Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USOC not doing Chicago any favors

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USOC not doing Chicago any favors

    NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol, one of the most influential players in the Olympic world, blames the United States Olympic Committee for jeopardizing Chicago's chances to win the 2016 Summer Olympics.

    "The only thing that can cost Chicago the Games is continuing squabbles between the two parties," Ebersol said Friday via telephone, referring to the latest quarrel between the USOC and the International Olympic Committee.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ol ... 9496.story

  • #2
    Very good analysis in TIME

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 32,00.html


    (sorry, can't post anything to headlines on front page at this point)

    Comment


    • #3
      Good Time article. As the author states the audience for an Oly channel that doesn't have the main sports is nil.

      "A niche within a niche."

      I knew the USOC was full of morons but I didn't think they were this dumb.

      Comment


      • #4
        I would be very happy to see NBC out of the Olympic broadcasting business. Hopefully they won't get the rights for 2016.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can guarantee you you won't be able to tell the difference no matter which of the networks is in the Olympic business. And you might also find that the announcing crew wouldn't change even if the network did.

          Comment


          • #6
            While I was typing a comeback, without the smiley, for Conor's gratuitous snipe at Sarah Palin, the mods apparently beat me to it. Thanks, mods.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gh
              I can guarantee you you won't be able to tell the difference no matter which of the networks is in the Olympic business. And you might also find that the announcing crew wouldn't change even if the network did.
              I don't really care about the commentary. I just want to see the events live. I think other networks would either transmit the main track events live, or not have the will and the clout to aggressively cut off so many other live feeds on the Internet. The networks in other countries transmitted the track events live to their populations.

              Comment


              • #8
                What could lead you to such a bizarre conclusion?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sprintblox
                  I think other networks would either transmit the main track events live, or not have the will and the clout to aggressively cut off so many other live feeds on the Internet.
                  This sentence gave away your age :wink: . I am sorry to inform you that ABC before NBC actually started the deplorable style of Olympic coverage. Travel stories, human interest stories, grandmothers' medical history, all instead of sporting coverage. That is Roone Arledge's legacy.
                  "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                  by Thomas Henry Huxley

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1. USOC's website leaves a lot to be desired!

                    2. Where are the Peter Uberroths of the world who were tight with the IOC!

                    3. I'm convinced that covering an Oly track meet live may present some serious cost, logistical and production problems. If you were an NBC exec, you would want to "polish" the meet! That's why it's shown taped at night, with human interest stories (for the "mommy market"!) and editing of any excess dead time (ex: from the call to the blocks to the start, or Dwight Phillips' "dead time" on the runway!).

                    4. Remember, folks, NBC's Oly coverage is an extension of the Today Show! Don't forget it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gh
                      What could lead you to such a bizarre conclusion?
                      1. Other networks not named NBC provided live coverage in other countries.

                      2. There is no guarantee that anybody will do better, but using NBC again guarantees more of the same. At least if it's somebody else there is a chance of decent coverage, even if it's only a 5% chance.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pego
                        This sentence gave away your age :wink: . I am sorry to inform you that ABC before NBC actually started the deplorable style of Olympic coverage. Travel stories, human interest stories, grandmothers' medical history, all instead of sporting coverage. That is Roone Arledge's legacy.
                        But between all those stories, they still showed events like the 100m live.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hello, McFly? They've not shown them live because they've been ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD. I got up at 3 AM to watch CBC's live coverage of Sydney, but no one whose main motive is profit would ever broadcast big events then because only nutjobs like me would be watching. So when you say other countries show them live, you've got to take into consideration their locality (smaller time difference) and their system (gov't TV rather than privately-owned).

                          I think this kind of issue makes Rio and Chicago big frontrunners. The USA still puts in the lion's share of Olympic money, and not being able to show the biggest stuff live for several consecutive Olympiads isn't favorable to staying on that gravy train.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sprintblox
                            Originally posted by Pego
                            This sentence gave away your age :wink: . I am sorry to inform you that ABC before NBC actually started the deplorable style of Olympic coverage. Travel stories, human interest stories, grandmothers' medical history, all instead of sporting coverage. That is Roone Arledge's legacy.
                            But between all those stories, they still showed events like the 100m live.
                            No, they did not. Seoul's finals were moved up to the US prime time. Showing them alive would mean early morning hours in USA. In LA, they completely ignored 10K. While the race was going on, they were showing Billy Mills in Tokyo.
                            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                            by Thomas Henry Huxley

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why didn't USOC wait until they had the 2016 Olympics before they announced their TV deal? Are we talking mental giants?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X