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

brien evans wrote:

let's be hones, come on wrote:

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.

Also, watching running is boring AF.

Go out and run, fellas. You are the <1% of people who care about a running broadcast. Probably also part of the <1% of runners who care about a running broadcast.

The sport doesn't need to grow. If you want it to be popular so you can tell people you're a runner, maybe try CrossFit. Or just put on your shoes and go run.

That is not "also". That's literally the whole point. That's why there is no money put into production because nobody will watch it even if they do a big production.

And yes, the longer I live the less I like watching other people do stuff vs. me actually doing stuff.

let's be hones, come on wrote:

brien evans wrote:

Also, watching running is boring AF.

Go out and run, fellas. You are the <1% of people who care about a running broadcast. Probably also part of the <1% of runners who care about a running broadcast.

The sport doesn't need to grow. If you want it to be popular so you can tell people you're a runner, maybe try CrossFit. Or just put on your shoes and go run.

That is not "also". That's literally the whole point. That's why there is no money put into production because nobody will watch it even if they do a big production.

And yes, the longer I live the less I like watching other people do stuff vs. me actually doing stuff.

Amen to all this!

Can someone please explain to me why they think it is so important to "grow the sport"? The sport is fine. There are tons of races out there...pick one and go run it. That's what the sport is about, not sitting on your couch watching TV.

Running isn't football. And that's a good thing. Football is for watchers; running is for doers.

I think people who want to “grow the sport” in the USA understand that the more popular a sport gets, the more value/money is created to support (1) the infrastructure of the sport (i.e making sure sufficient capital exists to put on quality events in which the masses can participate) and (2) the pros who make a living at the sport. If marathoning were as popular a spectator sport as golf, the races would be better events for all runners and the USA would be competitive with East Africans because of the market incentives.

BQ2022 wrote:

I think people who want to “grow the sport” in the USA understand that the more popular a sport gets, the more value/money is created to support (1) the infrastructure of the sport (i.e making sure sufficient capital exists to put on quality events in which the masses can participate) and (2) the pros who make a living at the sport. If marathoning were as popular a spectator sport as golf, the races would be better events for all runners and the USA would be competitive with East Africans because of the market incentives.

What's wrong with it now the way it is? You have many races to choose from. Why does a race need to be "better". You start on the starting line and finish at the finish line. How many bells and whistles do you need? One of the great appealing aspect of running is the pure simplicity. Keep it that way.

I don't care about people making a living in running. There are a million sports out there and there are only so many people who can make a living being involved in a particular sport. It works out how it works out.

I don't care about American runners competing with African runners. And even if I did the answer is not more money but less money. Those studs in Kenya don't have s#it. Their lives are spartan as hell. That's a big factor in their awesomeness, which is the opposite of what you are proposing.

Kempainen92 wrote:

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.

This. The Brits are by far the best and provide superb coverage of the regular athletics meetings. The presenters are knowledgeable and do their homework. For example, I would liked to have heard more about Kandie and the prospects of him running a fast marathon after that 57 minute half.

Rojo's article hit all of the main issues. Mile splits are critical. It was appalling that we were given so little information. However, I have watched US crews provide a similar lack of information in track meets (such as the American Track League) where you really needed those splits to enjoy the race. It is like the American presenters just don't get it.

Once again, a hearty amen!

There are millions of races to choose from. Good ones. You will not live long enough to get to them all. That side of the sport is very much "grown".

And I'll never understand why hobby joggers care how much the elites make, or don't. It doesn't impact your life at all. People don't get rich playing with yo-yos, either. And that's okay, too.

Running simply isn't a compelling spectator sport, and never will be. And that's just fine. There are countless entertainment options out there, if all you want is something to watch on TV. You don't need another one.

I like the fact that I participate in a sport that is about, well, participating. If I'm into watching, there's football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, and on and on and on. There is NO NEED to add running to that list, because it's something you can actually go out and do yourself.

It seems like one of the biggest issue is missing the important moments in the race. Here's an idea that I haven't heard anyone suggest yet. I assume even when a particular race is not being shown to there are still multiple cameras showing the races and the broadcast team has some access to tracking data that the race officials have. I think they need an announcer dedicated to always be watching the race(s)/data feed that are not on being shown and if something happens (a break, surges, someone drops out, a fall, etc) they can break into whatever is being shown (the other race, puff piece, interview, commercial, etc) and talk about it breaking news style, they can have a catchy sound to announce this is happening like the news does. I'd image someone that's over the top excited (like Dick Vitale's schtick) to interrupt and go bananas for like 30 seconds or whatever and then throw the broadcast back to the main team.

Putting in a marathon in an urban or suburban area is an expensive, complex affairs. If marathons generated the type of ad revenues and sponsorship dollars of golf events, you’d likely have more races. Even is you don’t care for the “bells and whistles” surely you can agree that more chances to race is better than less.

The main issue, though, is if distance running isn’t growing, when the current race directors retire and this crop of runners hang up the shoes, there won’t be sufficient support for the races that you enjoy now and many of them will eventually fade away.

With regard to supporting more pro runners, lots of people do care and want the USA pros to be competitive internationally, but I agree that it doesn’t affect the vast majority of runners. That said, one of the big reasons East Africans dominate the marathon is definitely related to money. Marathoning is seen as a very viable way to make a good living for talented young runners in those countries. In the USA, the amount you can currently make as a pro distance runner is not that much better than many careers that require less effort than pro running. If pro marathoners made similar money to golfers in the USA, you would see a lot more talented Americans risking the grind of pro running for a chance at the big payday.

What you are arguing does not match reality. Every decent sized city in America has a marathon. Many have several. Lack of racing opportunities for recreational athletes IS NOT A PROBLEM! You and I will not live long enough to get to all of the marathons out there. And so many of them sell out! There's NO danger of these races going away.

Why do we need to "support" pro runners? They are not a charity. What value to they add to society? Entertainment? Not really. Helping sell a product? Maybe. If so, then they'll make a living from that. People get paid when they add value to society. I get paid in my job because I add value to my employer. If I didn't my employer wouldn't pay me. Not enough people value elite running to pay elite runners big money. And that's fine. I'd love to make a living wage from going fishing, but it isn't happening, so I hold down a day job. Let elite runners do the same. My life is not made one bit better if an American wins the Boston or NYC. Not one bit. And neither is yours.

All great ideas from folks on this thread.

I saw a clip from a collegiate XC race and they used drones to get some really cool shots and perspectives. You get a better idea of how far people are spread out and also understand the course better. Why not have drones fly from the lead pack back through the chase pack and beyond so we can see how far ahead/behind runners are.

I've always wanted to see what they did in NASCAR years ago (not sure if they still do), where they have callouts/arrows that identify each racer as they speed around the track. When we see the lead pack, there should be callouts so we know who is who. This has always bothered me when watching track. Each athlete has a sensor that tracks their current place.

Also, I'm not sure if it was mentioned on this thread or another, but when Korir was interviewed, we didn't get much out of him because of his limited English. I thought the reporter did a terrible job because she asked the question(s) in a way that made it difficult for an English learner to understand. Why not have interpreters for athletes like they do in baseball? Getting and responding to questions in their home language can provide us much more insight into their race experiences, and the interpreter's job would be to translate and to add some excitement. You just won a World Marathon Major, get hyped!

Lastly, and you see this so much in track, why do they interview the runners immediately after the race? Give them a few minutes to catch their breath, soak their win all in, and prep them with the questions beforehand.

When the men finished they only had the women's clock in view. Had no idea of the times until the 4th guy came in.and they mentioned it. Little to no splits during the second half. Berlin did it much better and all these tv producers should watch Lake Biwa tape. Even watching it in Japanese the coverage was awesone. Every k split was listed and relisted throughout the race..

This. The discussions comparing the money in running to the Tour de France miss the point.

It's not about the production costs

It's not about drone shots

It's not even about the commentators

It's just about having the camera on the front pack when the big moves happen. That's pretty much it.

If one year, the broadcast makes sure to respect this one rule, which doesn't cost any extra, doesn't crowd out any extra features, and doesn't require more logistical capabilities than they already have, it would be a dramatically, dramatically better viewing experience. All they would have to do is plan ahead: decide how to jump in to a set piece if there's a major break. It's not hard to do, but they would have to be willing to actually jump away for a moment from an interview/set piece/commercial (and then right back).

If you could combine this with giving the commentators access to the splits that are already being posted online, that would be even better. but no need to be greedy.

The sport isn't going to grow. Period