FLOTRACK commentating ARE YOU SERIOUS?

There is nothing wrong with having an expectation of something better. I would bet that Mark would like to hear input. Maybe he already knows how shitty they do, maybe not. It is VERY bad commentating. With that being said, it is not easy to commentate during a slow 10k with a bunch of nobody runners trying to break 30 minutes or 36 in the case of the women. I still think they at least aspire to do a decent job.

The comment about a bunch of drunk frat boys commentating a flag football game was RIGHT ON!

The only thing I caught last night was in the women's 10,000 when Perez was running her 17th lap, they saw the clock at 22:05 and were like, 'yea thats 4 miles'. Guys, you know shes run 16 1/2 laps, can you do a little math? Also, she went out in 5:24 and then picked it up, so there was no way she was running 5:30+ pace.

I know, im nitpicking, but it just seemed like an easy error that you should be able to calculate in your head.

The better questions are:

1. Why are they even bothering to show races that go as slow as 30 and 36 minutes.

2. Why are you watching them?

Watching slow 10k races with, as the above poster put it, "a bunch of nobody runners" would seem horrible no matter what the quality of the commentary. Anyone who would sit around watching these races from home, except for maybe friends and family of the runners involved, probably needs to get a life.

Come on VIPAM. You're usually much more thoughtful than this. You've started some great threads, asked some great questions that have sparked good conversation and debate on here, and are more educated about most runners out there than the vast majority of the posters here. I constantly learn more about up and coming Ethiopians from your posts.

But this is just bad for you, man. Flotrack is the only site out there doing what they're doing. OK runnerspace is there, too, but they often just show races with no commentary, and they don't show half of what Flotrack does. The site is run by a bunch of fans, not sportscasters. You know what? I prefer it that way. At least these guys know the sport. Maybe the announcing is not that good, but do you remember how bad it used to be?! hahaha Go back and watch some vids from the first year. The fact of the matter is they are providing a service for free that none of the big media outlets want to touch. They are covering OUR sport. We should be thankful for that.

Now, if Penn Relays or Mt. SAC are paying Flotrack to be their media outlet, maybe there is some professional expectation to present the product in a certain way. But as mentioned, these are college 10000m races we're talking about here. Even Universal Sports (which is about the most mainstream media outlet T&F has) doesn't show entire 10000m races. Even if KB is in them.

Take Flotrack for what it is...a fan-run site. They're doing a pretty darn good job if you ask me.....

I love Flotrack! And touch football! And brorape!

The Stache wrote:

Come on VIPAM. You're usually much more thoughtful than this.

No he's not. He's in midseason form in posting his typical bs.

Lets take a second to think about what goes on at an event Flotrack is at compared to a major broadcaster outlet.

Do you think that Larry Rawlson did research for all the athletes in every event they covered? The answer is no. Some intern did that research and then he was handed the papers before the telecast.

Second, major broadcasts have separate cameramen. Splits aren't required because their is a clock. Also, the commentators don't get in criticized for cutting away from key athletes or not showing all of the athletes because that's a network choice. The live feed is dealt with by techs, etc So, at an broadcasted event you have 50 if not more people working to make that broadcast somewhat smooth.

Now take a Flotrack event.

The 4 guys that are there are trying to interview post race, commentate, read heat sheets, do research, take splits, upload video. All the while not being paid. You believe for one minute that this is easy? Okay you may still have a point on the nature of the commentating being bad. Go back and watch during the invite 5k or the Puma Mile. I guarantee you the commentating will be lights out better. You just have to critically think and put yourself in their shoes. Never bite the hand that feeds you. I will say that I'm sure Flotrack appreciates the input. They also might appreciate a little understanding. I'm a fan of Flotrack and always have been. I love what they do and couldn't follow Track and Field, Cross Country without them. I hope they do get better and become more of a mainstay but that's going to require them to be able to employ people.

I would venture to say as is they are doing some of the best work they can.

jp is engaged wrote: If your not

How bout, you're not very bright.

You suck at writing.

Critical Thinking wrote:

Now take a Flotrack event.

The 4 guys that are there are trying to interview post race, commentate, read heat sheets, do research, take splits, upload video. All the while not being paid.

The Flotrack people get paid. Ryan Fenton and crew. It's their job. They are trying to sell the company to investors.

The people who don't get paid, are people who upload videos for free to them. They could easily upload them to youtube, but they choose to do it to flotrack.

I'm a fan of Flotrack and always have been. I love what they do and couldn't follow Track and Field, Cross Country without them.

That is not true. Flotrack uses livestream.com, a free service to stream the meets. Any meet can do this. The technology is not flotrack's. All a meet needs to do is have someone hook up a camera and hook it up to livestream.

Considering most the people on this forum think that FloTrack is better at commentary than most TV productions this is probably a bad place to try to argue this.

Their commentary for a big race is still pretty weak, if we recall the "Ghost of Steve Scott" during Alan Webb's American Record in the mile. I mean, seriously, don't yell stupid stuff like that over and over.

At times their web coverage is nice if there is no other coverage, a lot of colleges put on a far better web stream, better camera work, equipment, etc.

Considering what we have with TFRRS now, it's not much to ask for a little research, I mean college meet announcers know more than these "track fans" because they simply search someones name in a database. It wouldn't be that hard for someone to sit there with a laptop and search for the leaders name and feed some info about them to the people watching.

Would some more details, splits and such, be nice? Sure, but for the 5th section of 10ks I'm not going to lie, I wouldn't even be commentating at all, frankly no one (unless you have personal interest) cares.

To be honest I normally mute them because I can't stand their commentary and hate their interviews, but I just like viewing what I can see of the race. If I was going to ask them to work on something I'd ask them to work on their camera skills before their commentary. Normally I have trouble watching with blurry zoom, and jittery motion from following the race....just my two cents

It does depend on who is behind the camera. Last night 1 of the guys was not very good (Justin, I think his name, did well). I would say 90% of the time Flotrack does a good job commentating.

IAgreeToo wrote:

So because they don't get paid means they should be terrible? If they watched any meets in their lifetime with distance events they should have a clue about how to come close to decent coverage. World Indoors, Pre, New York Gp, World Outdoors, Olympics, NCAA Indoors, NCAA Outdoors, Millrose, USA Indoor Championships, USA Outdoors Championships take your pick it gives some insight about how to provide at least decent coverage with spilts etc. So they haven't seen any of those EVER to get an idea of how to call a meet or close to it?

Noone asking them to be excellent among all commentators just decent which is something they really weren't at least not the first day of 2010 Mt. Sac.

I agree that you've got a right to complain about this tiny little thing.

It's also equally true though that people have a right to tell you to shut your pathetic whining mouth you irritating f***.

It appears that Runnerspace is putting up their own videos from Mt SAC. They lack commentary but the video looks good. If you don't like the frat boy jokes then maybe that is where you should head.

I thought it was great, that's the first time I've ever sat thru more than a couple of 10k track races, let alone 6 of them.

Ryan is the only one who does a good job, and that's only because his "trademark style" is to do sort of a bad job but still cover all the bases and manage to get good responses in interviews. Now that he's stepping back more, the lack of commentary and interviewing talent at Flotrack is really starting to show. Still as long as they're providing live coverage of meets, I'll watch.

"The Flotrack people get paid. Ryan Fenton and crew. It's their job. They are trying to sell the company to investors"

-I have helped Flotrack out since 2007, and the majority of us do not get paid.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have any idea what critical thinking OR decent race coverage involves. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? So if they are just feeding you crap you should accept it w/o complaint? If this is the bst you expect, you will always get crappy coverage. Maybe you enjoy race broadcasts where commentary consists of a couple guys burping into their microphone - I think it should be better. Is it too much to expect that Flocast people know who is actually running the race and what color uniform they might be wearing? If so then be prepared for horrible coverage of all races because that is what they specialize in!

You *can* complain, but you don't have to. I prefer to weigh the positives and negatives and give them a very high grade overall. They may be the best site on the net for original running content. More footage and more news. Original interviews with Dave Smith without which we'd never know what was up withGerman Fernandez; an interview with Jenny Barringer without which we'd never know about her apparent nervous breakdown; an interview with Matt Tegenkamp without which we'd never know about the platelet injections that stirred a lively debate here. This is not just pasting links to stories. This is top notch investigative reporting. I love that.

The interviews are not always perfect, the race commentary may rub me the wrong way sometimes. But if I'm going to make a public comment about Flotrack, I want it to represent my generally very positive view of the site, not simply my annoyance at the commentators.