Not coming at you here, just opening discussion - but did you really think so?
Yes across 3 meets there were some nice moments on the track - but how could that not happen with the cast of athletes they had? The mens MD group was excellent and had the best races but that's to be expected with a full Olympic podium roster (Hocker, Kerr, Nuguse and Arop from the 8).
But other than that? The next most memorable races were the 3000/5000 debacle from Kingston, I'll never forget Gebrhiwet basically walking up the home straight in 17 seconds to win a pro 3000m "race". I don't think that's a good thing.
The "show" is what I think hurt it so much, and that was linked to Johnsons stupid concept. 8 events per day, across 100 minutes, times three days. If you want to do that you better have some interesting and compelling hosts to keep things going. Instead we had John Anderson playing the wise-crack color guy and he was terrible, they had Centrowitz in for one broadcast, Chavez in for another and Merber in for the third and those guys were put in positions they just weren't ready/able to do. The tried to be innovative (aka just different) with camera shots and this janky drone that was just so amateurish it was cringey, and we were promised all this "never been seen before, unrivaled athlete storytelling" and the only thing I can remember is Jess Hull and her Jamaican potato chips.
So the only thing that held the show up were the events on the track, the problem was there just wasn't enough of them and (shout out to the field eventers who were dismissed by Johnson) no field event action to cut to, reference, or keep the action as a whole moving.
That's just my opinion though - what was it about the show that you thought they did well? Maybe I missed/overlooked stuff.