AWFUL TRACK & FIELD TV COVERGAGE

I Just sent my $0.02 to

feedback@olntv.com

, and yes I omitted the word "no" before Lance Armstrong.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have become a big fan of your cycling coverage over the past year even though I am a much more serious runner than cyclist. The commentary is superb in that it appreciates a wide variety of knowledge levels amongst your viewers, from the cycling junkie to those who just like to see the French countryside pass by.

My question/request: Has OLN ever considered covering track and field or road racing? I have seen some Triathlon Coverage (with Phil Liggett no less) and wonder if you would find an audience for track? One qualifier if you do decide to cover track, please do not enlist the help of the existing team of Rawson, Stones and Lewis (especially Lewis).

There are an enormous amount of runners in the US, and while at present there may be Lance Armstrongs to capture the imagination of the US Public, there are quite a number of very successful athletes outside the 100m (the only event ESPN deems worthy of coverage) on the track and in the field events.

In any case, I ask you to consider looking into what it would take to bring track and field to OLN. I cannot believe I am the only person wholly unsatisfied with the current state of track/running coverage in the US.

Best Regards,

Brian Richter

The announcers really do make a difference.

Did anyone else think the NCAA indoor track broadcast (I only watched part of it as i don't go out of my way to watch taped events) was excellent.

I believe Chris Myers (who I have never seen on track and field) was the lead announcer.

He did the best job I had seen in a long time and he probably doesn't even know that much about track and field. But he made each and every race a dramatic event. He broadcast them like a horse race bringing drama to each event. Feel free to share your comments on his broadcasting style but he is the direction we need to go.

And I forgot about the curling world champs being on live instead of I believe the world indoor champs (someone can correct me as to what event it was). But USATF brags about what a great job they're doing and on network tv you've got the curling champs and I believe at the same time the nationals weren't on tv anywhere.

The only way things are going to change is if some private entity (with a profit motive) buys the rights to all the events from USATF. Then you'll see things run from a professional angle.

Glenn Latimer wrote:

Using OLN is another great idea. Again it depends on sponsorship of the TV coverage.

(The reason for the title and date at the top of the piece was because I wanted to write it in 'Word' first to capture the essence of what I wanted to say, then I could just cut and paste it for a posting on the Let's Run forum.)

I thought of sending it to RW Online, but I figured I would reach the real running audience better through Let's Run.com

Post it at RW Online, Track and Field News and Cool Running. All those people run and might like to run. Plus you are increasing the potential audience and that is part of the equation.

I usually have high hopes, and then get disappointed when I start reading an interesting thread on letsrun.com, only to find the ideas degenerating into "you're a fool" and "so are you." Whatever ever happened to discussion, and listening to another opinion, even if it is not in agreement with you view. (This last statement is true EXCEPT for the time when one of those aforementioned "fools" adds their view!)

Anyway, it was a delight to come home today and ready all the entries on this thread from people with IQs well above room temperature. Logical, reasoned points, innovative ideas. How refreshing.

Agreed we don't have the numbers to compete with the Holy Trinity of Baseball, Basketball and Football, nor the corporate support of golf or tennis, but we do have good demographics in running. Surely that, plus all this quality brain power can achieve something.

I am guessing that 'patio' is DDR? Am I correct?

wejo wrote --

"But USATF brags about what a great job they're doing and on network tv you've got the curling champs and I believe at the same time the nationals weren't on tv anywhere."

USATF HAS improved the situation. It's a slow process folks.

wejo also wrote --

"The only way things are going to change is if some private entity (with a profit motive) buys the rights to all the events from USATF. Then you'll see things run from a professional angle."

Who? Who's going to buy rights to something that has little, if any, value?

BTW, more televised distance races ain't gonna bring more viewers. Anything beyond a mile is just plain boring to most folks.

ttc wrote:

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dutra wrote:

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dutra,

I watch almost every T&F meet in crowded bars that serve food, even in the afternoons (but not quite a drunk) and it is obvious that no one watches the sprints, but that some of these non-hardcore fans get caught in the distance runs and show curiosity in them....every time.

Granted, the people on this board, or any other, make up a small % in the overall ratings, but it is completely obvious that the distance fans far outnumber the sprint fans. It is also obvious that showing the sprints on the telecasts are not working....and we are coming off of the Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson eras, when this approach would have a good chance of succeeding.

I see no proof of a non-distance fan base, nor proof that anyone cares to even watch a sprinting race, much less gain interest in it.

The telecasts have not gained fans with their approach and are disrespecting the true fans that there are.

I like just about all of GP's suggestions, too, however I have to point out:

1. The tour and athletics are big-time sports in Europe, thus the big-time announcers. Here, track & field as someone pointed out is about as popular as bass fishing, therefore track & field for dummies announcers like Carol Lewis. If the 30 million runners figure is correct, I'd bet the majority are recreational joggers whose interest in track & field is about as much as rec room ping pong players have in Olympic table tennis.

3. That's a good idea, but the yellow line is a very expensive effect, in fact they are cutting back on it's use because of the expense, and football is the #1 sport in this country. No network would spend that kind of money on a low interest sport like track. Also, I don't think the line can move, it's stationary. No doubt they could figure out a way to make it move, but not on a sport like track.

5. The field events are the big problem, because the athletes do not actually compete directly against each other like runners, instead it's their marks that count. Unless you're very knowledgable seeing marks go up in meters on a scoreboard isn't very scintillating.

Sprints get all the coverage because they are dominated by black Americans. The media loves loud talkin', struttin' black athletes, especially playing up the hardship and struggle angels, even if the athlete in question actually had a middle class upbringing with no problems. If Krummy becomes the dominant middle distance runner in the world, you won't hear the end of him. But he won't, so we won't. Webb got some coverage for two weeks because he was an oddity.

I can't argue with anything you said as I am sure no on can else can either. I am really young only 15 but I really love the sport very much and I am glued to the T.V. when track is on. But I am a distance guy ok Miler who loves that kind of racing and not sprinting and i am getting really tierd of 10 minutes of hyping a 10 second race and then going right to a commercial and then asking the sprinters how did it go just to hear them mush a whole lot about god and there awsume coaching and sponsors in to one breath. I want to hear a good commentator give a lap by lap of a good mile race. Like the 2000 olympics 1500 meter final.....how excting was that race. If I am bot mistaken didn't ESPN take a shot at some sort of running network a few years ago....but maybe I am wrong....lets just hope world's make it on TV!!

Ken Bell wrote:

I have given up on the US networks ever getting it right. My suggestion is get BBC Sports or Sky Sports. Better yet, take a trip to Britain during the next Olympic's or World Championships.

Does anyone know if it's possible to get BBC Sports or Sky Sports in the US? Is there a satellite dish system that carries them, or for that matter Canadian Broadcasting. I've been on the verge of getting a dish for years. If there was a system that carried a foreign network that covers the sport I'd get it in a flash.

Try to check out the Conference champ stuff I posted in a seperate post if you can.

As far as the dish goes you cannot - unfortunately get the channels you mentioned with the usual providers Dishnetwork (which I have) and DirectTV... You can get all of those FoxSports channels though so you can get at that championship stuff

celeriter wrote:

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.

Not so fast. I am sure this was not offered to USATF for 2003 outdoor season. It may be possible, but some hurdles exist:

1. The web guys use students and I doubt they could travel so much.

2. There are costs, albeit a lot less than TV. The indoor nationals only attracted 100 people for pay per view (i2 Sports recieved the rights from USATF for free and charged $10 to recover their costs), so don't toss out the pay per view idea so quickly.

3. Who owns the rights? I bet USATF owns some meet rights, but not all. How would this be coordinated? Remember, there is no money in it for the organizer (maybe some costs).

4. TV agreements often preclude live coverage. Get rid of TV you say. Okay, then 90% plus of the revenues (and only 33% of the costs) goes away since most sponsors want real TV (Newsflash: OLN and PAX are not real TV - most sponsor contracts require a 70-80 million household reach to get credit - ESPN2 barely makes it).

5. Sponsors are not willing pay real dollars for ads on the web cast.

5. I think webcasts work in some situations. Whether it is subsidized by USATF (taking money from elsewhere), low cost pay per view (why not 1000 people at $5 instead of 100 people at $10...), or sponsored by a web site.

You saw Nike hype a Pre webcast (when they could not get a TV slot) and it was not successful for the company. So, if Nike cannot get it done, let's focus on where and how it can get done. I understand the i2 guy is very inexpensive (uses interns, has his own equipment and servers, etc.) so have him become a sponsor/supplier to USATF.

May 25

After my previous grumbles which startyed this thread last week, and in an attempt at fairness, I watched the NBC coverage of the PRE Meet today. It was not too bad by the standards we have been used to lately.

There were the usual problems of:

(a) showing all the false starts in the sprints.hurdles. It was tape-delay folks, so plenty of time to edit that nonsense out. Explain the new sprint DQ rule once, and then we've got it.

(b)and the gasping for breath post race interviews - pointless and as uncomfortable for the athlete as the viewer.

(c)On the plus side we did see some of the 5000m, but it was somewhat insulting to cut away to interview some guy from Arena Football as the 5000m was getting interesting. Let us see a four-minute interview with Paul Tergat in the middle of the telecast of an Arena Football game, and watch the NBC switchboard light up.

WHY DO THE TV PRODUCERS THINK THE AMERICAN AUDIENCE IS INCAPABLE OF WATCHING A COMPLETE RACE FOR 14 MINUTES?

(d)Dwight Stones was quite good this time as main anchor.

(e) Steve Holman could be decent at TV commentary once he relaxes and gets used to the format.

(f) Dan O'Brien is enthusiastic. (I'm trying to be positive here.)

(g) Lewis Johnson is mediocre.

(h) CAROL LEWIS IS TOTALLY INEPT. Someone please fire her.

Obviously these guys do much better when they have a few hours to edit, than they do live, in terms of putting the whole show together. I know that usually they commentate live as it happens on each race.

Maybe we are making progress? Larry Rawson was not missed. If Carol Lewis were to get off our TV screens, then we would be making real progress.

(Pleaase send this message to ten of your friends in the next 24 hours or Carol Lewis will talk at you in hell for eternity.)

Dutra wrote:

Glenn Latimer wrote:

I do not want to listen to another athlete give a post-race interview so soon after the event: ?Well (gasp) I first of all (gasp) want to thank (gasp) God (gasp) my coach (gasp) my sponsor (gasp, gasp) ?. I?m really (gasp) refocused (gasp) this year (gasp)?? etc. etc. ?

This aspect of the coverage of the sport befuddles me. Why interview every winner? None of the athletes EVER has anything to say other than the outline by Glenn. Do they interview a pitcher in a baseball game as he comes off the field in the 8th inning?

The announcers mean little to me. More action would be the correct answer.

Today they didn't interview the winners if they're Cuban or Kenyan! They interviewed Freeman, Devers and Webb though!

Just read this about the TV coverage of the PRE meeting.

from

www.britishathletics.info

The meeting was shown live on Eurosport taking the NBC feed and one feels very grateful for having BBC cover athletics in Britain. Although complaints are heard about BBC for lack of field event coverage and too many interviews, NBC is in a different league. No coverage at all of field events - despite PV Dragila v Feofanova, SP two over 21 metres, HJ Bergqvist beaten by an American. The camera work was amateur and there were more cameras for interviews than covering the actual event.

On a fashion note, this Nike sponsored event had more than half of all the competitors in this years Nike red strip - making it interesting for Tim Hutchings to commentate on.

Latimer and your ilk, I think your criticism - while you have many valid points - is too harsh and unlikely to get anywhere. Like you say in your last post, best to compare against what we're used to; also try and be diplomatic about it and, as many have said before, be realistic in light of the general audience.

As for the men's 5k, I figure anything more than a finishing 100 is a bonus. I was not surprised at all when they cut away at the 2:35 mark, though I agree it was rather horrid what they did with the AFL announcement. Why did that edit have to go there. It's rubbing it in our faces.

Still, I wasn't upset about the 5k, partly from being used to it and partly because, frankly, it wasn't a thrilling race. The last 400 was most of the race in this case. I would have liked one shot of Goucher.

And speaking of editing, you'd have though Dwight's original statement of Webb running 3:54 could have been edited, too.

I guess I agree with the interview stuff; the Freeman interview was the epidemy of your point. Esp. in an edited show, you'd think they could give the athletes some time and that they could go to a designated interview area 5 min. after their race. Probably require more manpower, though.

Also would have liked a question of Washington about his finishing reaction. Kind of like Coe in L.A. or Johnson in the 92 Trials 200. Vindication.

Basically, I was pleased with the events they got in. Almost everything got some air. The men's mile was the biggest deal in the meet, obviously. Would have been nice to have recognition of Lunn and/or interview with Magness. He sure got airtime, though, but given his vomiting rep, the bit of spittle he was able to expectorate at the end was a disappointment. I wanted at least one good glop.

Although contrary to the popular attitude of most threads, this was a decent show. I disagree that Lewis was mediocre; he is probably the best one there (but had horrible assignments). At Micheal Johnson was not jammed down our throats. Agree on Carol. Will Steve Holman grow into a good one? That remains to be seen, but let's hope there is a farm system for TV talent somewhere.

Okay the real issue. The meet showed every running event. And only the 5000m was cut down. Why complain about showing false starts - give them credit was showing the build up, the real feel. So, NBC and USATF bat 100% on the track and shows almost all of the field events (did I miss something or was the men's shot not sown?). No one can honestly expect NBC to stay with a whole 5000m with no real Ameri-centric story. I am too lazy to do the math, but I realized today (with every running event shown) that the in-stadium experience is only 30 minuntes of action per two hour segment - with a 5000 in there - so having 20 plus minutes (of action) out of a ninety minute TV show is a good percentage.

It shows the difference between 90 minutes and 60 minutes. I suspect someone will write in and say the meet was too long (Millrose threads about the live show). Hopefully the next few weeks, live shows on ESPN/ESPN2, then Nationals will continue the trend.

I am sending emails to Verizon, Nike, Visa and others (new advertisers this week, at least in my area) thanking them for the show.

It took them two great performances by Kim Collins before they would finally interview him and not some other overhyped sprinter who finishes last. I'm speaking of the one last week at Mt. Hood and now at Pre.

The bottom line is there is too much hype on these big names. Yea, we all have our favorites, but when someone gets blown out, I want to hear an interview with the winner.

PS: I knew Webb wouldn't run that fast.

I liked Dan's comment. It's good to see a 400m hurdler in the 400 because when you take the hurdles out they can run faster. Always wondered why 400 hurdle times were slower than 400 times. Did he say that without Jones the athletes were thinking I can win this in 11.2 or 11.5!

Collins came from nowhere to win the 100 despite the fact he was clearly leading way before they even mentioned him.

How could Stones have thought Webb ran 3.54. What race was he watching.

Could go on and on. The women's 1500 goes off I said to the people I was watching with, that's a pretty good pace. Then they say it's really tactical until they get the splits, then say well no its not. Holman's a 1500m runner for God's sake. Has he never seen a women's race.

Disagree with those who don't want to see the false starts. I has a bearing on the race. But they could edit it way down.