Olympics Pickings Sometimes Slim

Twenty-two years ago, something rather significant happened that changed the face — not to mention the pace — of the Winter Olympics.

Not surprisingly, television had its hands all over it.

Until Calgary 1988, the Winter Games were a tighter, smaller version of the Summer Olympics beast that would follow it several months later (both were held in the same year at that time). All of which made sense at the time, given that the winter version of the five-ring circus offers up about half the amount of sports.

But then, a television executive — I want to say the late Roone Arledge of ABC Sports, which was a major Olympic player at the time — decided adding a third weekend to the Winter Games was a bright idea, undoubtedly with the thought of bigger ratings in mind.

(don't kid yourself. Those numbers decide just about everything that happens in TV Land ... and exactly when you watch it).

Suddenly, the Winter Olympics occupied the same amount of days on the calendar as their summer counterpart. And given the television universe at the time, that seemed about right. It's not like anyone ever planned to devote massive amounts of airtime to the thing, did they?

Flash forward to Vancouver 2010, when the 500-channel universe is in full bloom and multi-platform conglomerates on both sides of the border (CTV/Rogers in Canada; NBC Universal in the U.S.) have great gobs of airtime to fill. Only one problem — the Winter Games haven't exactly kept up over the years in terms of volume.

Toss in weather postponements and delays (inevitable at the Winter Olympics, it seems) and you get situations like this. For a couple hours early this afternoon, your viewing choices for live action were men's curling and ... that's it. Sure, Canada-Norway was a tight extra-ender, but the Olympics are all about bouncing from one sport to the next.

And that's the rub about the length of the Winter Games in this day and age. There simply isn't enough action at times to fill all those hours on all those channels, meaning excessive room for features, repeats and the like. Which sometimes give you the sense you've seen it all before.

Not that anyone saw this coming 22 years ago.
Yes, things have changed. But who says bigger is always better?