Post of Control for Blogging in India

What’s in a name? Quite a lot.

Names matter. There’s a reason a certain Feroze changed his last name to Gandhi. Names are a crucial part of branding things, whether they be cars, hairdresser, politicians or actors. (Yusuf Khan  is another case in point).

So, one should be able to see the clear intent behind naming the the body responsible for cricket in India. How come nobody ever wonders why it is called the Board of Control for Cricket in India. With a name like that, it sounds as though Cricket has run amok in India and needs to be restrained by a bunch of wise old men (which if you’ll note, is the PRECISE attitude the BCCI takes towards cricket). Was “The Indian Cricket Board” too much of a stretch of imagination? I don’t advocate going all flashy and copying Cricket Australia, but really, is being called The Indian Cricket Board a big deal?

One possible objection of course, is that so what if the name changes? Agarkar will still concede an average of 22 runs an over.

My response to that is no, he won’t. Names matter. When you call yourself the Board of Control, then that’s what you want to do. You want to control cricket. You don’t to do anything for its improvement, or benefit. You just want to control it.

Why?

(of course, being an FMF*, I will again say this is because of the effects of 50 years of Indian Socialism). It is a parochial mindset.

Compare ICL (Indian Cricket League) with BCCI. The name sounds much better (and has already managed to shake things up, at least as far as players’ earnings go), and this plays subconciously on everyone who is associated with it.

As has been reiterated many times before, India is still only partially free. There is a long way to go before India makes the shift from a “Freedom from ___” attitude to a “Freedom to ____” attitude.

*FMF = Free Market Fundamentalist, a term frequently used by the JagadGuru

Wanted: Noodle Straps in the Ether

Why don’t private FM stations broadcast live cricket matches?

Does anybody have the answer to this? It’s probably just a stupid government regulation, but can anyone confirm this? The same goes for news broadcasts. Why is private TV news allowed, but not private radio news?

Of course, being the Free Market Fundamentalist that I am, I will say it is because Radio is more accessible than TV. Therefore, it means the government will have less control over the populace if any old fool can broadcast news. Well deplorable as that is, it is still understandable.

But what of Cricket broadcasts? I am sure the BCCI would lurve to sell more rights to competing bidders if it could. It must not be allowed to. What justification is given for not allowing cricket broadcasts? Doesn’t make any sense to me. AIR broadcasts them, so it can’t be because “it may cause public disturbance”. Of course, one could argue that the matches help keep AIR in business, but that also seems unlikely, because the FM radio stations and AIR don’t cater to the same audience, and therefore, would not get the same sponsorship.  The sponsorship for just one match would probably be enough to make any private FM station’s day.

Broadcasting cricket and news on the pvt channels can only be good for radio. Besides, I want to fantasize about noodle straps during my commute….