Tennis anyone?

I just got done watching a decent Wimbledon semi-finals match. The Battle of the Andy's pitted #6 seed Roddick against #3 seed Murray. Maybe I'm being a homer and maybe I just like guys who can sport the "A-Rod" nick, but I really like our Andy's chances against Federer in the finals. He's spent the last couple weeks (and pretty much all of 2009) playing amazing tennis while Fed has been acting in NetJets ads. This is one of the few tournaments since his stint at world #1 and only grand slam title in 2003 where I've seen him play with almost no holes in his game. His first serve percentage is over 70 and his speed and positioning for shots all over the court could earn him his first ever title at Wimbledon. I could go on and on talking about how if ever there was a time for Andy to beat Roger in a slam, this is it...

...but instead I really have to rant about the absolute disappointment in sports coverage NBC is providing. The problem facing NBC in covering Wimbledon is, as with any other overseas sporting event, the time difference. The second semi-final match of the day at the All-England Club (or whatever) started around 3pm local time. This means, in order for NBC to show it live, they would've had to cut out of the oh-so-popular midday hours of the Today show and lose all of those viewers. Maybe Kathy Lee Gifford has some clause in her contract that overrides showing anything good instead of her (probably for job security), but they've gone to Wimbledon coverage at 10am every other day this week. So what gives?

The real problem has to be that some dumb executive somewhere looked at the calendar and thought, "Oh, July 3rd. I bet a lot of people are getting out of work early to enjoy the holiday weekend. They are all going to come home after being shut off from any outside media at and on the way home from work and rush immediately to the couch and turn on NBC. Why not show Roddick-Murray then?" Then he/she proceeds to pitch this huge ratings boom to advertisers who normally laugh at paying for space during anything but a grand slam final, and it's done.

Come to find out, though, this strange piece of technology has been invented called "the Internet." What's more? People have it at home, work, and even on their cell phones now. Let's say a Wimbledon semi-final can normally bring in 20% of television viewers when it's up against soap operas and, my personal favorite, Maury. Because it's popularity is hit or miss among your average sports watcher and the casual fan may not be swayed to miss Dr. Phil and Opera. 75% of your 20% audience, therefore, are most likely above-average tennis fans or more. The other 25% are either watching it because they don't get other channels or because it's not worth looking for the remote to change. Do you think even the moderate tennis fan would not, oh I don't know, check the score online or even look at the freaking news? Do you think they are going to be glued to their TVs when they already know the results? All of a sudden, while trying to boom viewership from 20% to 30% by showing at a more optimal hour (on delay), you've lost 15% viewership because we already know what freaking happened!

NBC is just lucky I'm too lazy to pick up the remote. This is probably the worst sports coverage I've seen since VS ruined the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but at least they are only basic cable. Pick it up peacocks.