Is it me or was today's ESPN-cast Rome meet ho-hum? With all the superlative marks it should have been a track fan's delight. But a) it was over a week old, and b) the presentation was here's an event, here's another, here's another, etc. No excitement, no interest, just the bare facts. There has to be a happy medium between the over-commentated Golden Spike telecats and these antiseptic airings. What's a track fan to do?
>a) it was
>over a week old, and b) the presentation was
>here's an event, here's another, here's another,
>etc. No excitement, no interest, just the bare
Actually I liked the B portion of this statement. But having a good idea of what is (has) happening I guess I lean toward preferring minimal talking and maximum action. Maybe I am just a little odd, I have been known to simply turn off the sound sometimes on other sports (football, basketball etc) because I think it simply is so much noise that adds nothing.
> I have been known to simply turn off the sound
sometimes on other sports (football, basketball
etc) because I think it simply is so much noise
that adds nothing.<
I no longer have the time to watch sports on tv, but when I did, I used to do that all the time. The commentary was rarely worth listening to. In many cases it actually detracted from my enjoyment of the event.
Whoa,Whoa, Whoa...You fellahs got to see the meet. I dunno but in my "t.v. market" they were playing a rerun of the lame ass ESPYs from the oter night, but from the sounds of it I didn't miss much.
I was there a week ago, and enjoyed being able to see some highlights on the broadcast today. Actually I thought, by comparison to the usual TV fare, that today's coverage was OK. At least they showed more than 4 seconds of the 5000, for example. The meet was very good (in person), but certainly not over-the-top fabulous, so it's not as if there was enormous excitement that night that didn't come across on TV. What WAS missing, however, was any sense of the crowd noise (and there was a good deal, particularly for the Italian competitors--the Italian vaulter, for example, set two NRs that night to wild cheering) and the sound of the starting gun. As a result, watching this telecast was sort of like watching a silent movie with voice over...
I thought the quick recap of other event results was done pretty well--better that than seeing 30 replays of the 100 and the hurdles alone...
The change in the Rome stadium from last year was pretty successful--they blocked off the two ends in order to cluster the crowd closer together on the homestretch (and backstretch--which appeared to be the free, or at least incredibly inexpensive, seats). Unfortunately, too few shots in the ESPN coverage really conveyed how many people WERE actually there. The Rome stadium is one of the nicest big stadiums for track--better, in my opinion, than Paris. (However
the ideal track stadium really should have no more than ca. 25,000 seats.)
When, oh when, will Larry Rawson get a grammar coach?? His habit of saying "isn't" instead of "is" has driven me nuts for years.
But, in the end, I agree with the correspondent above: we should be grateful for ANY half-decent coverage on US TV of the Euro circuit...the alternative could well be NO coverage at all. I applaud ESPN for what they're doing.
It must be MUCH more expensive to telecast the meet same-day, because ESPN must know that the ratings would be MUCH higher if we could watch it before we read it on the internet - I could hold off for a couple of hours if they can get it even on tape delay.
Sure, who wouldn't agree?? But, just off the top of my head, I'd guess that the ESPN people are pitching these meets to the broadest & most casual body of fans possible, not strictly to hardcore ones. (Since the latter will watch ANY track coverage, no matter how long delayed! TV being what it is, it's always the mass of casual viewers who get what they "want" [or are perceived to want], and not the minority of rabid fans.)
The real choice isn't between mediocre and ideal coverage; it's between mediocre and NO coverage.