To grow the sport, we need better coverage than this (NYC marathon broadcast)

I have said it every year simply watch 1 stage of the Tour de France coverage and you will see how to cover an endurance event

ok then wrote:

The main problem is they didn’t show the race. I would go with permanent Picture in Picture. If you go to commercial show the race in the smaller screen. If you run a segment show the race on the smaller screen. If you are showing the mens race, show the women's on the other screen.

Have at least 3 cameras per race. One at the front, one with the second pack, one float to view the rest of the field.

That would fix most of the problems. Like missing almost every single move. I would also ditch Bernard as he wasn’t very good, but that is just frosting.

I agree with perm Picture in Picture but the talking head “segments” should be in the small screen. No need to have someone talking on the larger screen

The stress I have from "finding" a Euro stream for a US marathon is nothing, compared to the anguish you all have from the way US providers show you marathons here.

Sure gets clicks though, doesn't it?

I like the idea of highlighting the “breaks” as those are the only natural tension moments. A good broadcast could also create more tension moments by focusing on specific aspects of the race. For the first hour, they could build tension by tracking world record/course record/PR pace at each mile. They could also focus more attention on any early drop outs or people falling out of the lead pack. The average person has no clue how hard the elites are running and showing only those who are running smoothly at the front of the pack doesn’t help. If a viewer understands that a guy who looks fairly comfortable could actually be struggling to keep pace and drop off at any time, it creates more drama.

The broadcast team could also focus on certain segments of the course that could be “make or break” and really sell the performance of the runners through that segment. Do this over a few years and every major course would have least a few segments with the name recognition of “Heartbreak Hill”.

From an aesthetic standpoint, they could show more crowd shots and wide shots so the viewer gets a sense of the atmosphere of the city. Those shots also tend to give a better perspective of just how fast the runners are going. Like the wide shot in an auto race broadcast.

The 5 ideas to improve marathon coverage are good.

Not sure if mentioning something about every runner when first mentioning their name would work. This is never done in other sports coverage. You never hear a football broadcast state anything like "Tackle by Roscoe Boom, who grew up on a cattle ranch". Showing a quick list of the top 20 contenders with their accomplishments might be better, but that will not attract any attention from the casual viewer because they do not know the difference between a top finish at Boston as opposed to a top finish at the marathon project.

People might understand personal best times, which is something that running has that other sports struggle with. But only followers of the sport would know the difference between a 2:04 pr and a 2:12 pr. Does everyone watching an NBA game care about the difference between averaging 19 points per game compared to 12 points per game?

Other TV sports use the college/university a player attended to draw casual fans in. I guess some people will feel a personal connection with a player and their team because they both attended the same school or that school was in their state. This does not work with a WMM, where most of the top runners are from another country.

The following statement is not politically correct it is just my opinion. Wheelchair racers in marathons get an inordinate amount of quality TV coverage and attention when one considers the relatively small number of wheelchair racers participating.

It is great that these athletes have this opportunity to challenge themselves and compete.

NYRR results list 32 wheelchair division finishers in 2021, with times ranging from 1;31 to 11:17. A tiny percentage when compared to 24948 running finishers.

There were more (38) finishers in the handcycle division this year, with times ranging from 3:30 to 6:37.

Why did this division receive zero TV coverage and attention?

Road cycling is a very different sport than marathon running and I would argue that it is easier to cover on TV.

Catching the few critical breaks in running is important, But a cycling race is much more dynamic with many more breaks, or attempted breaks, than the average running race. Typically there is always someone trying to sprint off the front of the pack in cycling, and this makes for interesting TV. People sprinting off the front in a marathon rarely occurs.

There corporate sponsors in cycling are mentioned frequently in TV coverage. This provides tons of exposure for sponsors and helps bring money into the sport.

The team and sponsor associations with running are never mentioned on TV, Pro runners depend upon corporate sponsors (primarily shoe companies) to train and live. We rarely or never get TV shots of runners where you can tell who their sponsor is. When cameras zoom into individual runners from the front close enough to read their singlet, it seems like the view is framed to exclude any lettering that would identify their sponsor. If runner sponsors got more coverage on TV there would be more money in the sport.

Maybe this is a USA thing, where the networks do not want to promote businesses unless they buy commercials. Maybe its different in other countries. For example, the Comrades Marathon (actually an ultramarathon) in S Africa gets live virtually uninterrupted coverage by multiple networks. There are numerous head on shots of runners in the lead pack with their sponsor names on their singlets visible for hours on end. That sort of exposure attracts sponsorship more similar to road cycling.

For long cycling races, it is customary for live TV coverage to begin at the 2 hour mark of 4+ hour races. They will show replays of highlights of the start and anything significant that occurred before live TV coverage began. They could do this with running by joining marathons at the 10 mile mark.

A few things. I didn't m ention it in the article but my frustration with marathon broadcasts isn't limited to NY. It's virtually the same in every single one. At one point, I vowed to make a spreadsheet for every telecast seeing if they missed "the break" or not.

In reality, missing the break is unacceptable. The really is the KEY moment of the race. The only moment that really matters. It's the goal in a 1-0 soccer match. The finish line which people is just the equivalent of the clock ticking to zero in an NFL game. The score happened earlier.

I had read on the live thread that NYC was trying to get their commercials and profiles out of the way early in the broadcast but that didn't seem to be the case to me. Putting in the 5k highlights when the women were at 2 hours was a bizarre decision.

Here is the speadsheet where I documented what happened minute by minute in the broadcast.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O5mSfVqPjv-3KtuQk5JoOX_wacSyL_YNHdzvAE_Mvj0/edit?usp=sharing

i'm surprised your article failed to mention the best analogy on TV -- and one that's a whole lot better -- which is the Tour de France.

TdF makes even a boring sprint stage interesting by having LOTS of cameras on motos covering all aspects of the race, the leaders, the chase, and even video of your favorite rider abandoning at a feed zone. Also, tons of helicopter coverage. And they very rarely cut away from the action.

Meanwhile the world major marathons mostly get by with a single camera on a lead car that's about 100' in front of the lead racers. They're like: hope you didn't want to see Bekele because if he's not at the front you literally will never see him!

One key thought,

There are two events I would point to that running could learn from. Tour de France is obvious. The other is F1. The keys to those is you see every key moment. Tour de France takes commercial at non key moments and then shows key points like big mountain climbs commercial free. F1 has no commercials the entire race. We could apply this principle in some form to running.

Other random thoughts,

No coverage of the rest of the race or wheelchair race while elites are running. Should be obvious.

Tracker showing distance remaining and gaps between runners. No one except die hard fans care about pace or splits but distance between runners is easier to understand.

Talk about the athletes like they are professionals and not pursuing a hobby.

Less appearance fee money and more prize money and actually talk about prize money.

ok then wrote:

The main problem is they didn’t show the race. I would go with permanent Picture in Picture. If you go to commercial show the race in the smaller screen. If you run a segment show the race on the smaller screen. If you are showing the mens race, show the women's on the other screen.

Have at least 3 cameras per race. One at the front, one with the second pack, one float to view the rest of the field.

That would fix most of the problems. Like missing almost every single move. I would also ditch Bernard as he wasn’t very good, but that is just frosting.

Whatever insider knowledge and athlete's nuance Lagat might've brought to the broadcast was negated by him being barely comprehensible in English.

Cycling has many of the same challenges, but races like TDF, the Giro, La Vuelta etc, do a d@mn good job.

For one, they have the camera coverage so they can cut to / replay anything important during a stage.

Many mentions of the few moments of tension in a marathon. Maybe there's more tension in there that could be capitalized on, and lessons that could be learned from other sports.

F1 often provide ongoing data on the condition and performance of the cars during the race. Are they going to need to refuel or get a tire change soon, etc.

There's tension in how the athletes are feeling, how hard the pace is making them work, whether to hold back, whether the wheels are falling off, etc. But generally we can't see that. In a marathon, especially, there's a big element of risk, and a danger that things will end up going really badly at some point.

With advances in wearable tech, why not have races try showing live tracking of athlete HR, for example. It could provide an immediate window into how the athletes are doing, even when there's not much to see on the surface. Ample fodder for additional tension.

I'm used to US commentating and coverage being bad, but NYC this year was beyond awful. British commentators historically are the best. They are knowledgeable on the field and the sport and do their homework. I love the commentary from Brendan Foster and the other guy (can't remember his name) from the 1996 Olympic 10,000m. Gives me goosebumps every time on that last lap. Just legendary stuff. Steve Cram and Tim Hutchings are also excellent. Those guys set the standard.

Well written with good points. I think you need to take the next step - can you put it in the NYT OpEd section? Or find a way to sit down with folks at ESPN and/or NBC to discuss (including T&F coverage). Maybe Carrie can get you through the door. For them, it will be about $, but the better the product they put out there, the more advertising $ they should be able to attract. Better yet, get on the production team for a nominal compensation.

The truth: the only audience the networks care about are hobbyjoggers. They know the numbers are going to suck regardless, and it’s a give most you will watch it anyway even if you hate the coverage. So why should they care? The sport is not big enough for coverage competition.

Comparison to TDF is somewhat valid, but keep in mind the whole field is made up of pros.

It’s a feedback loop situation in a dead sport. The top distance athletes are not marketable in the developed world. The best have made a fortune already (in their own opinion) and it was by focusing on the training and performance - none have figured out how to tap into the social media gold mine. Until that happens, media covering the events have no incentive to focus on the pros - they will get no mileage from doing that.

My only wish is to see uninterrupted live footage of all main groups of pro runners. I don’t even need commentary, even if it was any good. I will never get my wish so I don’t bother watching.

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

What does it mean to "grow the sport"? Participation numbers are high in road races, track, and cross country at various levels. Do you mean more spectators? More sponsorship money? More events on TV?

Growing the sport isn't about participation by amateurs, it is about professional T&F being on the same level as other professional sports like the NFL. As much news coverage, similar viewing figures, similar contracts.

They should bring in Nick Symmonds with his pinata full of cash!! Smash that subscribe button!

Every major marathon should require all invited elites to wear Garmin 945 LTE watches. All their data would be transmitted over a cellular network, so we'd know the exact position of every athlete, the gaps between them, their splits, etc. I'm sure Garmin would happily provide loaners and the software to present all that data in exchange for the publicity.

kids play out front wrote:

I have said it every year simply watch 1 stage of the Tour de France coverage and you will see how to cover an endurance event

There is not enough money in running to warrant that production cost. You should remind yourself of that every year.

juanito wrote:

i'm surprised your article failed to mention the best analogy on TV -- and one that's a whole lot better -- which is the Tour de France.

TdF makes even a boring sprint stage interesting by having LOTS of cameras on motos covering all aspects of the race, the leaders, the chase, and even video of your favorite rider abandoning at a feed zone. Also, tons of helicopter coverage. And they very rarely cut away from the action.

Meanwhile the world major marathons mostly get by with a single camera on a lead car that's about 100' in front of the lead racers. They're like: hope you didn't want to see Bekele because if he's not at the front you literally will never see him!

How do you people not understand the obvious. It costs a ton of money to do a production like the tdf. It doesn't make financial sense to do it for a marathon. It's that simple.