I'm not one to cut ESPN any slack. I've fired off my share of angry letters to them as well as NBC whose coverage of track and field in the past few olympics has likewise been abysmal.
Part of the problem here is that running doesn't quite come across right on the TV. Two things struck me about watching the indoors at Boston last night.
(1) TV simply doesn't do justice to how fast the sprinters are really running. When you see it live, you realize that these athletes are supremely gifted. I've had swimmers tell me the same thing about watching swimming events live vs. on TV. On TV, they look like they are doing nice laps at the local Y. Live, they look like powerboats. So, in part, as bad as they are, there is a need for good comparisons. The best ones would be to horses or cars or something, to help people get a sense of speed without reference to other American sports.
(2) The more talented the runner, the easier they make their speed look. The guys in the 3000 ran a 4 four minute mile and looked like they were taking an easy jog. I think television executives don't understand the beauty of the sport. They want smashmouth, teeth-gritting pain. And so they figure all we care about is the final lap or two of a race.
Tinman, on another thread, you spoke truly when you said that we need to get big sponsors on board to advertise at these meets. Only their pressure will sway programming decisions at Central. OLN had a hard time scaping up sponsors the first year they broadcast every stage of the tour. (I knew the one Michelin ad by heart.) Now they have many to choose from, thanks to Lance's high profile in the sport. Something similar has to happen for running. But what and who would it be? An event like the tour has the advantage of 21 days of agony and crashes.