I'm not a cyclist. I'm not a cycling fan. I've never ridden in a cycling race, and I couldn't name many of the top cyclists in the world. I spent no more than $250 on a used road bike, which I use more for commuting than training. For 49 weeks out of the year, I could care less about cycling.
But for the other three weeks, it's all I have on TV. The Tour de France is awesome, and NBC Sports Network's coverage of it is fantastic -- enough to make a fan out of me, at least for a few weeks.
For four to five hours a day, for 21 straight days, they broadcast and cover each stage live. And you're telling me we can do the same thing for two-hour footraces only three times per year? (Chicago, New York, Boston)
Here's what, to me, makes the Tour so compelling to watch:
1. The commentators are incredibly well researched and knowledgeable about the race course and the riders in the field. They know everyone and their results (and they let you know), not just one or two pre-determined favorites. Sure, the big names get more coverage, but if a lesser rider surges to the front, they'll be sure to let you know all about it -- who it is, what he's done in the past, whether or not we should take this breakaway seriously, etc. They don't dumb down their commentary or condescend to the average; they treat the viewer like an intelligent sports fan.
Marathoning (and other road races, in general) has...Tom Hammond. And one or two pre-determined favorites. Everyone else? Meh.
2. There are multiple cameras and innovative shots. There's not just one camera on a motorbike following the leader; there are also cameras weaving through the peloton, monitoring the back of the pack, on the ground at important checkpoints in the race, in a helicopter following the race for chrissakes!
ESPN aired the 2013 New York City Marathon last November. Overall, I mostly enjoyed he coverage. (John Anderson had fantastic commentary and really proved himself a track nerd. Hannah Storm...not so much.) The biggest letdown was that there weren't enough cameras. There was one following the women's leaders and one following the men's leaders and...that's it. We had no idea what was happening in the race beyond that.
3. All the auxiliary details are provided in a ticker at the bottom of the screen. How far have they gone so far? How far do they have left to go? Who's leading the race? Who's farther behind? Where is the peloton? Are they gaining on the leaders? Falling back? Who's off the back of the peloton? Where are the favorites in mix?
NASCAR does this same thing; it's a wonder why running can't. They're most likely already wearing a chip on their shoe or bib#, which the races use to provide athlete tracking. So put it on the TV!
4. They give interesting and well-produced back-stories on some of the favorites. One stage is finishing in Mark Cavendish's mother's hometown? Let's make a short piece about it. Chris Froome is trying to defend the yellow jersey? (Well, not any more...) Let's make sure we show highlights from last year's Tour and how his season has gone so far. Who are the heroes we should be rooting for? Who are the villains (Contador!) we should be hating?
Trackies often complain that many of the stars have no personalities. This is especially true of the countless nameless faceless seemingly anonymous carousel of Kenyans and Ethiopians, many of whom burst onto the scene before fizzling out after a very short but incredibly successful career. (That many can't speak English doesn't always help.) And yet...it's not the athlete's job be a celebrity; it's the producer's job to turn them into one! As a fantastic example, Runnerspace does a fun series call "Meb Minutes" profiling Meb Keflezighi...is there no one at NBC or ESPN that can put those on air during a broadcast?! Or, Buzunesh Deba in the New York City Marathon...Ethiopian native, Bronx resident, hopeful-American-citizen leading the race and coming agonizingly close to victory. Tell us more about her!
5. NBC utilizes the international media feel and then uses their own people to augment that coverage. This really relates back to point #2 about the cameras, but I think it really is that important.
In track especially, but road racing as well, every American fan knows that BBC coverage (or IOC for the Olympics) far outstrips NBC and ESPN in terms of quality of in-depth coverage. And yet we settle for the inferior domestic options, partly due to some warped notion of American Exceptionalism that gives us the hubris to think our networks can do better on their own instead of working with the international feed.
6. TDF coverage includes a lot of little extras that fill in the time (because four hours is a long time to focus on one race). There are small tidbits of info on the landmarks the course passes (which are then highlighted with the many cameras), interesting pieces on some of the small towns they pass through, and even a course elevation chart. While not overly important, these are some of the little things that fill in the lulls during a long race broadcast.
As for running, the marathon is perfect for these info pieces. Take Boston for example: the course literally runs 26.2 miles into the city, passing through small towns all along the way, starting in Hopkinton. Profile these towns! Tell us about the Wellesley girls! Show us the elevation profile, including why Heartbreak Hill is such a heartbreaker!
7. There is something at stake! The Tour de France is the most prestigious race of the year, and winning it even once can define a career. It's so good that even winning a stage is a huge achievement. And the commentators certainly let us know.
What's at stake for the marathon? Besides, you know, someone winning? Is someone chasing a record? Are we returning to Boston or New York? (side note: Boston is the Tour de France of running...the most prestigious event of the year.) Where will this land them in the World Marathon Majors standings? Are there Americans chasing Olympic standards? What about broadcasting the USA Running Circuit, including the .US National Championship?
I hope all the networks look at this past year's Boston Marathon and realize how much of a missed opportunity it was. Not only was it the emotional return to the most prestigious race that was rocked by terrorist attacks, but Americans led the majority of the both the men's and women's races. And, in one of the most cathartic scenes in recent sports memory, an American -- Meb -- won the darn thing for the first time since 1983. This year, of all years. It was an iconic sporting moment -- regardless of whether you're a running fan or not -- and it was shamefully, conspicuously absent from TV.
I would love to see Tour-type coverage of three marathons a year: Chicago, New York, and Boston. Heck, even if it's only the latter two, that'd still be a win. But these are three marathon majors with many of the top stars in the sport. Not only that, but they're top competition at domestic venues.
Most of these race take place early on Sunday or Monday mornings...not exactly prime time for the TV networks. I'd think we could easily skip airing, say, The Sports Reporters, one week out the year when we put on a live sporting event instead. It's not like running would be taking the place of the World Series, or NFL Sunday, or any other cultural institution.
Here's what I'd love to see: the three major domestic marathons live on ESPN, all utilizing this all-out Tour-style coverage. Go all-out coverage three races per year...that shouldn't be too much to ask. And if the coverage is successful, then add in the other marathon majors: London, Berlin, and Tokyo. NBC Sports Network would then broadcast the USA Running Circuit, which would serve as a de facto domestic road racing season, culminating in the .US National Championship, naming final season standings. The sport of running has the infrastructure in place for an exciting series of races...they just need someone to broadcast the races on air.
Tens of thousands of people run these races every year. Millions gather on the streets to watch them live. Track is the second-most popular high school boys sport, and the most popular high school girls sport. Networks are stupid not to be airing this stuff.
But for the other three weeks, it's all I have on TV. The Tour de France is awesome, and NBC Sports Network's coverage of it is fantastic -- enough to make a fan out of me, at least for a few weeks.
For four to five hours a day, for 21 straight days, they broadcast and cover each stage live. And you're telling me we can do the same thing for two-hour footraces only three times per year? (Chicago, New York, Boston)
Here's what, to me, makes the Tour so compelling to watch:
1. The commentators are incredibly well researched and knowledgeable about the race course and the riders in the field. They know everyone and their results (and they let you know), not just one or two pre-determined favorites. Sure, the big names get more coverage, but if a lesser rider surges to the front, they'll be sure to let you know all about it -- who it is, what he's done in the past, whether or not we should take this breakaway seriously, etc. They don't dumb down their commentary or condescend to the average; they treat the viewer like an intelligent sports fan.
Marathoning (and other road races, in general) has...Tom Hammond. And one or two pre-determined favorites. Everyone else? Meh.
2. There are multiple cameras and innovative shots. There's not just one camera on a motorbike following the leader; there are also cameras weaving through the peloton, monitoring the back of the pack, on the ground at important checkpoints in the race, in a helicopter following the race for chrissakes!
ESPN aired the 2013 New York City Marathon last November. Overall, I mostly enjoyed he coverage. (John Anderson had fantastic commentary and really proved himself a track nerd. Hannah Storm...not so much.) The biggest letdown was that there weren't enough cameras. There was one following the women's leaders and one following the men's leaders and...that's it. We had no idea what was happening in the race beyond that.
3. All the auxiliary details are provided in a ticker at the bottom of the screen. How far have they gone so far? How far do they have left to go? Who's leading the race? Who's farther behind? Where is the peloton? Are they gaining on the leaders? Falling back? Who's off the back of the peloton? Where are the favorites in mix?
NASCAR does this same thing; it's a wonder why running can't. They're most likely already wearing a chip on their shoe or bib#, which the races use to provide athlete tracking. So put it on the TV!
4. They give interesting and well-produced back-stories on some of the favorites. One stage is finishing in Mark Cavendish's mother's hometown? Let's make a short piece about it. Chris Froome is trying to defend the yellow jersey? (Well, not any more...) Let's make sure we show highlights from last year's Tour and how his season has gone so far. Who are the heroes we should be rooting for? Who are the villains (Contador!) we should be hating?
Trackies often complain that many of the stars have no personalities. This is especially true of the countless nameless faceless seemingly anonymous carousel of Kenyans and Ethiopians, many of whom burst onto the scene before fizzling out after a very short but incredibly successful career. (That many can't speak English doesn't always help.) And yet...it's not the athlete's job be a celebrity; it's the producer's job to turn them into one! As a fantastic example, Runnerspace does a fun series call "Meb Minutes" profiling Meb Keflezighi...is there no one at NBC or ESPN that can put those on air during a broadcast?! Or, Buzunesh Deba in the New York City Marathon...Ethiopian native, Bronx resident, hopeful-American-citizen leading the race and coming agonizingly close to victory. Tell us more about her!
5. NBC utilizes the international media feel and then uses their own people to augment that coverage. This really relates back to point #2 about the cameras, but I think it really is that important.
In track especially, but road racing as well, every American fan knows that BBC coverage (or IOC for the Olympics) far outstrips NBC and ESPN in terms of quality of in-depth coverage. And yet we settle for the inferior domestic options, partly due to some warped notion of American Exceptionalism that gives us the hubris to think our networks can do better on their own instead of working with the international feed.
6. TDF coverage includes a lot of little extras that fill in the time (because four hours is a long time to focus on one race). There are small tidbits of info on the landmarks the course passes (which are then highlighted with the many cameras), interesting pieces on some of the small towns they pass through, and even a course elevation chart. While not overly important, these are some of the little things that fill in the lulls during a long race broadcast.
As for running, the marathon is perfect for these info pieces. Take Boston for example: the course literally runs 26.2 miles into the city, passing through small towns all along the way, starting in Hopkinton. Profile these towns! Tell us about the Wellesley girls! Show us the elevation profile, including why Heartbreak Hill is such a heartbreaker!
7. There is something at stake! The Tour de France is the most prestigious race of the year, and winning it even once can define a career. It's so good that even winning a stage is a huge achievement. And the commentators certainly let us know.
What's at stake for the marathon? Besides, you know, someone winning? Is someone chasing a record? Are we returning to Boston or New York? (side note: Boston is the Tour de France of running...the most prestigious event of the year.) Where will this land them in the World Marathon Majors standings? Are there Americans chasing Olympic standards? What about broadcasting the USA Running Circuit, including the .US National Championship?
I hope all the networks look at this past year's Boston Marathon and realize how much of a missed opportunity it was. Not only was it the emotional return to the most prestigious race that was rocked by terrorist attacks, but Americans led the majority of the both the men's and women's races. And, in one of the most cathartic scenes in recent sports memory, an American -- Meb -- won the darn thing for the first time since 1983. This year, of all years. It was an iconic sporting moment -- regardless of whether you're a running fan or not -- and it was shamefully, conspicuously absent from TV.
I would love to see Tour-type coverage of three marathons a year: Chicago, New York, and Boston. Heck, even if it's only the latter two, that'd still be a win. But these are three marathon majors with many of the top stars in the sport. Not only that, but they're top competition at domestic venues.
Most of these race take place early on Sunday or Monday mornings...not exactly prime time for the TV networks. I'd think we could easily skip airing, say, The Sports Reporters, one week out the year when we put on a live sporting event instead. It's not like running would be taking the place of the World Series, or NFL Sunday, or any other cultural institution.
Here's what I'd love to see: the three major domestic marathons live on ESPN, all utilizing this all-out Tour-style coverage. Go all-out coverage three races per year...that shouldn't be too much to ask. And if the coverage is successful, then add in the other marathon majors: London, Berlin, and Tokyo. NBC Sports Network would then broadcast the USA Running Circuit, which would serve as a de facto domestic road racing season, culminating in the .US National Championship, naming final season standings. The sport of running has the infrastructure in place for an exciting series of races...they just need someone to broadcast the races on air.
Tens of thousands of people run these races every year. Millions gather on the streets to watch them live. Track is the second-most popular high school boys sport, and the most popular high school girls sport. Networks are stupid not to be airing this stuff.
Comments
Post a Comment