Why is flotrack so bad at what they do???

Were you even born in 1997?

My only complaint today was the inclusion of the large map. Most people at home don't really care after the race starts. Go over it prior to the start.

I heard today they used the large map when they basically had no shot to go to. I haven't seen any of it so can't say for sure.

To You've Got Mail! - One thing I think is that sometimes some portion of the expense falls to the host of the meet. When we host a big track or xc meet we try to stream it ourselves. Having a quality stream makes your events better. Look at NXN and Foot Locker. They have high quality streams available for free and I bet get big views for their advertisers.

Serious question2 wrote:

Were you even born in 1997?

Maybe.

CoachHammel wrote:

They have high quality streams available for free and I bet get big views for their advertisers.

This is what changed. Having 30,000 viewers in a day wouldnt be worth more than $60 to be honest. Banner ad dvertising is practically a dead market.

Knower of business wrote:

CoachHammel wrote:

They have high quality streams available for free and I bet get big views for their advertisers.

This is what changed. Having 30,000 viewers in a day wouldnt be worth more than $60 to be honest. Banner ad dvertising is practically a dead market.

Geez, you better clue in the BroJos and other web masters, if they don't make any money off the Ads might as well take them off.

No they used it several times with a split screen of live race video.

tacomafan wrote:

flocrap is poison wrote:

Flotrack is poison to the sport. They have completely redefined pure suckage.

? To me that would be LetsRun. A below average web site with a way-rightwing forum run by a couple self-important guys.

And yet you are here and registered. Look in the mirror.

I guess I should post on here since I made two videos talking about the coverage of the end of Saturday's NCAA D1 Champs. They just went up in our WTW article. It was actually this thread that made me produce the videos. I saw this thread and was going to come on here and say I certainly don't think they are so bad at what they do. From the little I've watched, it seems fine (i watched NCAAs but they had some other videos on during breaks). And people complaining about Ryan Fenton? Are you serious? He's great. Then I was going to say something about the end of the races not being great. When I was watching it live, I thought perhaps they missed showing Kelati being passed but I also thought there was a 10% chance it was me that missed it as I was typing up some coverage. And in the men's race, there was no talk about there being a huge number of guys entering the final 400. All the announcers in both races seemed caught off guard that the races were ending. Then I went back and watched the two finishes and I guess I can see why some of you are mad as they basically missed 15-20 seconds of the final 400s which unfortunatley for them proved to be extremely dramatic. But even though I made the videos, the coverage didn't bother me like it does at a major marathon. That drives me nuts. I guess with xc, I'm used to being there in person and running around the course and not really knowing what's going on so not knowing what's going on while watching on the Internet isn't that much different (I was planning on being there this year but United wouldn't let me board a flight I got to 40 minutes before it took off). I mean almost by definition at least in terms of the team battle, figuring out what the 5th man is hard to do. One of my favorite things about being at nCAAs in person is sort of figuring things out on the spot. "Ok. Kithuka has pulled way for the win. Wait, Ches is coming back on him. Ok, I think Arkansas ans Stanford are going to battle it out fo the team title. Wait, Stanford doesn't look good. Who is lookign good that might challenge them?" That being said, I hate it when a broadcast doesn't give me the 1 mile split and the halfway split. We got neither. Here is what I wrote in the article about the two finishes.

Rojo you mentioned not providing a mile split?

I didn't watch it but are you saying they didn't have split points throughout the race displayed on the broadcast also including what the team score was at those splits?

I would just be happy if they used a tripod for their interviews.

I get motion sickness very easily...but glad they exist as I enjoyed watching the race replays after I returned from watching what I could of the meet in Madison.

Too many freeloaders, and not enough people subscribing to flotrack. With real money flowing in, they could produce quality stuff.

How can anyone complain about Flosports when Milesplit.com covers all 50 states via videos and articles?

It's hard to believe that people are so naive as to suggest Milesplit.com can provide all the

data for free. Actually in our state I have never heard one single complaint about Milesplit.com

If you don't like what they do, just don't tune in. The title of this thread should be changed to

"Are there really so many dumb people on LRC?"

I suggest that most of the people posting here have to be former employees of Flosports.tv/Milesplit.com

Gee, I wonder why you mega-tardd

CoachHammel wrote:

Rojo you mentioned not providing a mile split?

I didn't watch it but are you saying they didn't have split points throughout the race displayed on the broadcast also including what the team score was at those splits?

No,I'm not saying that. They had the same splits the timers had.

What i'm referring to is a pet peeve of mine.How in the world do you not talk about opening mile split of every signle distance race in the world. You want to know if the pace is fast or slow and it's better than talking about "looking at turnover."

flotastic wrote:

Too many freeloaders, and not enough people subscribing to flotrack. With real money flowing in, they could produce quality stuff.

Asinine post. FloTrack is the freeloader. Coverage already existed before they were around and it was better and free. They had 20 million in venture capital and yet you claim they need my $150 a year before they can afford to make a quality profuct?

I'd feel differently if you had produced content which wasn't available before...instead they walledd off something which we already had.

Imagine if your town had a bridge that was free.....then someone bought it, tore it down, built a shittier bridge to replace it and wanted to charge you a toll that was 5x the market rate to cross, then kicked and whined when nobody wanted to pay.

If flotrack was providing me something markedly better than what already existed and charging a reasonable price then I would have sympathy.

In a ideal functional capitalistic society, companies spot a need and profit from filling that need. Most people are happy with the new development because it creates something they didn't have before.. Needs filled, profits made.

What Flotrack did was spot something that we already had for free that they could try to force us to pay for. Nobody benefits from this. We are denied something we already had, they go bankrupt in a few years.