AWFUL TRACK & FIELD TV COVERGAGE

Great story, Glenn. The breathless post-sprint interview is the most worthless piece of sports coverage in existence. I love watching track in person but hate watching it on television for all the above mentioned reasons.

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the USAT&F to try and influence broadcasting and sponsership of our sport? If we see something wrong then through our organization we should be able to start making changes, i.e. push for a running channel or try to get OLN to start picking up more coverage. I will say this, it is nice to see that more track meets are getting picked up for tv air time. However, I do agree that the coverage is awful and is actually better when muted. Maybe the USAT&F could start pushing for a running channel in which we could get coverage of races and training tips. If it works for golf and now the NBA has a channel, it could work for running. Imagine live coverage of NCAA XC Nationals with no commercials. A 10k covered from start to finish. Being able to watch the LJ or PV in the 10 minutes between 100 finals.

Maybe as indivduals we could all write the USAT&F and say we want to make a change and we will be willing to help in do it. Sitting around and writting posts on boards does not initiate change, it just makes one feel better. Does anyone have some names and addresses of who we can start writing too?

Don't write USATF. All they control is the broadcast rights and people aren't banging down the door for this product. Your comments should be directed to ESPN lamenting the quality of the coverage or towards OLN or others expressing interest in T&F broadcasts. Ultimately, the networks control the quality of the programming.

I saw the meet live at the stadium then watched my tape at home. The difference was night and day. It's sad. A meet that featured some tough performances in less than ideal conditions was reduced to a very dull hour-long human interest show.

I think the best Track and Field coverage ever, was the 2000 Olympic Trials,, PAX TV covered every lap of ever race, i can only hope that they will be doing the same thing again in 2004, I still have video tapes of the races, just watched the steeplechase last night!

Glenn you definitely hit the nail on the head. And since you have been involved in the television coverage of running events, I do hope you send your thoughts onto ESPN and ABC Sports. Maybe they'll listen to someone on the inside. My attempts have certainly fallen on deaf ears.

I have sent e-mails to all three major television networks at various times expressing my disappointment in their coverage, or lack of coverage of running. I have never once received a reply. I even had a chance meeting with a market researcher for NBC after the Sydney Olympics and was very straight forward with him. "I am part of your target demographic, my friends here (non-athlets) are part of your target demographic, and we all agree that you're coverage of every sport in Sydney was lousy. We want to see the competitions, not a rehash of the same up close interviews 50 times over." He just said that the research showed that we were in the minority and women in there 20's and 30's wanted to see the personal stuff.

Earlier this year when NCAAs and the world championships were occurring on the same weekend and NBC showed curling, I gave up. Maybe hearing it from some involved on both ends will wake them up.

Is there someone who can get Bill Cosby interested and involved?

The nail has been hit squarely on the head about what drives this crap. The networks spend countless thousands of $$$ on market research and have to justify it. Writing them a few emails is like swimming against a tidal surge in the Columbia River. The research does show that the demo they want to reach prefer human interest, touchy-feeling and up-close-and-personal. This same demographic spends many more discretionary dollars on advertised products than do we runners and track fans. This horrible track coverage is an unfortunate sidebar of the majority culture in this country.

Every sport loses something in the transition from live action to TV -- it's just that T&F does a piss-poor job of handling that transition. Look to other sports coverage for help...

Golf -- Following just one golfer would be absolutely unbearable, so golf broadcasts use a combination of live and taped action to cover the entire tournament, always showing action. Couldn't T&F bounce from sprints to field to taped coverage? The first 8 minutes of Oregon showed exactly 12 seconds of action. Couldn't they have filled some of that time with field or taped 3K?

Baseball -- Really, not a ton of action but KNOWLEDGABLE and ENTHUSIASTIC announcers make it bearable. When a batter steps up to the plate, the announcers know the batters' options, what he has to do, and what the pitcher is attempting to do. The viewer gains knowledge and becomes invested. If he gets a hit, the announcer conveys his excitement. Make listening enjoyable and for god's sake GET THE ATHLETES' NAMES CORRECT!

Car Racing -- Couldn't watch it but millions do. Why? They talk strategy and the races within the race. If the camera was trained only on the lead car and showed nothing else of the race (possible wreck -- yeah!) I'd imagine viewership would drop. And, car racing gets plenty of coverage because the broadcasts give good visibility to the boatload of sponsors.

Sprints are about pure power, distances about strategy. For that reason, I find sprints not very interesting (my own opinion). Why give 3/4 of coverage to sprints and 1/4 to distances? Embrace both for their unique attributes, provide equal coverage, and make the viewer understand the differences.

Ban the subject of "Kenyan dominance" from all coverage!!!! Yeah, for a few years Kenyans got a jump on the rest of the world, but things seem to be equaling out again. I reallly can't stomach the "What makes the Kenyans so good?" question one more time.

For heaven's sake, at least know the local or US athletes! A true crime at Boston that Eddy H. is hanging at the back of the lead pack at 16 and the announcers don't know it. Why spend 30 minutes trying to fill time during a run-away win when they could make things more interesting by following the master's race, American race, etc.? Give us someone else to follow.

Finally, ban Carol Lewis!

Glenn!

How are you my friend? Didn't know you watched these boards.

Just my $.02. I have been very disappointed with coverage of the Chicago Marathon in the past and most other race coverage as well. Some of it has been just atrocious. Glad to see your involvement behind the scenes in Chicago and the improvement recently. I hope to see it continue.

Tim Hutchings has been a great addition to that Chicago team. I think he's been under used in the past and I hope to see him more & more there.

Can you figure who this is Glenn? Say hi to Luz for us. Can't wait to see you both at Steamboat!

patio

I think that if something is going to happen OLN is the place. ESPN seems to have done what they're going to do as far as track and field - and it's poor. OLN isn't going to do anything proactively, but I have a feeling that a well-conceived, well-produced, and well-marketed approach to athletics might be entertained there. Then, if the program is successful, one might successfully market it to the big boys.

The overwhelming feeling I get from this thread is that people want the network to change what they're doing and come up with something new. I would suggest coming up with something new and then marketing to the networks. It is not appropriate to compare T&F to any of the major sports - not yet anyway.

It isn't golf - company's can't use coverage to market $500 drivers, etc.

It isn't Nascar - Eddy's trying to look like a stock car, but sponsors will follow an improvement in coverage for the most part.

A niche that I do think compares favorable is Bass Fishing. There are tons of shows, and some get network support, but they are still "presenter conceived" shows that have been picked up - not network concepts that sought out talent. Granted they spend a lot of time selling boats and tackle, but there is probably more of a correlation there than with the "major" sports.

Some things that I think might help:

1. More human interest stuff - BEFORE, NOT DURING the competition. A lot of these athletes have stories worth following, but not at the expense of watching them race.

2. Better coverage of road racing - including more background on the competitors. Maybe something that follows one or two athletes, even Kenyans, for a full summer season. Maybe a reality show in the works - follow James Koskei, Shadrack Kosgei, Christian Hesch, or whomever all summer long - including during the week. Create some rivalries.

3. Live coverage that actually shows the whole meet. Most people who tuned in on Saturday probably don't even know that there was a men's 3000 and women's 5000 - much less what great races they were. This also convinces the public that these races are "also rans." Schedule a program for slightly longer than it will take instead of way too short.

4. Real races - these time trials are stupid, especially time trials that aren't record attempts. Joe public doesn't know what a "qualifying mark" means, but he knows that it's fun to watch 12 guys kill each other in the last lap. The 1500m was totally about watching Lagat run behind Kiptoo. At least create the illusion of a competition. Sully's kick was great, but it caught everyone -even the commentators - by such surprise that it wasn't at all predicted and got little mention. Their notes probably only mentioned Lagat. (Anyone else notice that he seems to be treated as though he's an American? Is something happening before Sydney?)

5. Informed FULL-TIME commentators. Bringing in people with day jobs to give voice to the sport is lame. Granted there are few sportscasters who are super knowledgeable about athletics, but there are full time sport people who could really contribute. I enjoy Reavis and Eyestone, but neither has the time to devote to being fully informed. And what's wrong with foreigners? Track and Field is one of the most international of sports, but our broadcast booths are occupied by people who struggle to explain foreign culture and communicate with foreign athletes.

I'll stop here for now, and no, I'm not in a position to implement any of the changes I've proposed, but I promise to tune in and to encourage others to do likewise.

mzungu

mzungu wrote:

1. More human interest stuff - BEFORE, NOT DURING the competition. A lot of these athletes have stories worth following, but not at the expense of watching them race.

mzungu

I don't want more human interest stuff ANY time during the broadcast. See the stat eariler? In an hour long broadcast, they showed only about 8 minutes of actual track action. If you want human interest, watch Oprah. Let's make track broadcasts about, well, track.

unfortunately, that won't help increase interest in the sport. in all other sports there is team loyalty (or competitor loyalty in golf and nascar) - you watch mostly the same peope game after game, year after year. in track it can vary greatly from meet to meet. i'm not talking human interest in the Oprah sense - but a little, maybe 15 minutes, of who's who might help. i agree in that i tune in to watch races, and i've already got the background from following the sport.

we need to think about how to make broadcasts more appealing to diehard fans and potential fans alike. like a preacher who needs a sermon that's appealing to the sinners yet relavent to the saints.

There is(or was?!?!?!?)actually something in the works

to have live webcast coverage of ALL Golden Spike Meets.

Would have been EVERY LAP OF EVERY RACE.

Similar to USATF Indoors from Boston and BIG EAST coverage.

USATF walked away from it.

mzungu wrote:

unfortunately, that won't help increase interest in the sport. in all other sports there is team loyalty (or competitor loyalty in golf and nascar) - you watch mostly the same peope game after game, year after year. in track it can vary greatly from meet to meet. i'm not talking human interest in the Oprah sense - but a little, maybe 15 minutes, of who's who might help. i agree in that i tune in to watch races, and i've already got the background from following the sport.

we need to think about how to make broadcasts more appealing to diehard fans and potential fans alike. like a preacher who needs a sermon that's appealing to the sinners yet relavent to the saints.

Good points. Certainly, they are trying to appeal to the masses with lots of feel good stories on the athletes. Well, the masses are still not tuning in. They are, however, managing to chase off the hard core fans (us) who can't stand the manner in which the sport is being covered.

Does anybody remember the 1-800-GET-TRACK and Vic Colcheck (I believe that was his name, sorry for the spelling), where you called up and he had a taped message of the track races from Europe. A great idea prior to the dawn of the internet. He would get my vote for a commentator of T&F because he was very knowlegeable and had an entertaining voice. Commentators should be heard not seen.

ttc wrote:

The mid-distance and distance fans outnumber the sprint fans by joking proportions. If WE cannot become sprint fans, how will the mainstream people become sprint fans?

This is completely incorrect. True of this board but not of the average American. If everyone on this board watched every track meet that is televised it would barely register a blip in the ratings. Don't use this board or other running board as a barometer for who watches track and field in this country. Most of the people who do watch track and field are not hardcore fans like ourselves.

I am one of dozens of my friends who have made a past-time of mocking carol lewis and larry rawson during meet coverage. I think we all agree that the coverage is awful, but how about some suggestions that might make it better? I have a few:

1.Change the commentators. I have spent time in europe and watched both the tour de france and track, and a little cross country, on tv there, mostly Eurosport coverage. The commentators are actually witty, and assume that the viewer actually has an I.Q. greater than -2. They use phrases such as, "...and el gerrouj is administering a wicked spanking to the field!" or "...that was a magnificent move-the tactics are beginning to play out in these closing stages!" No dumbing down the sport. It's funny that there are(according to USATF numbers) over 30 million runners in this country, and that is not a big enough demographic to target. For an example from a well-marketed and produced tv sport, the X Games, do you ever hear them saying: "Imagine going out to your local half-pipe, strapping a three foot length of plywood to your feet, and trying to spin around in the air two times," to explain what it feels like to do a "flipside 720". The stunt speaks for itself. Nor do they have someone saying, "that skater punk was concentrating on going up the ramp, and landing on the other side, really hard!"

2.Limit the amount of pre-sprint jabbering. That is, cue up the cameras when the competitors are actually in the blocks. The race is ten or eleven seconds long, for pete's sake. you don't have to devote 15 minutes analyzing it.

3. Use the technology that football does; put a yellow line, or a little bunny rabbit, out ahead of the runners that signifies world record, or american record pace. Give people an idea that they are actually racing history.

4. When you post the results, show how much each competitor won in cash prize money. They do that for every other sport.

5. Totally replace the way they show field events. When you are showing the shot put(which has been one of the most entertaining events lately), put up the leading distance on the television, and another little "first down" line where the leader is on the sector, and make us see that this is actually a competition. The closest thing I can think of here is the world's strongest man competition, which always has a "time to beat," or "number of kegs to beat," stat in the corner. And show these big, intense men pacing around, getting fired up, yelling, screaming, before they step in the ring. There's no suspense, no drama the way they show it now.

6. Fire the ESPN production crew and put Glenn Latimer in charge, since he actually knows what he is doing, and reads LetsRun.

Thats it. Any feedback?

The guy with the phone-in track results was Vic Holchak, and he was terrific.

The sport of lacrosse deals with many of the same things concerning TV coverage that we do, except the sport was only common to the north-eastern USA a decade ago. Like T&F, it is a great sport that deserves national attention and much TV coverage yet gets very little. Unlike T&F, however, the Division I&III (which are fairly equal in ability, unlike most sports) tournaments are shown in full on TV. I love watching it every year, and I only played lacrosse from the 4th-8th grade.

How can a legitimate sport that so few people knew about a decade ago now have incredible *live* coverage of it's tournements on TV? Well, I don't know the answer, but I'm sure someone does, and once we know that I think our problems could be solved.

I'm sick and tired of watching lacrosse on TV and pondering what kind of player I could have been if I never quit. I left a great sport for an even greater one, yet network TV does not seem to think so.