lack of interest in distance running matters to us for several reasons. first, we care about it and it is upsetting that no one else does. second, the fact that others don't care, and that nbc has exclusive rights, means that we can't see the highest competition of our sport live or in its entirety or at a decent hour. third, the lack of interest decreases the general public's respect for the very, very hard sport that we do. fourth, the lack of interest decreases sponsorships for us.
I have two words for you:
BOW
RING
When distance runners sit in the back and wait for something that is supposed to happen, it is soooooo BOW-RING!
Ethiopian distance running is exciting and spectators go CRAZY at every meet.
America will one day produce some extremely naive little kid that will take the lead, sprint in the middle, shake everybody up a little, and then distance running will once again become a great spectator sport.
We just have to wait for someone with HEART.
Well, why do you care about it and nobody else does?
The main point is that track and field is not shown LIVE. If NBC thought nobody cared, they would just show it live on some obscure channel.
I will be up at 2:30 am sunday to watch the U.S. Basketball team. For those not as interested, they will replay it later in the morning. That is all we wanted with T&F.
correct - its boring.
Ever watched a grandmaster level chess match? How long before you lose interest? You have to REALLY know chess to care about all the details. The same applies to distance running.
Gerry wrote:
I have two words for you:
BOW
RING
When distance runners sit in the back and wait for something that is supposed to happen, it is soooooo BOW-RING!
Ethiopian distance running is exciting and spectators go CRAZY at every meet.
America will one day produce some extremely naive little kid that will take the lead, sprint in the middle, shake everybody up a little, and then distance running will once again become a great spectator sport.
We just have to wait for someone with HEART.
This is right on. Distance racing is not inherently boring, but today's races are set up to be boring. Competition has been de-emphasized and taken a back seat to running "X" time on the track. Races that focus on time-trialing are boring as hell. And rabbited races are the worst. Rabbits typically go out too hard, run huge positive splits, and string out the pack from the gun lap so no competition develops.
Want to make track interesting? Re-empahsize competition. Get rid of pace groups on the track shooting for a time standard. And get rid of rabbits! Get our athletes to race! More people will watch and our runners will do better overseas.
You were not given what you wanted? Did you want something from a site dedicated only to distance running? NBC covers about 100 sports - sport.
DaveW wrote:
Did you want something from a site dedicated only to distance running? NBC covers about 100 sports - sport.
Yes, that is exactly what I wanted. Track and Field, a sport barely alive. Gentleman, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. It's called the internet. Go to NBC, click on sport you are interested in, watch all live as it happens. They could do this with a thousand sports. They are all being filmed anyway. They already did it with basketball.
I noticed people got WAY more into my high school races than the college ones. NCAA sucks ass, the only way to qualify is on time. I was always on the cusp of qualifying for the regionals or nationals meets, and I could consistently beat people when racing against them that were getting in while I wasn't... yet because I was at a program that raced more and worried less about times (believe me there aren't many left) I could never get that f***ing qualifier.
Oh yeah and no one cared about the college races. I went to Mt. Sac and by the time all the sprinters were done, everyone left the stadium. The only ONE meet I ever ran in that was remotely exciting and had the crowd going was the Prefontaine Classic (And this was not even w/ college, this was w/ club, and I was in a heat that wasn't that good anyway, but at least people were there for a change)
There's no motivation to race each other in college minus the national meet, because everything is about time.
all this talk about sitting around for 30 min. watching a race is a moot point for two reasons. With respect to the comparison to swimming, they showed the 1500m swim in its entirety with an American who wasn't a medal contender. The only compelling story was an Australian no one's heard of attempting to three-peat in the event. You don't see the swimmer's faces and barely even know who's who yet somehow they manage to produce an engaging product. Two, there's no reason they have to show the entire race. They can simply cut to the race with 1600m or 2000m (easy determine with the 24+hr tape delay), bring everyone up to speed and show the exciting part.... not that hard.
What I don't understand is replacing track and field with skinny prepubescent guys doing somersaults off a platform. Honestly, I can count multiple times that they've chosen to broadcast diving in favor of diving. I just can't fathom that there are more fans of diving than running?!?!?!
I was watching 1500 W heats last night and was totally jazzed by the competition. Anything more than the 5k can be boring, or I can see why people might think that. But the 5k on down is just inherently exciting. You just have to have the right people involved. Ask the Brits who were watching track during the early-mid 1980s.
Gerry wrote:
I have two words for you:
BOW
RING
When distance runners sit in the back and wait for something that is supposed to happen, it is soooooo BOW-RING!
Ethiopian distance running is exciting and spectators go CRAZY at every meet.
America will one day produce some extremely naive little kid that will take the lead, sprint in the middle, shake everybody up a little, and then distance running will once again become a great spectator sport.
We just have to wait for someone with HEART.
I have to agree. Right now Americans, especially white kids, are raised with the "can't" mentality in two many areas, more of this belief based in media b.s. than in actual fact. How long it will persist, who knows? Maybe Hall can be the "kid" this weekend.
goat man wrote:
I have a better question. Why do runners care if running is a popular spectator sport? We're runners. We do our training, run our races, hang out with our running buddies. How does the fact that non-runners don't care about the sport interfere with our enjoyment of it?
Running isn't popular. So what? Why do any of us care?
$$
Don't you get just a little sad how comparatively easy it is to get sponsored in cycling or triathlons?
Anyway, cycling is boring too, but people watch it - and that has more to do with the success of one particular American than with anything else. But I don't really expect people to take up swimming after these Olympics (but then, swimming is hard and you can't get a lot better just by spending $$$)
Okay, after watching the marathon on Saturday night, I feel my original position has been validated. Because I'm a runner and a failed marathoner, I was impressed with the race, because I can appreciate how incredible a 2:06 is under those conditions. However, the non-runner doesn't have this perspective. To them, it was just a bunch of skinny Africans pouring water on themselves and blowing snot-rockets for over 2 hours.
I completely understand why they're not interested. If I weren't a runner, I wouldn't be, either. Unless you're a runner, running sucks as a spectator sport.
Mr. Bill, good observations. I'm not sure why track is popular around the world and not in the U.S., but the same can be said for soccer. There must be something different about us Americans. To support your contention, I was at a party last Sunday afternoon when the 10,000 was being broadcast. I sat glued to the TV, while none of the other 20 or so guests (non-runners) did more than take an occasional glimpse. Really, how interesting is it for most people to watch a bunch of guys run 25 laps around the track (especially with no Americans in the mix)?
A big part of the problem is the announcers. Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin can make a four hour telecast of any leg of the Tour de France exciting. They can cite an encyclopedia of interesting facts about a rider who makes a move and can cite the rider by name almost instantly.
Yes, we runners would likely be drawn to running events more than non-runners, but everyone can identify with running to some degree because everyone can run (some faster than others). Not everyone can identify with shot-put, wind-surfing, volleyball, or horse-jumping. The movie Chariots of Fire would not have been quite as popular if it was about Javeline throwers competing at the Olympics. Running is something everyone understands on some level (we would be on the nerd level).
I suppose as distance events go, watching a marathon is no more boring than watching a 3hr tennis match, 3-day Golf tournament, or distance swimming (watching the 10Km swim event that lasted almost 2-hrs was about as boring as it gets).
disagree whole-heartedly. i was at a party on wed, thurs, fri, and sat night with avg americans--hot rodders actually. they were talking about the olympics a lot, and we had it going on through out the night. several people watched the whole marathon broadcast with me.
sure, the talk of the night was the jamaican sprinters and "the kenyans" (any black distance runner is kenyan--ethiopian, moroccan, etc= kenyan). they loved it--the 800, the 5k, the marathon. people enjoy competition and while i was explaining what was going on, various strategies, they began to understand and enjoyed their time.
If golf can be televised, then distance running can be televised.
Nicholiovitch wrote:
If golf can be televised, then distance running can be televised.
Too true. In fact, if golf can be televised, then the networks should be covering growing grass and drying paint too. Golf is such a...such a...such...a...zzzzzzzzzzz.