Here comes installment one of a possible series: John tells you what to watch. This time, a game show I just discovered: Australia's Temptation, aired weeknightly on the Nine Network.
Temptation was aired in the States in the 1980s as $ale of the Century, but with multiple endgame changes, it didn't really hit its stride. In Australia, however, it flourished, at one point $ale was the longest running game show in Australia. It went off the air in 2001, to return in 2005 with a rebrand as Temptation. The full rules of the game can be found at Wikipedia.
Temptation combines my five tools of a good game show to near perfection:
1. Reading Your Opponent: In the case of a tie for the lead going into a Gift Shop, the first person to hit the button gets the prize. If you want the prize, you have to know when to make your move to the buzzer. Also, you have to be able to anticipate whether you'll be able to get the lead back if you take the score reducction.
2. Luck: The luck factor comes into play at the Fame Game board. Nothing breaks open a tight game going into Fast Money like a reveal of that $25 card.
3. Words/Vocabulary: The question writers like to put Sprint questions in like "How many 'F's' are in the word 'Professor'?" Being able to recognize instances of letters in words can net you a valuable $10 or more on any given show.
4. Straight Trivia: Obvious. With the exception of the vocabulary questions, the entire game is straight trivia. Know your general knowledge, and you'll win some games.
5. Nerves of Steel: This is where Temptation shines. The decision to come back or not, especially in the latter half of a champion's run, can be very dramatic. If the champ decides to come back and loses, all they're walking out with is the commemorative ballpoint pen.
Now, you might be asking, "John, how in the heck can I see a show on Channel Nine in flippin' AUSTRALIA?" Well, you could go to demonoid.com and download the torrents, but you shouldn't do that, because it's illegal.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
What's wrong with the NBA?
I can sum it up in two words.
Spurs. Pistons.
When I watch a game with either of these two, playing against teams that aren't named "Suns" or "Mavericks", I know I'm going to see a snorefest. Neither of them plays any sort of team offense, instead basing their game on the "Let one guy take the ball, and then everyone else run away" strategy. When I turn on an NBA game, I want to see something like the Suns-Clippers game I'm watching right now. High octane offense, where defensive success or offensive failure immediately turns into transition points on the other end.
Basketball, in its purest form, should be the one of the most aerobic team sports out there, second perhaps only to hockey. Unfortunately, when you get an isolation offense out there on the floor, the league transforms from the National Basketball Association to the National Standing Around Watching Association, or NSAWA for short. There are those that say defense wins championships, and I would be inclined to agree. However, when that stifling defense isn't complemented by a serviceable offense, the wins that follow aren't as legitimate, in my view.
I watch a lot of college basketball in addition to the NBA, and pardon my ESPN-induced ACC example, but with two good teams, say UNC and Duke, the score should end up in the 80s for both teams. Unfortunately, those that defend the play of the Spurs and Pistons believe that the Association should also see those type of numbers. This simply is not true, and I'd like to prove it mathematically.
The NBA plays a 48 minute game, while the NCAA plays for 40. This alone adds eight minutes of extra offensive possessions for teams to use to bring their scores up. This isn't it, though. The shot clock also goes from 35 to 24 upon entry to the big time, decreasing the amount of time that possessions can take by 11 seconds. Apply that logic to an entire game, and you get, well, a truckload of extra offensive possessions. There is absolutely NO REASON that an NCAA game should have as many points scored as an NBA game. None.
So how does the situation get rectified? This year may be the year it happens. Detroit is being challenged by the Cavaliers, a team that doesn't necessarily run the floor as much as Dallas or Phoenix, but they certainly have two-way stars in James, Ilgauskas, and Hughes. San Antonio is currently one game away from elimination at the hands of the Dallas Mavericks, who since Avery Johnson has taken over as head coach, have been the most balanced team in the game. If both of these teams go down, maybe their respective coaches will change their strategies and bring in some more transition play. If not, the NBA will go into the same funk the NHL has been in since the introduction of the Devils' right-wing trap in the mid '90s. If you recall, the NHL had to change not only the rules, but the dimensions of the rink to bring excitement back to the game. I'd hate to see the NBA have to go through rule changes to achieve the same goal, but if nothing happens, don't expect roundball to make another resurgence.
Spurs. Pistons.
When I watch a game with either of these two, playing against teams that aren't named "Suns" or "Mavericks", I know I'm going to see a snorefest. Neither of them plays any sort of team offense, instead basing their game on the "Let one guy take the ball, and then everyone else run away" strategy. When I turn on an NBA game, I want to see something like the Suns-Clippers game I'm watching right now. High octane offense, where defensive success or offensive failure immediately turns into transition points on the other end.
Basketball, in its purest form, should be the one of the most aerobic team sports out there, second perhaps only to hockey. Unfortunately, when you get an isolation offense out there on the floor, the league transforms from the National Basketball Association to the National Standing Around Watching Association, or NSAWA for short. There are those that say defense wins championships, and I would be inclined to agree. However, when that stifling defense isn't complemented by a serviceable offense, the wins that follow aren't as legitimate, in my view.
I watch a lot of college basketball in addition to the NBA, and pardon my ESPN-induced ACC example, but with two good teams, say UNC and Duke, the score should end up in the 80s for both teams. Unfortunately, those that defend the play of the Spurs and Pistons believe that the Association should also see those type of numbers. This simply is not true, and I'd like to prove it mathematically.
The NBA plays a 48 minute game, while the NCAA plays for 40. This alone adds eight minutes of extra offensive possessions for teams to use to bring their scores up. This isn't it, though. The shot clock also goes from 35 to 24 upon entry to the big time, decreasing the amount of time that possessions can take by 11 seconds. Apply that logic to an entire game, and you get, well, a truckload of extra offensive possessions. There is absolutely NO REASON that an NCAA game should have as many points scored as an NBA game. None.
So how does the situation get rectified? This year may be the year it happens. Detroit is being challenged by the Cavaliers, a team that doesn't necessarily run the floor as much as Dallas or Phoenix, but they certainly have two-way stars in James, Ilgauskas, and Hughes. San Antonio is currently one game away from elimination at the hands of the Dallas Mavericks, who since Avery Johnson has taken over as head coach, have been the most balanced team in the game. If both of these teams go down, maybe their respective coaches will change their strategies and bring in some more transition play. If not, the NBA will go into the same funk the NHL has been in since the introduction of the Devils' right-wing trap in the mid '90s. If you recall, the NHL had to change not only the rules, but the dimensions of the rink to bring excitement back to the game. I'd hate to see the NBA have to go through rule changes to achieve the same goal, but if nothing happens, don't expect roundball to make another resurgence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
