Tweet
Is it just me or is the TV coverage of track and field pathetic. CBS's one week delay of the NCAA's was bad enough, then ESPN2 has to insult us more. Admit it TV people, only track fans watch track on TV so quit acting like all the people watching are unfamilar with what is going on. At least the hype was not as bad as years past. OUT.
-
-
Re: Track on TV
Twister, there is no use jousting with windmills. Maybe, just maybe, TV's "dumb it down" approach gains some fans, whereas if they are too "expert" and technical it will turn the casual fans away. And let's face it, all us TAFNUTS will all watch no matter what. So they are correct to do it the way they do. And this is true for every telecast, from the Olympics to the Worlds to the Nationals and on down.
So relax and enjoy it. -
Re: Track on TV
Twister, I am wondering if you thought NBC's coverge on Saturday was any better?Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
>Twister, there is no use jousting with windmills.
>Maybe, just maybe, TV's "dumb it down"
>approach gains some fans, whereas if they are
>too "expert" and technical it will turn the
>casual fans away. And let's face it, all us
>TAFNUTS will all watch no matter what. So they
>are correct to do it the way they do. And this
>is true for every telecast, from the Olympics to
>the Worlds to the Nationals and on down.
So
>relax and enjoy it.
Not true. This is one track fan that can't stand to watch televised meets because of the dumb it down approach. I suspect I'm not alone. I therefore would conclude that the networks are NOT reaching the casual fan, and are also alienating the hard core fan. Who's left watching this putrid garbage?Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
easy, Stinky, easy...... "putrid garbage ?"..
just turn down the sound then and watch the picture.
As the old saying goes, " A bad day on the golf course is better than a great day at work."
I've never seen a "bad" track meet, and never have had a "bad"... ( oops, this is a G rated message board. )Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
and how can you conclude, just because you can't stand it, that it is not reaching the casual fan ?Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
I thought the coverage was better than usual (which isn't saying much). One gripe I always have(and I'm repeating myself here), beyond the useless commentary, is that they show the LJ & TJ head-on. There's no way you can tell how far they've jumped.
Dan O'Brien made it into my collection of inane comments. Did I really hear him say that the 400H and 800m were very similar events? Please tell me I was audibly hallucinating.Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
>and how can you conclude, just because you can't
>stand it, that it is not reaching the casual fan
>?
Because if I, as a hard core track fan can't stand the coverage, how can you expect casual fan Joe six pack to enjoy it?Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
This morning's "Classic Sports Spectacular" on ESPN Classic was all distance races from the 60s and 70s -- really great stuff. The announcers back then did not "dumb it down"; for example, they mentioned 1500m times that Keino had run, and did not compare them to mile times at all, as if they expected the viewers to be aware of their significance all on their own.
"Dumbing down" track coverage is simply a by-product of a general lack of the sport on TV. Since they rarely show it, they think they have to explain it all the time.Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
When do they show old track coverage? Just got a TiVo so can now record it while I'm at work (if I haven't been fired for coming on here so much!).Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
It all gets easier to take once you realize that (in this lifetime at least) ALL American coverage of track will be HORRIBLE. Anything less than rock-bottom, stinko-pathetic will be a gift from the heavens. It's a simple problem to solve: all you need is lots of time off and massive amounts of money to spend on airfare and hotel bills. Ain't life grand?Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
>When do they show old track coverage? Just got a
>TiVo so can now record it while I'm at work (if I
>haven't been fired for coming on here so much!).
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/di ... thread=601
The real key is "Classic Sports Spectacular" weekdays at 11 am (Eastern time). You can usually count on some track at least once a week, but today I really hit the jackpot with six great races -- two Dream Miles, the 1969 Compton Invitational mile, the 1970 King Games mile, the 1973 LA Times indoor mile, and the 1971 AAU three-mile.Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
Here's my complaint about TV coverage: They'll spend 5 minutes to show the 400H and 7 minutes to show the 200m because there were false starts in each race-- and because the TV folks like to spend forever showing sprinters lining up at the start.
Yet, one of the most exciting races, the 10K, wasn't covered at all. This at a time when droves of casual runners are competing in 5 and 10K races, and might have some interest in seeing the best in the US competing, especially when the race was fast and highly competitive, with the lead changing back and forth in the last laps.
Suppose that TV coverage would be edited slightly, so that false starts and endless standing around would be omitted--- the events could still be shown, but there'd be, let's say, 6 or 7 exta minutes during which other events could be shown. Suppose that the entire 10K had been recorded and, when it turned out to have been a great race in the closing stages, an edited version of perhaps the last 3 laps could have been shown.
Of course, I'm no expert about the problems faced by the producers/dirctors of these programs, but I'm just thinking about how easy editing can be with my home equipment, and I imagine that, with professional equipment and technicians, coverage could be improved.Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
In regards to the lack of tv coverage, let me point out that many times the lack is in large part due to the availability of the television facilities. I was at the US Nationals, and the television trucks did not even arrive until Friday morning, subsequently, no coverage of any of Thursday's events was possible. It is not as simple as hiring a couple of guys with cameras to televise select events (I think the 10,000's were the only finals on Thursday). An entire crew must be made available, and the per day cost is staggering. I think we must factor that into our criticisms when we critique the coverage of these meets. With a limited window for showing "live" events, you want to show as many events as possible, thus tv shows more short races than distance races, and tend to show recaps of field events since they can run the course of several hours. The men's triple jump competition last almost 2 1/2 hours. TV, obviously, has a long way to go with their choice and style of coverage, but one thing they have no control over are the false starts, and thus, we viewers are stuck with the picture until the runners get away clean.Comment
-
Re: Track on TV
>In regards to the lack of tv coverage, let me
>point out that many times the lack is in large
>part due to the availability of the television
>facilities. I was at the US Nationals, and the
>television trucks did not even arrive until
>Friday morning, subsequently, no coverage of any
>of Thursday's events was possible. It is not as
>simple as hiring a couple of guys with cameras to
>televise select events (I think the 10,000's were
>the only finals on Thursday). An entire crew
>must be made available, and the per day cost is
>staggering. I think we must factor that into our
>criticisms when we critique the coverage of these
>meets. With a limited window for showing
>"live" events, you want to show as many events
>as possible, thus tv shows more short races than
>distance races, and tend to show recaps of field
>events since they can run the course of several
>hours. The men's triple jump competition last
>almost 2 1/2 hours. TV, obviously, has a long
>way to go with their choice and style of
>coverage, but one thing they have no control over
>are the false starts, and thus, we viewers are
>stuck with the picture until the runners get away
>clean.>
You mean track is a relativly high cost sport to cover with a relativly low revenue stream?Comment
Comment