The problem is that in one week "the perfect version" will suck also. Track and field coverage on American TV is a joke. Watch British coverage of a meet -- or even fire up British coverage on YouTube of a few single events -- and you'll see (and hear) the difference. It's not simply a matter of knowing names (which the British do); it's also interviewing athletes leading up to the race (routine in other sports, not in track) to understand how their training has been and what their strategy/tactics might be, knowing their recent racing history and also their experience in similar events or in that venue, and understanding race tactics. I'm not saying the British (or anyone) is perfect; the point is more that the comparison is so stark that a mention of "perfect" U.S. coverage is a clear indication of how low our expectations are.
Even without a comparison, it's simply incompetent coverage -- they routinely show the first few laps of any race over 1 mile, leave the race for commercials and what passes for coverage of field events, then return for the last few laps. They don't think the audience can hold its attention for 8-13 minutes of racing. They frequently don't know who some of the leading runners are, even though all you need is a heat sheet to figure it out.