So I guess I'll start out where I left off last time: track is hard to watch on TV because the commentators have no idea what they're talking about.
Okay, well maybe that's a little harsh. But is it really? Watching the Olympic Trials this past week, it's sometimes been painfully obvious how bad they are sometimes.
That said though, coverage of the Trials has been better than track coverage usually is.
First, let's look that the sprinters. Ato Boldon does of pretty good job with the sprint events. I mean, I don't really know too much about sprinting, so I can't really so too too much. But I think he does a really good job educating the viewer about what's going on. So then, is it any surprise that the sprints get top billing on TV?
Now for the distance races. In the past, they've been awful. By that, I mean at times the commentators haven't even known who's who in the races. The general sporting public doesn't know much about the distance races, and previous commentators haven't been helping at all. I'm convinced they go to commercial during the races because they run out of things to say. Um...well...I don't really know what I'm talking about, so...let's just go to commercial and come back for the bell lap. But at the trials, they've had much better commentary (Has it been Marty Liquori? I think it has...correct me if I'm wrong). It's actually been much better, and (surprise surprise) I get the feeling distance races are being featured a little more.
Field events get the shaft. I know I've said it before, but it's so true. And Dwight Stone is actually really good at the field updates! He knows his stuff! The tough part with the field events is just their format, how they take so long to contest...and on that, they do a bad job of educating how the competitions work (with different flights, and opening heights, and number of misses, and thing like that -- I'd be lying if I said I totally understood that field event stuff).
The problem with having poor commentary is that you then have uneducated viewers. Let's face it: the viewing public doesn't know the first thing about track. And that is why good commentary is so essential; to educate them on the drama and sophistication of a track meet.
Because uneducated viewers aren't repeat viewers; conversely, those who know and understand what they are watching (the tactics, the strategy, the drama, etc.) are more likely to get into to...and to come back for more later.
Well gee, that's a good segue into the next post!
Coming Next: Do Fans Know What They're Watching?
Okay, well maybe that's a little harsh. But is it really? Watching the Olympic Trials this past week, it's sometimes been painfully obvious how bad they are sometimes.
That said though, coverage of the Trials has been better than track coverage usually is.
First, let's look that the sprinters. Ato Boldon does of pretty good job with the sprint events. I mean, I don't really know too much about sprinting, so I can't really so too too much. But I think he does a really good job educating the viewer about what's going on. So then, is it any surprise that the sprints get top billing on TV?
Now for the distance races. In the past, they've been awful. By that, I mean at times the commentators haven't even known who's who in the races. The general sporting public doesn't know much about the distance races, and previous commentators haven't been helping at all. I'm convinced they go to commercial during the races because they run out of things to say. Um...well...I don't really know what I'm talking about, so...let's just go to commercial and come back for the bell lap. But at the trials, they've had much better commentary (Has it been Marty Liquori? I think it has...correct me if I'm wrong). It's actually been much better, and (surprise surprise) I get the feeling distance races are being featured a little more.
Field events get the shaft. I know I've said it before, but it's so true. And Dwight Stone is actually really good at the field updates! He knows his stuff! The tough part with the field events is just their format, how they take so long to contest...and on that, they do a bad job of educating how the competitions work (with different flights, and opening heights, and number of misses, and thing like that -- I'd be lying if I said I totally understood that field event stuff).
The problem with having poor commentary is that you then have uneducated viewers. Let's face it: the viewing public doesn't know the first thing about track. And that is why good commentary is so essential; to educate them on the drama and sophistication of a track meet.
Because uneducated viewers aren't repeat viewers; conversely, those who know and understand what they are watching (the tactics, the strategy, the drama, etc.) are more likely to get into to...and to come back for more later.
Well gee, that's a good segue into the next post!
Coming Next: Do Fans Know What They're Watching?
Comments
Post a Comment