Olympics - Thank you NBC

[Bob Trapp]

Thank you NBC, for the best Olympic coverage in a very long time. You reached a good balance between event coverage and athletes background information. Excellent.

Wish I could have gotten the HD channel but that was not to be.

[juan ellitinez]

:confused: :nono2: :eek2: maybe if they live HD it might have been acceptable

[TNGTony]

The thing is, there is no "balance" when it comes to athlete background info. I DON'T CARE that little James Jamison, Jr. was beaten by his father who was an abusive newspaper editor with arachnaphobia and that is why little James Jr. became a long distance runner to stay one step ahead of the beating he would have otherwise received for opening a bottle of spiders on his father's bed.

I DON'T CARE!!!! Can James run? Good. Prove it! Show me the F*#&$# race and let's see if James can run or not!

Just show me the sport! ANYTHING...I mean ANYTHING else is garbage!

When I go to football and baseball games, people are amazed that I barely know the team member's names. I DON'T CARE!!! Can they hit? Can they run? Can they block? Can they pass? That is all I care about!

They used to have all these friggin' mini-docs during the Daytona 500 and the Indy 500, remember? That only stopped when the true fans started to complain consistantly and loudly about interrupting the sport they care about with information about the people in it. And complaining even MORE loudly that coverage was not live! Remember the Indy 500 was not live on TV for many, many, many years. For a while there it was even edited heavily!

One athlete backround mini-doc is too many! Show me the sport.

see ya
Tony

[Danny R]

Just show me the sport! ANYTHING...I mean ANYTHING else is garbage!

I can't agree. While there can certainly be overkill in the amount of background story, I'd rather know a little about the teams than nothing at all. Most of these sports are rarely seen outside of the Olympics by most of us. I'd rather know something about the athletes so I can root for specific athletes as the contest progresses. If I know nothing, then I have no basis for deciding who I want to win beforehand other than nationality.

That only stopped when the true fans started to complain consistantly and loudly about interrupting the sport they care about with information about the people in it.

Again, there is a difference between some documentary and overkill. Interrupting the race itself with extended coverage is a bit much. However one can still find out lots of information before and after the race from the announcers. They didn't stop it entirely.

And complaining even MORE loudly that coverage was not live!

This is a valid complaint for a contest held locally here in the states, but is not valid when the time zones are as different as they are. NBC did a good job covering some events live. For instance both marathons were live, and started late in the afternoon in Greece, but aired in the morning here. Airing all the coverage in such a manner would put it out of the viewing of most folks. Time delay is inevitable. Not to mention that you have multiple events taking place simultaneously across the city. Simultaneous events taking place in the same arena even if you look at gymnastics.

[TNGTony]

Most people root for football and baseball teams based on geographical location. The team's back story is irrelevant!

I root for the sport. I want the best athlete to win. The only way to see who the best athlete is in a particular sport is to see the sport! Knowing that a loser trained on a bowl of oat meal and dried milk for 14 months because that is what makes him faster makes no difference to those who care about the sport! Knowing some one's background makes no difference once the event has begun. Can they perform? PROVE IT! That is all I care about.

See ya
Tony

[Danny R]

I want the best athlete to win.

How do you know who the best athlete is? Just by who wins? Every contest will have a winner, but that doesn't mean they were the favorite to win it prior to the race.

Most of the background coverage I've seen is NOT how they eat a bowl of oatmeal, but rather their triumphs and struggles in previous competitions, which give the viewer an idea of how they might perform.

Most people root for football and baseball teams based on geographical location. The team's back story is irrelevant!

While geographic location plays a part, I think knowing the backstory is vital as well. Smoltz is cheered in the 9th inning because people know who he is, not just that he plays for Atlanta. Glavine is boo'd here as well because of his past actions, not just because he's a pitcher for an opposing team.

[SimpleSimon]

I want the best athlete to win.

How do you know who the best athlete is? Just by who wins?
Well, DUH! How can it be anything else? :confused: :nono:

[Danny R]

Well, DUH! How can it be anything else?

You ignored the rest of that paragraph. EVERY contest has a winner. That however does not make them the BEST athlete... only the best athlete at that particular moment.

Michael Phelps didn't swim the relay. Does that mean he's no longer the best athlete in that sport? Would you not want to know that he stepped down from competing to let another teammate, who had been plagued by flu, to compete?

Can you tell me that the whole Tonya Harding, Nancy Kerrigan incident wasn't relevant to that Olympics?

The backstory is important. I can't agree with those who don't want to hear it.

[TNGTony]

Danny, my point is that none of these things you talk about are important to the fans because they saw it on a mini-doc during coverage of the game! Fans get their information on athletes from the internet, but keeping up with the sport by other means, magazines, etc. I guarantee you that if you interrupted a baseball game to put a mini-doc on Smoltz before he is brought in, or Glavin before his at-bat, all the same you hear chearing or boo-ing in the stands would STRING YOU UP!

There are plenty of people in the stands cheering during events. They don't get to see the back-story.

I make fun of these mini-docs mostly because nearly every one I know with a remote CHANGES THE CHANNEL the instant they appear! And every one I remember seeing (from back why I was my father's remote control) was about Hakeem from Upper Volta and how his village burned to the ground but he was spared because he was the fastest runner! Or how Sven Joranson survived an avalance by eating off his own hand.

When baseball games are interrupted and tape-delayed to "tighten it up" for those who are not really fans and want to experience the specticle...when football games are edited down and "packaged" for prime time, that is when I'll believe that most sports fans agree that NBC provided good coverage of the Olympic Games.

See ya
Tony

[SimpleSimon]

Well, DUH! How can it be anything else?

You ignored the rest of that paragraph. EVERY contest has a winner. That however does not make them the BEST athlete... only the best athlete at that particular moment.Of course - it's always that. World records are made and broken all the time. We're talking about the 2004 Olympic games. My definition of "best" is within that context. I DID notice tho, that whoever it was that won the decathalon was given the title "Best athlete in the world" by at least the commentators.

Michael Phelps didn't swim the relay. Does that mean he's no longer the best athlete in that sport? Would you not want to know that he stepped down from competing to let another teammate, who had been plagued by flu, to compete?That is correct. He IS no longer the best athlete until he competes and wins at some point in the future.

Can you tell me that the whole Tonya Harding, Nancy Kerrigan incident wasn't relevant to that Olympics?The exception (like the 1972 hostages) that proves the rule.

The backstory is important. I can't agree with those who don't want to hear it.I am not proposing censorship, nor non-carry of these stories (nor do I think TNGTony is) - just don't bother me with it during the event itself. In this case, maybe one of the channels (Bravo?) could carry all this stuff for those that want it. Works for me.

[TNGTony]

I am not proposing censorship, nor non-carry of these stories (nor do I think TNGTony is) - just don't bother me with it during the event itself. In this case, maybe one of the channels (Bravo?) could carry all this stuff for those that want it. Works for me.

BINGO! Thanks Simon!

In every other sport on TV there is usually a pre-game and post game. The pre-game show has all the background crap and back story that some find interresting. The post game show analyze the reasons why the person or team considered to be the best WASN'T! (or sometime was) ...i.e. lost for whatever reason. But the games or events themselves are NEVER interrupted for this tripe. The commentators may bring it up to highten context, but they never cut away to bring you any of this stuff. Why? Because the true fans would revolt and burn down the network studios!

Also in just about every other sport in the US, the pre game and post game shows are separated 100% from the event in every guide. That is what I want. Just show me the sport! Just like Football...show me the sport!

See ya
Tony

[Visitor]

Knowing that a loser trained on a bowl of oat meal and dried milk for 14 months because that is what makes him faster makes no difference to those who care about the sport!

I guess you didn't care about any of the Olympic sports, because that statement is just flat-out wrong. People who are involved in sports and care about them very much want to know how the athletes train. Background information can be infomative, and entertaining, too.

Danny, my point is that none of these things you talk about are important to the fans because they saw it on a mini-doc during coverage of the game!

Please don't pretend to speak for all sports fans; you don't. Just because you don't like the documentaries doesn't mean no one else does, or that those who do aren't true sports fans. You speak for yourself, not for everybody.

It gets annoying hearing so many people grip about the Olymipic coverage. NBC did a fine job of presenting as many sports as they could in a tight timeframe. Of course they couldn't satisy everyone, and people here love to bitch about how the coverage wasn't what THEY wanted, as if NBC should have catered to them and only them. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

Now, chill out, the Olympics are over. Find something else to complain about.

[SimpleSimon]

Visitor: TNGTony is not trying to speak for everyone - neither am I - we're simply expressing opinions. It seems that we've actually come up with a reasonable answer, too. Pre-event and post-event shows, or side channels. In fact, that happens now - watch the Speed channel. :)

[HarryD]

Thanks NBC?? For showing diving and gymnastics all the time! Please! And that's the reason they no longer have sports! And keep Bob Costas on HBO.. he adds nothing.

[SimpleSimon]

Well, I saw T & F, swimming, diving, BBall, and gymnastics - and I was just checking in on the HD loop occasionally.

[BarryO]

Thank you NBC, for the best Olympic coverage in a very long time. You reached a good balance between event coverage and athletes background information. Excellent.

I agree. I have a 921 same as you; maybe that made the difference.

I remember back in the LA Olympics, where we only had one channel, and there was no way to please everyone. Everybody bitched about the TV coverage.

Now, with 6 channels, and DVR technology, NBC can please everyone. Case in point: My wife and daughter rides horses, and really wanted to see all the equestrian. And for the first time in an Olympics, they did. So what if it was mostly on Bravo at 4 AM? A DVR like the 921 makes time-of-broadcast unimportant.

If you don't like the background material that much, get a DVR, start watching on at least a 1 hour delay, and just skip over the parts you're not interested in.

[TNGTony]

I guess you didn't care about any of the Olympic sports, because that statement is just flat-out wrong.

If I were wrong, the wailes from the fans would not be as evident as they are. A little aside here...the reason for the mini-docs in the first place is to make those who otherwise don't care about the sport to have some information to give a damn about an athlete and garner interest in the sport. In other words, the mini-docs are designed to get a non-fan to be a fan. Therefore it is the NON-fan of the sport who is most likely to be interested in the mini-doc.

People who are involved in sports and care about them very much want to know how the athletes train. Background information can be infomative, and entertaining, too.

But NEVER DURING the event!!!!!!!!!! How many mini-docs are there in the middle of a game of Football? Baseball? Golf? Tennis? Basketball? Hockey? Soccer? In racing Since 1989 (when CBS was bombarded by HATE mail for their coverage of the Daytona 500) NASCAR? (since 1991 for the same reason as CBS in 1989) IRL? All the background info NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER interrupts the event itself! Why? Because people would revolt and put out a contract on the producers of the show! Some background information might be mentioned in passing by the announcers as you see the athlete in the event. However all these events have a 30 minute pre-game show. The pre-game shows in general get much, much lower ratings than the event itself which tells me that most of the people who watch the event DONT CARE about the background!

Please don't pretend to speak for all sports fans; you don't. Just because you don't like the documentaries doesn't mean no one else does, or that those who do aren't true sports fans. You speak for yourself, not for everybody.

I am in the majority. I do not speak for all sports fans. I am just voicing my opinion which has be validated by numerous others who complain about the coverage. If you need to know that Alsaad Rabumafo began to swim because his village was in 5 feet of water for 2 weeks and he had to get to school on the other side of the marsh, you really don't care about the sport of swimming itself. You need the crutch of rooting for some one in particular to make you care and thus not a swimming fan at all. All I and any true fan of the sport need to know is that AR is a hell of a swimmer and ranked X in the world. SET...GO!

It gets annoying hearing so many people grip about the Olymipic coverage.

Does that tell you something? You may have liked the coverage, but real sports fans...people who want to see real competition were very dissatisfied.

NBC did a fine job of presenting as many sports as they could in a tight timeframe. Of course they couldn't satisy everyone, and people here love to bitch about how the coverage wasn't what THEY wanted, as if NBC should have catered to them and only them. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

The only bitch I have is the NBC spent way too much time telling me why I should care about an athlete or specific team or specific sport. JUST SHOW ME THE SPORT! If I'm a fan, I'll love it. If I'm not a fan, no amount of back story on an athlete will make me care. This is a lesson that networks need to learn over and over and over again.

Before 1989 the Daytona 500 was one of a couple of NASCAR races covered on TV and then it was tape-delayed on CBS, edited, packaged and filled with mini-docs! After each broadcast fans would screem in anguish! They'd cry for blood! They just wanted to watch the friggin race.

ABC has the same issues. They slowly started "getting it" and one year when the director was more interested in the drivers wives biting their lower lip as the two drivers were neck and neck for the last 10 laps of the race, the number of people calling to complain and bitch about the lousy coverage FINALLY got it though their heads that PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE SPORT!

Now, chill out, the Olympics are over. Find something else to complain about.

I can, because NBC never treats any other sport the same way they did the Olympics. They concentrate of the actual event and don't bombard us with hours of tripe and filler to get those who aren't interested in the sport to give a damn about what is going on.

I'm really hoping that I won't have the same problem in two years during the Winter Olympics. But somehow, I still don't think they get it.

See ya
Tony

[Fredfa]

A problem with this discussion is that the majority of people who watch the Olympics on NBC are NOT sports fans. They are event fans.
And to them the back story is, apparently, important.
If NBC were able to broadcast events live, interrupting for a background piece would be a) silly and b) impossible.
In 2000, there were 125 of those backgrounders. NBC was criticized heavily.
This year there were 60. And in most cases they were substantially shorter.
If NBC relied on gymnastics or track and field or diving fans, they could have numbered their viewers in the same small numbers as they do during the Olympic trials.
No, the Olympics is covered as an event, not as a program only for sports fans.
But for hard-core fans, NBC offered extended coverage of all 28 sports this year (for the first time) on its cable nets.
There, sports fans could watch what they wanted, a lot of it live.
But for the four hours of primetime coverage each night, NBC had to meld sports and drama and tell some stories.
The critics, and ratings, indicate they did very well.

[Fredfa]

re TNGTony:
"..If I'm a fan, I'll love it. If I'm not a fan, no amount of back story on an athlete will make me care. This is a lesson that networks need to learn over and over and over again. "

You have obviously spent a lot of time doing exhaustive audience research and marketing studies.
Not!
Your opinions represent YOU (and of course all the rest of your friends in "the majority").
If your opinions represented anywhere near as many people as you want us to believe, NBC and its cable networks would not just have posted the best viewership EVER for a non-US Olympics.
Here is the ratings story from Tuesday's NY TImes:

Ratings for Olympics Improve
By THE NEW YORK TIMES August 31, 2004

Through the 17 days of the Summer Olympics in Athens, NBC generated a 15.0 prime-time average rating, nine percent higher than its ratings four years ago for the Games in Sydney, Australia, and three percent above the rating that was guaranteed to advertisers. Each night averaged 24.6 million viewers, up 14 percent over Sydney.

On Sunday's closing night of the Olympics, NBC posted an 11.9 rating, with 19.6 million viewers, compared with a 10.8 rating, or 16.7 million viewers, in Sydney.

The overall coverage on NBC, Telemundo, CNBC, USA, MSNBC and Bravo attracted 203 million viewers, the most for an Olympics outside the United States. Of those, 69 million watched CNBC, USA, MSNBC and Bravo.

[TNGTony]

Fred,

I remember being told how wrong I was about NASCAR coverage in 1988 and how the mini-docs added to the race coverage. I was told by a radio talk show host (and then NBC commentatior) Bob Trumpe on the air on WLW just how wrong I was about the "wives" incident on the Indy coverage. Time and the way those sports are covered today have proved me correct. Only time will prove me correct again.

And let's think about this...during the last olympics...more mini-docs, less audience. During these olympics...less mini-docs, more audience....Hmmmm....I guess you're right. I MUST be wrong to think that most people HATE these friggin time killers!

See ya
Tony

[djlong]

The ONE not-so-mini-doc that NBC got right was the one they opened with on the last night of coverage. I was surprised at how long it was *but* - it didn't interfere with *anything*.

[BobMurdoch]

All I watched was the HD channel and they had NO mini docs, no Costas, very few commercials (OK the SAME Sony ads WERE annoying after about 2 days but that is what the commercial skip button is for on the 921). Very few commercial breaks, and announcers who were fairly lowkey (other than the Australian or British Diving commentator who was a rip). They even upped the variety of events covered towards the end by adding soccer and basketball as well as a few others....

[Fredfa]

The problem for your point is, Tony, is that most people aren't sports fans.
Check with any news director at any TV station in the country. The sports segment is the least watched.
Any focus group will show that to be true.
I have observed dozens of them.
So NBC had to do something to engage the non-sports fan.
And it did.
It obviously didn't engage you.
But comparing NASCAR to the Olympics is purely apples and oranges.
People watch NASCAR already rooting for a driver or drivers and already knowing the back story and the history.
And frankly, the fact that former NFL star Bob Trumpy was "wrong" (about NASCAR, of all things) proves a thing. Trumpy may have done many things well, but as even he would readily admit, TV production was not one of them.

[TNGTony]

It's the same concept. In the late 80's NASCAR was barely known outside the "deep south" and the drivers were complete unknows in most of the country with few exceptions. That is why CBS thought they should "build" an audience nationwide by packaging the sport. They wanted to get people who didn't know the people in the sport to know the drivers and to see all aspects of the race event, not just the actual race. They did nothing but PISS OFF the fans and the non-fans were still unimpressed. Ratings outside the NASCAR areas were dismal! Once there was critical mass and enough people complained about the packaging, it stopped! CBS started just covering the damned race flag to flag. Same thing happened with ABC and Indy. Hell, Indy wasn't even live in nationwide until the 80's and in Indy several years later!

I don't have to ask a news director about the least watched part of the news, I already know it's sports! Why? Because the real fans watched the event live! With some exceptions, the ones that didn't care enough to watch the event live or get the score as soon as they could by other means, STILL DON'T CARE!

Sports programs are consistantly the highest rated shows with the most loyal audiences and the ones most likely to sit though commercials! Monday Night Football on its worst day still outdoes just about anything it comes up against after decades! This is why all the major networks clammor for major sporting events! The Olympics is on the virge of being treated like the sporting event it is rather than a celebration the networks used to make it out to be.

Say I'm wrong. But if the trend continues you will see that the mini-doc - packaged event coverage will go away and real sports coverage with separate pre and post game shows will prevail. I've been told I was wrong before. Years later, everything I said came to pass. The same thing is going on now. I know, in the end, I will be proved to be correct...again.

See ya
Tony

[SimpleSimon]

Tony: You and me both - so many times :D

The sad part is that when you're finally proven right, the nay-sayers won't come back and admit it. ;)