NoodleFood: NFL in the RedZone


A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed \| via E-mail \| Recent Comments \| Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) \| via Feed Reader \| via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish \| PhiloFiles \| Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists \| FIRM \| FRO \| Secular Government

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

NFL in the RedZone

By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
I've become a major fan of the NFL's new "RedZone" channel this season. The basic idea of the channel is that it switches between the most exciting portions of all the games playing on Sunday mornings and afternoons, without any commercials. So unless I want to watch a full game -- which I'll do for Indy and other notable games -- I'll just watch the best of all the games via the RedZone channel.

A recent Sports Illustrated column sang the praises of the channel. It even reported on the best description I've seen yet: "as if God was holding the remote control." That seems apt to me, as I often say that I worship at the Church of the NFL on Sundays! That NFL God is Scott Hanson. Here's a bit on him from the article:
"You get a bucketful of 100-percent concentrated football awesomeness," says Scott Hanson, the studio host who deftly sets the scene each time RedZone switches games. Hanson's enthusiasm seems boundless, even though inmates at Leavenworth have a cushier setup: During his seven hours on the air he gets only a two-minute bathroom break and, if he's lucky, a bite or two of a sandwich.
I like Hanson's style as a host. He's very smooth, easily able to handle the swapping between games. Plus, he's relentlessly focused on the football. I've heard him cut away from a game just after a touchdown, where the camera was focused on the scoring player's end zone dance, saying something like "Okay, enough of that" with just the perfect touch of exasperation.

Oh, and need I mention that I was not happy with Jim Caldwell's controversial decision to rest starters in the Jets game on Sunday? Probably not: it goes without saying. Granted, I was disappointed, but wowee, Peyton looked downright irate. He kept his helmet on while pacing the sidelines for quite some time. Normally, he's on the bench reviewing plays with a baseball cap on. (Yes, I'm totally appalled that I'm such a football fanatic that I know that.) Of course, Peyton was gracious in the post-game press conference.

Of course, any and all disappointment will be forgotten if the Colts win the Superbowl!
Labels: Sports

Share |

E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page)

Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail

Comments

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 8:27:15 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bildanielson(at)yahoo.com
Diana, I would say that perhaps the best 2 minutes in sports commentary (ever) occurred on November 1st this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22E23UfqLfs

Always a Favre fan...(as an Eau Claire kid, it is sooo hard to root for him in purple however..)!

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 9:29:26 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Sam
Yuck. The Red Zone channel is like relegating your sex life exclusively to the act of stepping out of the shower and asking your spouse to hold still for a few moments while you use him/her to finish.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 10:38:09 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
What is your view of the larger impact of the pull-the-starter decision? The game didn't mean anything to the Colts, apart from possibly competing for a perfect season. That said, it had playoff implications for the Jets, who now control their own destiny for one of the two wild card slots. Is the integrity of the game diminished somewhat because the Colts' coach basically conceded the game? On the other hand, let's say the game was meaningless for both teams. Would it make a difference? Is the Colts' coach right to rest his starters, preferring a loss in a meaningless 15th game as opposed to the playoffs?

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 11:15:21 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Brian Fritts
I was at the Colts game on Sunday, and the fan and player reaction was very strong. While I do think the Colts had the right to not play their starters, I think the better decision would be to rest injured players only. I think you have to maintain the "killer instinct".

I do not believe the Colts had any duty to play their starters, but I do question the strategy. As for other potential playoff teams, if they had won the required games earlier in the season, they wouldn't have to worry about the Colts decision to play their starters.

I'm more upset with what looked to be inadequate communication between the coaching staff and the starters. Peyton Manning should have been told the plans regarding playing time up front. Judging from his expression, he was taken by surprise.

There was also a strong reaction on the Bill Polian show here locally. Polian is the Colts GM and has a local radio show. Fans were downright irate.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 16:31:55 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
Red Zone Channel is the best thing to happen to football broadcasting since the "bug" showing the score and current game status continuously.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 21:00:57 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com
No regular season game, no matter if the team in question has already clinched a playoff spot or even the top seed, is meaningless or "doesn't count." If that were true, then there would be no debate about whether the Colts coach should have pulled Manning and his other starters in the game the other day.

While it’s true that you should always play to win the game, this goal is subordinate to the fact that you primarily play for the top prize, the championship, the Super Bowl.
And if a coach deems that that goal requires giving his team less than its best chance to win, as the Colts coach did when he pulled the incomparable Manning for an inexperienced quarterback, then so be it. Even though you’ve greatly diminished your chance to win the game, you still give all your effort to win it.

This is recognition of the fact that not all games are of equal weight, that in certain (winning) circumstances, it’s not necessary to give all your effort in each and every game. You play to win, yes, but not at the price of jeopardizing the ultimate goal: a championship.

Some coaches allow their starters play throughout the season, no matter the circumstance, as the Patriots did two seasons ago when they had an unbeaten record and were chasing perfection. The Colts had that chance, too, this season, but unlike the 2007 Patriots they are opting not to pursue a perfect season. Instead, they are focusing on doing what they believe they need to do, and that is to win a championship. The Patriots had that goal to, and they played all their starters the whole year, and none got hurt�"and then they lost in the Super Bowl to the Giants. Some members of that team, such as Rodney Harrison, said that the pressure of going undefeated definitely got to them.

What one sports radio personality here in New York said is that the teams that pursue perfection are pursuing immortality. Everyone who knows the game well knows that only one team has had a perfect season and went on to win the Super Bowl: the 1972 Miami Dolphins. They are an immortal team because of that record. And that is what teams like the 2007 Patriots were pursuing. But, remember, the goal is not to win immortality �" that is, recognition in the eyes of others �" but the satisfaction and pride of winning a championship, first and foremost. All else, including immortality, should be subordinate to this goal.

Ultimately, the goal is to win a championship, and sometimes within the context of a season that does not necessarily mean that you have to try your best or give your team its best chance to win every game. You should always play to win the game, but that doesn't mean that you have to give yourself the best chance to win every game, if doing so (i.e. keeping your irreplaceable players in the game) may jeopardize the top goal: winning a championship.

The mantra shouldn’t be: you play to win the game�"because a single game is just a stepping stone among others toward the ultimate stone, the Super Bowl. You play to win a championship, and everything else must be subordinate to that goal.

Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 16:34:08 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
There's a Super Bowl winner every year. There hasn't been a 19-0 team in my lifetime. I say go all out for the win -- that is, in fact, what the Giants did the year they BEAT the Patriots on the tray in Glendale. The Giants had nothing to play for in their Week 17 game against New England, but they played all out. That mentality carried over to the Super Bowl win and a victorious rematch.

Post Your Comment

Name or Handle:

E-mail:

URL:

Remember Me

Comment:

No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links.
Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome.
The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays.
To weed out spammers: 6 plus 9 equals 2309921961914746517