proudly proclaims in his intro that the men’s downhill is “the signature event” of the winter games. Sweet, we’re on board for the ride!

– Run #1 shown is a random American who is obviously not a medal contender. OK, fine. Run #2 shown is top American Bode Miller, who NBC has showcased for years, interviewed ad nauseum. He makes a nice run and ends up with the bronze. Runs #3 and 4 are those of the respective gold and silver medal winners. Run #5 is a pre-race favorite who is fighting an injury and doesn’t cut the mustard. Run #6 is Canada’s best hope, who wipes out.

– That’s it. Finito. Six guys. Six. A grand total of 20 minutes has elapsed. For the “signature event”. Countless viewers likely missed the entire thing.

But then it gets really messed up.

– Costas introduces Mary Carillo, who presents a National Geograpic-style piece on…wait for it….Canadian polar bears. Seriously, you can’t make this up. NBC has just spent prime Olympic telecast time on something that has literally nothing to do with the Olympics. Nothing.

– It is now 8:40 PM EST, and NBC has shown 6 skiers, 6 polar bears, and no figure skaters. In fact, the 4 medal-contending figure skating pairs aren’t shown until they start live at 11:20 PM EST! NBC spends the interim time showing mostly non-medal-contending figure skating pairs and snowboard cross (which is a pretty cool event).  

From what I understand, the network actually loses money on the games each time, so I guess it’s little wonder that the production suffers. It’s a shame, because at it’s best, the Olympics can not only be one of the greatest entertainment moments on TV every few years; but one of the things in life that illustrates humanity in an engaging way. It mixes equal parts drama, athleticism, emotion, sacrifice, hard work, patriotism, pride and passion and shakes them up and spills them out on land, sea and in the air. And the results are unambiguous: this one is the winner, this one is not. On this one day, with the whole world watching, this person achieved their dream by coming through in the most pressure-filled of all circumstances. It’s an incredible metaphor for life itself.  Unfortunately, the network that televises it is clueless to that.

Obama’s latest gaffe: It’s worse than you think

For some reason, everyone is missing the big point about Obama’s recent interview on Wall Street bonuses. The focus has been on him saying he does not “begrudge” execs from pulling in huge bonuses despite their companies losing money or needing to be bailed out. Despite the fact that he’s said the same thing many times, everyone is and has been pretty clear that he’s “shocked” and “outraged” that the practice has gone on.

But to me, it was the addendum to his comments that is the real telling element here. He went on in the interview to say that “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.” 

To me, this is proof of several things I’ve suspected for a while:

a) When pressured and off script, he has no internal censor to stop and not say how he really feels (see: quote to Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”).

b) He is an economic illiterate, at least when it comes to free markets and the contract system. The key word in the free market is “free” – as in freedom make decisions on one’s own – whether good or bad.

I’m pretty sure most CEO’s have it written into their contract that their “bonuses” are garaunteed under most circumstances.  Same thing for baseball players.

A free market works under the principles of supply and demand. If JPMorganChaseGlodmanSachsCitiWellsFargo whatever loses however many billion in one year, what or who is to say that some other CEO wouldn’t have done worse? Each of these companies has a board of directors. They know if their current top execs are doing a “good” job or not, and they know the other players in the industry who are out there they could go and get if they needed to. Boards don’t enjoy handing out bonuses when business is down. But maybe the current execs have plans in place to turn things around in the next couple of years. It would be irresponsible for a board to oust a top exec, or not pay them their contractually obliged bonus, for short-term results because they could be sued for breach of contract and lose the top talent to their competition. In a free market, a private company has the right to make whatever contractual obligations they like. If the shareholders don’t like how the business is run, they’ll dump them.

Professional athletes in the most popular sports operate much the same way. An owner owns his team – it’s his to run the way he wants. If an MLB owner wants a player badly enough, he’ll sign him to as high as he can afford a base salary and bonus plan that he wants to, to avoid the risk of losing that player to a competing team. An organization may need to boost ticket sales, so they might offer a free agent a contract with a bonus in it thatis dependant on how many home runs he hits. This might be, to an owner, just as or even more important that getting to the World Series. The point is, the owner is the only entity who has the right to make those calls. No external force has a better knowledge or understanding of their business state: whether ultimately proven right or wrong.

The other part of this is, why is he so surprised that baseball players who don’t win make so much money in the first place? This is a concept that I was able to grasp in junior high. Again, supply and demand. People like baseball, and they are willing to spend money on it. And collectively, a lot of money as it turns out. A guy doesn’t hit 40 home runs and go out on the free agent market and just say ‘I should be paid x million dollars now’ because that’s what he wants or thinks. He’s able to do that because more than one owner makes enough money to be able to afford that.

As the average working stiff knows, it’s not about what you deserve. It’s what someone is willing to work out with you. Is it fair? No. But it’s the system that has proven, over time, to work the best. That’s what Obama never did, and still doesn’t, get.

Super Bowl wrap-up: A tale of two coaches

Sure, Drew Brees had a phenomenal game, and Peyton Manning did not. But it was much more than the quarterbacks’ relative level of play that lead to the Saints first championship.

Simply put, New Orleans coach Sean Payton game-planned and play-called as the confident aggressor, and Indy coach Jim Caldwell played it conservative and scared. These respective attitudes had a huge impact on the game on both sides of the ball.

Payton, well-established as an exceptional play-caller on offense, made the jump from excellent young coach to among the top-of-his-generation leader. He took the old Parcells/Belichick aggressive theories of winning championships (especially as the underdog): going for it on fourth down, trick plays on special teams, keeping the other teams most dangerous player off the field as much as possible – and put his own stamp on them. Sure, the onside kick was very risky – but ultimately it was a smart, calculated one.

Caldwell, on the other hand, literally played right into his counterpart’s hands. On offense, a few key times he called runs on 3rd down when passes were needed. The first resulted in the Saints getting that field goal anyway that they passed up by going for it on 4th at the goal line – a major momentum shift that never should have been allowed after a goal line stand. The second was after they were driving but ended up 3rd and 11 – which resulted in a FG attempt that was out of Stover’s range.

On defense, he had his secondary and linebackers play well back, preventing the Saints from hitting their trademark big plays in the passing game. Only problem was, it gave Brees the opportunity to hit a ton of short/mid sideline passes and quick hits and screens to his backs. As such, the Saints were able to control the clock without the need for a traditional pound-it-out run game.  But more importantly, it facilitated their ability to win the possession battle: they limited the Colts opportunities – giving Manning not only less chances, but never allowing him to get into his famous “rhythm”.  

The game will forever be remembered for the gusty on-side kick (which they were pretty lucky to come away with), and rightfully so. Because whereas one coach seized the moment and thereby grabbed his teams destiny, the other got swallowed up by the moment and let his teams destiny slip away.

His O-liness’ hurry up and wait on Health Care: the beginning of the end in more ways than one?

Remember back last summer, when health care reform was urgent? We had “got to get it done” in ’09 or else?

Oh, but now, just 8 months later, “we should be very deliberate, take our time.”

Obviously the stunning loss in the Massachsetts Senate special election last month sent shock-waves through every facet of the Democrat party, and was a wake-up call to the Administration that the country did not want reform in it’s current Obamacare state. But that was just the cherry on top: The House and Senate versions of the bill were so far apart, they never would have been reconciled.

So what changed?

The President’s political expediency here is quasi-laudible but mostly deplorable. He’s listening to the American people now (it’s the economy, stupid), and reaching out to the center/right for ideas on how they can come together on “insurance reform” (which is what everyone meant when they wanted health care reform in the first place).

But why was it so urgent for Obama from the outset? Yes, millions of Americans have poor or no coverage (some of whom are actually even tax-paying legal citizens!).  The COBRA system is an abomination, and premiums and co-pays have risen dramatically. But most people who are gainfully employed are willing to pay a little extra for excellent care at the expense of, you know, going out to dinner once a week instead of twice (OK, in some cases, one vacation a year instead of two). Plus, the real problem of rising healthcare costs are directly related to Medicare and Medicaid – both are in the tank and private insurance companies keep having to bail them out (thereby passing the extra costs along to the patients). So why would taxpayers want a new system that increased government-run care? 

Obama obviously saw his enormous political capital after the election, and short-sightedly thought that any major social change legislation would have to come before this mid-term election year. But as it turns out, his long-term view on this was atrocious. Imagine instead if he focused soley on the economic crisis his first and second years.  Imagine the administration and Congress focused only on governing effectively – you know, prove they were good at their jobs. Maybe the Dems wouldn’t be horrified about their prospects in the mid-terms later this year, maybe they could have solidified their majorities. Maybe then they could have at least had a foundation upon which to pass health care in 2011.

In the campaign Obama went on and on about a new tranparency in government, that he would “change the culture” in DC. His actions on healthcare have proven his hypocracy. Multiple times he declared that the debates would be televised on C-SPAN, that there wouldn’t be any old-school shady back-room deals. Of course, the opposite transpired. He said he wanted to contain costs, but let Pelosi and Reid put together a trillion-dollar package.

So all this just underscores real hypocracy: “Change we can beleive in” was literally what won Obama the election. America’s vote wasn’t “Bush sucked”. It wasn’t “McCain is too old”. And it definitely wasn’t “Palin is too stupid”. It was the notion that the status quo was no longer acceptable.

Thinking Americans know that what is ruining us is not the warring ideologies of the left and the right; but that the lobby-dominated, union-strongarmed, military-industrial complexed, Fed deficit-running , out-of-control pension paying,  too-big-to-fail bank system is. They voted to change all that. And they viewed Obama, mainly because of his message, as the one who could deliver on it. 

Political expediency is exactly what the electorate did not want. They wanted leadership that had long-term solutions to long-standing problems. 

So the Obamacare disaster isn’t just a self-contained problem for the president in the short-term, or even the Dems in Congress in the mid-term. This display of utter lack of long-term vision and leadership could spell absolute doom for him in 2012: and maybe not just in the form of him losing to the Repuplican nominee in the general election. If next year (which is when the campaign will ramp up) unemployment is still in double-digits, housing is still a mess, or God forbid there is a disaster on our home soil – manmade or otherwise – that crumbles national morale further, his O-liness may suffer an unprecidented fall from grace whereby he doesn’t even get his party’s nomination.

Big East Hoops Update: 2/04/10

Huge win last night for South Florida at Georgetown. After an 0-4 start in conference, the Bulls have now won 5 out of their last 6 games. They still have a tough road ahead of them (next 2 games are at Notre Dame and Marquette – both tough places to play), but they’ve clearly emerged as this season’s Big East sleeper – a role Seton Hall and St. John’s thought they had a shot at when the season began. They only have one more true heavyweight game on the schedule (a trip to ‘Nova), so this fledgling program has visions of glass slippers in their head as March is only a month away. As things stand right now, with an RPI of 46, they’re not on any bubbles, they’re IN.

On the flipside, UConn’s roller-coaster ride continues. They lose to Michigan, then they beat Texas. Since then, they’ve lost 3 in a row to fall to 3-6 in conference. The good news for the Huskies is the bad news as well: they have upcoming trips to ‘Cuse and ‘Nova, as well as play host to West Virginia and Louisville – all in the next 3 weeks. If they can pull it together and score a few wins in those key tilts and run hot into the Big East tourney , they’ll be just fine come dancing time. If not, they won’t have much to hang their hat on – after Texas their next best non-conference win is…Harvard.  

Some good games coming up this weekend: Saturday’s action is topped off with #2 Villanova making the short trip down to DC to face the talented but flawed Hoyas; and the #4 Orangemen better watch out for a potential trap before their UConn rivalry game next week as they travel to Cincy for a Super Sunday appetizer.