Posting Game Scores
Posted by cth95
Posting Game Scores
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: December 02, 2005 11:28PM
I hadn't thought about it before, but it was nice to not have any scores in the game and postgame topic lines tonight (Princeton). I didn't get home in time to follow the game, so at least there was still some suspense as I scrolled down the game thread. Anyone else think we should keep doing this?
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: ugarte (---.nycmny.east.verizon.net)
Date: December 03, 2005 09:08AM
I'm the opposite. If I miss a game live I either (a) want the score as quickly as possible or (b) avoid eLynah until I've watched/listened.
Scrolling through the entire game thread was a little annoying. I prefer when there is a thread captain that updates the first post with the score in the subject line and the boxscore in the message.
Scrolling through the entire game thread was a little annoying. I prefer when there is a thread captain that updates the first post with the score in the subject line and the boxscore in the message.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: Robb (---.losaca.adelphia.n)
Date: December 03, 2005 10:18AM
How about a compromise? Update the score in the first message, but not in the thread title. That way, people have a chance to click on the thread, and scroll past the first message without reading it, but those who want the score quickly will know where to look.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: ugarte (---.nycmny.east.verizon.net)
Date: December 03, 2005 10:33AM
I'm OK with the compromise, I guess, though if I were the thread starter I'm not sure that I would abide by the request. The person wanting to avoid results has the obligation of avoiding places where they will be discussed. Once a game is over - and while it is in progress - the game is news. This is where we discuss Cornell hockey news. Would it be wrong for someone to post a thread titled "Awesome game!" or "Schafer should be fired" after a game just because someone might be taping it and the thread title implies a result?
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
You can reframe it as a question of simple courtesy, but I think it is a far greater imposition to ask people to write differently for the sake of the archive watchers than for the archive watchers to simply watch the game before firing up eLynah.
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
You can reframe it as a question of simple courtesy, but I think it is a far greater imposition to ask people to write differently for the sake of the archive watchers than for the archive watchers to simply watch the game before firing up eLynah.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.rgv.res.rr.com)
Date: December 03, 2005 11:00AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."[/q]
How about tuning in to your local CBS station at 6:58am for the 7:00 tape-delayed broadcast of the 1998 Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medal Game, only to have the first thing you hear from the idiots on the local news be "...but stick around to see how they won the gold!" Of course, the really stupid thing was that CBS was showing it tape-delayed in the first place, but did they really need to undermine their own coverage by giving away the results at the end of the newscast immediately preceding it?
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
[/q]
How about tuning in to your local CBS station at 6:58am for the 7:00 tape-delayed broadcast of the 1998 Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medal Game, only to have the first thing you hear from the idiots on the local news be "...but stick around to see how they won the gold!" Of course, the really stupid thing was that CBS was showing it tape-delayed in the first place, but did they really need to undermine their own coverage by giving away the results at the end of the newscast immediately preceding it?
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: December 03, 2005 11:24AM
[Q]
How about tuning in to your local CBS station[/q]
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle
How about tuning in to your local CBS station[/q]
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: Rita (---.resnet.purdue.edu)
Date: December 03, 2005 12:16PM
when you go to the cornell site to get the link for an archived game the score is posted next to the link. thus the outcome is already known... unless you have a personal valet to do your "point and clicking" for you so that you don't have download the file.....
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.rgv.res.rr.com)
Date: December 03, 2005 12:36PM
[Q]krose Wrote:
How about tuning in to your local CBS station[/Q]
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle[/q]
Nagano 1998 was CBS. NBC's exclusive regime extended to winter as well as summer with Salt Lake 2002. (Which, I have to say, they did a better job with than usual, putting a lot of real sports coverage onto CNBC and MSNBC and leaving the fluff on NBC.)
CBS did an absolutely abysmal job in Nagano. That women's Gold Medal Game was chopped up and shown as filler during their regularly scheduled morning fluff show, which aired at 7am in all three timezones. Mountain and Pacific had no live coverage whatsoever, since the few things that were live in the Central and Eastern Time Zones were tape-delayed to fall into the standard timeslots out West.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2005 12:38PM by jtwcornell91.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: RichH (---.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Date: December 03, 2005 12:40PM
[Q]krose Wrote:
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle[/q]
I'm pretty sure that CBS had the Winter Games and NBC had the Summer Games through the '90's. Their broadcast logo was 3 mountain silouettes in a blue rectangle. Letterman sent his mom to "cover" at least one of them.
Some quick research confirms: [www.cbs.com]
[Q]February 1992 CBS broadcasts the first of three consecutive Winter Olympics from Albertville, France, with an estimated 184 million viewers tuning in. The 1992 Winter Games also mark the first time since 1973 that CBS is able to win ten consecutive nights in primetime. Tim McCarver and Paula Zahn co-host the primetime broadcasts of the XVI Olympic Winter Games.
February 1994 204 million viewers tune in to CBS Sports' coverage of the XVII Olympic Winter Games from Lillehammer, Norway, the most-watched Winter Games in history.
February 1998 CBS broadcasts the XVIII Winter Olympic Games from Nagano, Japan. The games attract 184 million viewers, making it the third most-watched event in television history at the time. The ladies figure skating between Tara Lipinski and Michele Kwan is one of the most-watched events in television history. Jim Nantz hosts CBS Sports' primetime coverage from a Buddhist Temple.[/Q]
I'm sure that NBC had the Summer Games in Barcelona in 1992, because that was their ill-fated "Triple Cast" year.
There's also plenty of 1998 CBS criticism still out there in the ether:
[www.washingtonpost.com]
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle[/q]
I'm pretty sure that CBS had the Winter Games and NBC had the Summer Games through the '90's. Their broadcast logo was 3 mountain silouettes in a blue rectangle. Letterman sent his mom to "cover" at least one of them.
Some quick research confirms: [www.cbs.com]
[Q]February 1992 CBS broadcasts the first of three consecutive Winter Olympics from Albertville, France, with an estimated 184 million viewers tuning in. The 1992 Winter Games also mark the first time since 1973 that CBS is able to win ten consecutive nights in primetime. Tim McCarver and Paula Zahn co-host the primetime broadcasts of the XVI Olympic Winter Games.
February 1994 204 million viewers tune in to CBS Sports' coverage of the XVII Olympic Winter Games from Lillehammer, Norway, the most-watched Winter Games in history.
February 1998 CBS broadcasts the XVIII Winter Olympic Games from Nagano, Japan. The games attract 184 million viewers, making it the third most-watched event in television history at the time. The ladies figure skating between Tara Lipinski and Michele Kwan is one of the most-watched events in television history. Jim Nantz hosts CBS Sports' primetime coverage from a Buddhist Temple.[/Q]
I'm sure that NBC had the Summer Games in Barcelona in 1992, because that was their ill-fated "Triple Cast" year.
There's also plenty of 1998 CBS criticism still out there in the ether:
[www.washingtonpost.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2005 12:45PM by RichH.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.rgv.res.rr.com)
Date: December 03, 2005 12:44PM
[Q]RichH Wrote:
Tim McCarver and Paula Zahn co-host the primetime broadcasts of the XVI Olympic Winter Games.[/q]
That alone shows why CBS should never be allowed to broadcast another Olympics.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.37.10.186.adsl.snet.net)
Date: December 03, 2005 12:52PM
[Q]Rita Wrote:
when you go to the cornell site to get the link for an archived game the score is posted next to the link. thus the outcome is already known... unless you have a personal valet to do your "point and clicking" for you so that you don't have download the file..... [/q]
Bookmark the all-access cornell schedule page. It doesn't have any scores so it's possible to watch the game after it happens without knowing the result.
I agree with ugarte though that the burden is on the person trying to avoid the score and watch the game later. Just don't go to USCHO, eLynah, CU athletics, or any other of the usual suspects where a result might be mentioned until you watch/listen to the game.
when you go to the cornell site to get the link for an archived game the score is posted next to the link. thus the outcome is already known... unless you have a personal valet to do your "point and clicking" for you so that you don't have download the file..... [/q]
Bookmark the all-access cornell schedule page. It doesn't have any scores so it's possible to watch the game after it happens without knowing the result.
I agree with ugarte though that the burden is on the person trying to avoid the score and watch the game later. Just don't go to USCHO, eLynah, CU athletics, or any other of the usual suspects where a result might be mentioned until you watch/listen to the game.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 03, 2005 01:18PM
I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But I just want to point out, for all the people here suggesting that someone planning on watching or listening to the game later avoid eLynah until after doing so, that the original poster was not talking about doing either of those things. The original poster wanted to be able to read through the game thread as his way of enjoying the game, with the suspense of not knowing the outcome.
Andy W.
Andy W.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: December 03, 2005 02:41PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
krose Wrote:
How about tuning in to your local CBS station[/Q]
Are you sure this wasn't NBC? I ask because I've been complaining about NBC's crappy Olympics coverage since they started their monopoly back with the 1988 Seoul games. Let's impugn the right network here.
Kyle[/Q]
Nagano 1998 was CBS. NBC's exclusive regime extended to winter as well as summer with Salt Lake 2002. (Which, I have to say, they did a better job with than usual, putting a lot of real sports coverage onto CNBC and MSNBC and leaving the fluff on NBC.)
CBS did an absolutely abysmal job in Nagano. That women's Gold Medal Game was chopped up and shown as filler during their regularly scheduled morning fluff show, which aired at 7am in all three timezones. Mountain and Pacific had no live coverage whatsoever, since the few things that were live in the Central and Eastern Time Zones were tape-delayed to fall into the standard timeslots out West.[/q]
To be fair, the Nagano games were pretty abysmal regardless of who covered them.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: December 03, 2005 03:15PM
You got it. I had never even thought about it until last night when I realized there were no scores. I don't have a very strong opinion either, even though it is my post. I just noticed that it was nice to be able to kind of let the game develop without knowing the outcome. To address anyone who wants to get a quick score, there are many places to do that, such as USCHO, INCH, cornellbigred, or gametracker. I realize these are not all perfect, but you can usually get information pretty quick from one of them.
Anyway, not a big issue, just a comment.
Chris H.
Anyway, not a big issue, just a comment.
Chris H.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: December 03, 2005 03:27PM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
[/q]
Once you discover Tivo allows you to watch an entire game in under 2 hours, you can't go back to watching the NFL live. This however, leads to the "don't mention the final" problem when the phone rings.
Thus, I now answer the phone on Sundays with "Don't say anything about the game, I'm watching it on tivo."
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
[/q]
Once you discover Tivo allows you to watch an entire game in under 2 hours, you can't go back to watching the NFL live. This however, leads to the "don't mention the final" problem when the phone rings.
Thus, I now answer the phone on Sundays with "Don't say anything about the game, I'm watching it on tivo."
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.rgv.res.rr.com)
Date: December 04, 2005 09:06AM
[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:
Bookmark the all-access cornell schedule page. [/q]
Like this:
[allaccess.cstv.com]
Bookmark the all-access cornell schedule page. [/q]
Like this:
[allaccess.cstv.com]
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 04, 2005 09:15AM
You've got a good point: Don't post the final score for those who want to replay the game through the eLynah thread.
If I started a game thread, I put the running/final score in because it's news you can use. Before your posting.
Maybe the ideal would be no score (in the subject line) for a day or so after the game, then the thread originator goes back and changes it from "Cornell - Quinnipiac game thread" to something like "@Cornell 2 - Quinnipiac 1 (game thread 12/3/05)" - someone searching later in the season might want to recall the game date, or if the thread refers to the home or away game. This would help find it faster. For those Type-A's who care.
If I started a game thread, I put the running/final score in because it's news you can use. Before your posting.
Maybe the ideal would be no score (in the subject line) for a day or so after the game, then the thread originator goes back and changes it from "Cornell - Quinnipiac game thread" to something like "@Cornell 2 - Quinnipiac 1 (game thread 12/3/05)" - someone searching later in the season might want to recall the game date, or if the thread refers to the home or away game. This would help find it faster. For those Type-A's who care.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: Rita (---.resnet.purdue.edu)
Date: December 04, 2005 09:29AM
Thank you!!!
I will now edit my bookmarks accordingly.
I will now edit my bookmarks accordingly.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 10:10AM
That sounds like a good compromise.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: mjh89 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 12:00PM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
I prefer when there is a thread captain that updates the first post with the score in the subject line and the boxscore in the message.[/q]
I agree with ugarte.
I prefer when there is a thread captain that updates the first post with the score in the subject line and the boxscore in the message.[/q]
I agree with ugarte.
Re: Posting Game Scores
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: December 05, 2005 03:09PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
ugarte Wrote:
I remember years ago, settling in to watch the tape-delayed version of a Wimbledon only to have the person with the remote "quickly" flip over to SportsCenter "for a second" just in time to see them flash the final score. (Ironically, there was no commentary while the graphic was on screen, so presumably it immediately followed an announcer saying "If you don't want to know the result, look away now."
How about tuning in to your local CBS station at 6:58am for the 7:00 tape-delayed broadcast of the 1998 Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medal Game, only to have the first thing you hear from the idiots on the local news be "...but stick around to see how they won the gold!" Of course, the really stupid thing was that CBS was showing it tape-delayed in the first place, but did they really need to undermine their own coverage by giving away the results at the end of the newscast immediately preceding it?[/q]
I can trump that. Had the same thing happen when I was watching the tape delay of the Miracle on Ice game in 1980. During the break between periods 2 & 3, local idiot newswoman announces US victory with details at 11.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.