New TV Formats for Track

Get out of Indy and move USATF to L.A. where the TV, media, movie industry has the ideas and innovation that makes the Olympics, Super Bowl, World Series, etc. possible.

I have a few channels from my cable provider that show a lot of soccer all of the time. I don't like soccer because its boring but these channels have some soccer programs that show every slightly exciting play that happened during a 90 minute game. They basically show an entire game in 20 minutes. It is actually really enjoyable to watch.

Now do that with a track meet. Right when one race is over show the gun going off for the next race. Then you have time during the first few boring laps of the 5k to introduce each runner (while keeping the camera on the race) and by the time you are done the race has started to get good. You could show a full meet in less than an hour with good commentary if you wanted to. Its not that hard, a couple of amatures from flotrack have shown how easy it is.

That's a great idea, but a track meet can be run that way. I put on high school meets- duals and invites. We make sure it moves along quickly. Get athletes off the track and start the next race.

Big time track can also get rid of all the "extra" events. Put on a show of pro's in a 2-3 hour package.

runn wrote:

Put on a show of pro's in a 2-3 hour package.

As Boston Indoors, Prefontaine and the New York grand prix do, right?

have a bikini show of the hot t&f babes after the meet broadcast.

men should wear buns for the texas and frisco tv markets.

I am okay with track meets lasting as long as they need. If you need 10 hours for a pro track meet then use your 10 hours. BUT when they are broadcasted on TV they do not need to show anything happening other than the actual race. If they want to interview someone then show a pip or split sceen during the other races. The best track meets I've ever watched are the ones that I have pre-recorded and can fast forward through all the standing around. When the last runner finishes the next race has already started. Thats how it should be done.

Problem is is that they don't really show the meets. They produce a "recap".

For sports like Football there is enough sponsorship to show the full 3 1 /2 hour game. Even though there are only about 10 minutes of live play.

What they do for track and field would equate to showing just the last half mile of a marathon. You end up knowing how it ended but you just don't get the full story.

1) Stop with the instant replay. In other sports, instant replay is used for four things: an amazing play, a close play, educating the audience, or a controversial call. We use it to show the sprints and hurdles five different ways. Boring.

2) Moving camera on the inside and outside, to give a better sense of the athletes' speed. They do this very well in Europe.

3) Stop with the interviews after mundane races. Save the interviews for world records or major upsets. Stop trying to cram the flavor-of-the-month down the viewing public's throat.

4) Between running events, go to the field events. Live would be best, but even tape delayed.

5) More distance coverage. Money talks, and distance runners (and thus, distance-race-watchers) represent an upper-middle socio-economic bracket that has clear buying power. If the Pro Bowlers' Tour could be on the air by appealing to a certain demographic, then track & field should learn something.

6) Wider angles on stuff, especially distance races. I don't just want to see who won!

7) Get rid of Tom Hammond, Carol Lewis, and others who turn off the audience. In no other sport does broadcasting mediocrity seem to equate to a lifetime contract.

Yes.