Dick Ebersol resigning from NBC Sports

[Quaker2001]

I completely agree. Most Americans do not care enough about the Olympics to get up at 3am to watch athletes they've never heard of in a sport they're not familiar with. Even if Michael Phelps were competing at that time, ESPN would be lucky to get 1/4th of the audience that NBC got in 2004 (the last time that swimming was shown on tape-delay). The difference between ESPN and NBC is that ESPN has the advantage of massive subscriber fees, so they're not as reliant on advertising dollars as NBC. Even so, having 3 million people watching live marquee events at 3am on ESPN will have a very negative effect on the Olympics in the U.S. and on the corporate sponsorship that the USOC and the sports federations need to keep producing world-class athletes.

It's worth noting that one of the most-watched hours of the entire Vancouver Olympics was the women's downhill, which was shown about 8 hours after it took place. A taped broadcast of the race beat out American Idol for that hour. In many cases, I think withholding coverage until primetime actually builds up the ratings--when people see the results, they want to tune in for a major event. With that said, I think there are some events that NBC should considering showing live next year, like the men's 100m final, which will take place at about 5pm Eastern on Saturday. The most-watched event of the Vancouver Games was the men's hockey final, which was broadcast in the afternoon, so I think NBC would get a huge audience for a live 100m final at 5pm as well.

Yes, finally someone else who gets what Dick Ebersol is doing! My big fear about the Olympics is that a network like ESPN is going to come in, show everything live, not care about how many people are watching, and then all of a sudden the Olympics don't seem like such a hot property anymore. That would be a Greek tragedy, and that's putting aside any negativity some people already have towards ESPN how they treat certain events.

Your other point about the tape delay is absolutely true. NBC hyped the heck out of Lindsay Vonn leading up to the Olympics. So when she won that gold in the downhill, how many people tuned in that night because they knew she won and wanted to see her reaction at the bottom of the hill (as opposed to those who think that people are turned off by knowing the results). CBS, when they had the Olympics in the 90s, used to tell people the results of events all the time, even competitions they knew they'd be saving for primetime. Never seemed to scare them away then, even if it was the days before Youtube and Twitter and Facebook (a.k.a. YouTwitFace) and instant status updates.

As for an event like the men's 100m final (which I believe is actually on a Sunday in London), a case could easily be made to show that live. I don't know that it will happen, but maybe Comcast views things differently than the Ebersol regime would have. Guess we'll just have to wait and see next summer!

[Barcelona_'92]

Clips and highlights, not the full events.

If the 2008 men's 100m butterfly final had been shown at 3am, the entire race would have been replayed all day long on ESPN and on the internet. Nearly everyone would have already seen the whole race before the primetime broadcast. I doubt many people would tune in to see it yet again.

[Barcelona_'92]

Your other point about the tape delay is absolutely true. NBC hyped the heck out of Lindsay Vonn leading up to the Olympics. So when she won that gold in the downhill, how many people tuned in that night because they knew she won and wanted to see her reaction at the bottom of the hill (as opposed to those who think that people are turned off by knowing the results). CBS, when they had the Olympics in the 90s, used to tell people the results of events all the time, even competitions they knew they'd be saving for primetime. Never seemed to scare them away then, even if it was the days before Youtube and Twitter and Facebook (a.k.a. YouTwitFace) and instant status updates.

Exactly. I know people get annoyed with NBC's overhyping of athletes like Vonn, Phelps, Liukin, etc., but the bottom line is that most Americans don't have any clue who these athletes are. In this day and age, Americans need personalities to become interested in watching the Olympics, and NBC provides that by building up the top athletes before the Olympics and then showing the events when the most people will be watching. This isn't the 70s and 80s, when Americans tuned in to the Olympics just to watch a USA-USSR showdown. ESPN could hype Vonn and Phelps as much as they want, but it's not going to convince 25 million Americans to lose sleep or miss work in order to watch their events.

[OneTimeOnly]

How about at night when they get home.

That's exactly what I meant. That's exactly when they are going to watch it, so what difference does it make? "oh they'll fast forward through the commercials". Yeah, and they can do that during the Prime-Time broadcast too, if they have a DVR, and do what my brother does, so there's still no reason not to show it live.

If the 2008 men's 100m butterfly final had been shown at 3am, the entire race would have been replayed all day long on ESPN and on the internet. Nearly everyone would have already seen the whole race before the primetime broadcast. I doubt many people would tune in to see it yet again.

I think people would.

The network will still get sponsor ad dollars, just not at the exorbidant rates they have been used to.

[OneTimeOnly]

If the 2008 men's 100m butterfly final had been shown at 3am, the entire race would have been replayed all day long on ESPN and on the internet. Nearly everyone would have already seen the whole race before the primetime broadcast. I doubt many people would tune in to see it yet again.

You're wrong about this. If NBC showed a race live at 3am, other outlets could show highlights but not the whole race. Only rights holders to the broadcast would be able to show the whole race, and in this case, that would be NBC.

[Quaker2001]

That's exactly what I meant. That's exactly when they are going to watch it, so what difference does it make? "oh they'll fast forward through the commercials". Yeah, and they can do that during the Prime-Time broadcast too, if they have a DVR, and do what my brother does, so there's still no reason not to show it live.

Because if your brother wants to do that, he has to wait until 8:30 or 9pm to start watching if he wants to fast forward through the commercials. What if he settles in front of his TV at 7pm? He could watch 3 hours worth of Olympics coverage from earlier in the day in 2 hours and then still be able to watch whatever else. There are other things on TV during the Olympics, most of which in February is first-run programming since it's a sweeps month. NBC showed 400+ hours of television coverage from Vancouver. So for Fox or ESPN to show as much of the Olympics as they did, they either have to add more hours (since some events are being shown twice) or cut back on how much of the events they're showing. Not the best use of your programming time, especially in the United States when there are a lot of people out there with absolutely no interest in the Olympics.

The network will still get sponsor ad dollars, just not at the exorbidant rates they have been used to.

So then how are ESPN and Fox supposed to compete with Comcast if NBC can generate more money than they can? In order for Fox or ESPN to justify a high enough bid to win, they have to make all that money back. They can't afford to so "well, we'll make a lot of money, just not as much as we could."

[Barcelona_'92]

You're wrong about this. If NBC showed a race live at 3am, other outlets could show highlights but not the whole race. Only rights holders to the broadcast would be able to show the whole race, and in this case, that would be NBC.

If ESPN wins the rights for 2014/2016, they'll be showing the whole race on SportsCenter and their other coverage throughout the day. Most people will have seen it by the time they air it on a primetime broadcast on ABC.

[OneTimeOnly]

If ESPN wins the rights for 2014/2016, they'll be showing the whole race on SportsCenter and their other coverage throughout the day. Most people will have seen it by the time they air it on a primetime broadcast on ABC.

Well ESPN would have to control themselves, wouldn't they? After all they are OWNED by ABC/Disney.

[OneTimeOnly]

Because if your brother wants to do that, he has to wait until 8:30 or 9pm to start watching if he wants to fast forward through the commercials. What if he settles in front of his TV at 7pm? He could watch 3 hours worth of Olympics coverage from earlier in the day in 2 hours and then still be able to watch whatever else. There are other things on TV during the Olympics, most of which in February is first-run programming since it's a sweeps month. NBC showed 400+ hours of television coverage from Vancouver. So for Fox or ESPN to show as much of the Olympics as they did, they either have to add more hours (since some events are being shown twice) or cut back on how much of the events they're showing. Not the best use of your programming time, especially in the United States when there are a lot of people out there with absolutely no interest in the Olympics.

So then how are ESPN and Fox supposed to compete with Comcast if NBC can generate more money than they can? In order for Fox or ESPN to justify a high enough bid to win, they have to make all that money back. They can't afford to so "well, we'll make a lot of money, just not as much as we could."

Well first of all, who cares about Sochi. It's the winter games of which my interest is diminished when compared to the summer games. I'm thinking in terms of summer games. Secondly, you network tv people need to reaize eventually that the way things are going, you have to revolve around *us* and what WE want, not what *you* want. Yeah, maybe my brother does want to record what is earlier and then watch something else. So what? Some will do that, some won't. Get over it. People should also stop bidding so much for the Olympic Games. The IOC should get used that too.

[GoNutz]

If ESPN wins the rights for 2014/2016, they'll be showing the whole race on SportsCenter and their other coverage throughout the day. Most people will have seen it by the time they air it on a primetime broadcast on ABC.

Why would they replay it on repeat all day that makes no sense.

The other point is cable ratings are usually a fraction of what OTA ratings are yet ESPN is still the most powerful name in sports in the US and verging on the World. I think if Disney or Fox have plans and want to move Olympic coverage to cable they'd be more than satisfied with the cable ratings they get even if they don't even come near to what NBC got on OTA.

It also seems like there is something that we keep tip toeing around and that is, the Olympic Games in the 21st Century are becoming or have become more of a niche product, and if they aren't forced onto OTA, a lot of people would probably not even realize they're missing. Then again maybe I'm misinterpreting, and they could still be widely loved by the masses and would be missed by moving them to cable, and showing the events live.

[GoNutz]

Well first of all, who cares about Sochi. It's the winter games of which my interest is diminished when compared to the summer games. I'm thinking in terms of summer games. Secondly, you network tv people need to reaize eventually that the way things are going, you have to revolve around *us* and what WE want, not what *you* want. Yeah, maybe my brother does want to record what is earlier and then watch something else. So what? Some will do that, some won't. Get over it. People should also stop bidding so much for the Olympic Games. The IOC should get used that too.

Exactly, like I said in my last comment, it seems like in the age of hundreds of digital cable networks the Olympic Games have moved into more of a niche space. Yeah it sucks that Americans may not be as big of fans of the games that we are, but there's a whole lot of competition now. I'm not scared of ESPN showing the events live, if the games are in fact worth a billion dollars they should be able to stand on their own don't you all agree?

[Quaker2001]

Well first of all, who cares about Sochi. It's the winter games of which my interest is diminished when compared to the summer games. I'm thinking in terms of summer games. Secondly, you network tv people need to reaize eventually that the way things are going, you have to revolve around *us* and what WE want, not what *you* want. Yeah, maybe my brother does want to record what is earlier and then watch something else. So what? Some will do that, some won't. Get over it. People should also stop bidding so much for the Olympic Games. The IOC should get used that too.

First off, you're posting in an Olympics forum, so I'm guessing more than a couple of people here care, even if you don't. So let's make it seem like the Winter Olympics are unimportant simply because YOU don't care.

As for NBC's programming strategy, are they or is another network going to get better ratings (better ratings = more people consuming your product) showing things twice like you've suggested? I sure don't think so. I've read way too most posts from people like yourself who seem to think NBC isn't giving them what they want. Well tell that to all the people that tuned in to watch the Vancouver Olympics which had more viewers than American Idol which has been the most watched show on television for years now. An example like your brother isn't reason enough for NBC to do things any differently, so you and him need to get over that.

And the networks should bid less? We know NBC made a big mistake on the 2010-2012 bid, but they also made millions of dollars on every Olympics before that. The networks will bid what they believe the Olympics are worth and the IOC can't do a thing about it. When you have multiple bidders like we do in the United States, it's going to drive the price up. You can't just say "they should bid less" for no good reason.

[Quaker2001]

Why would they replay it on repeat all day that makes no sense.

The other point is cable ratings are usually a fraction of what OTA ratings are yet ESPN is still the most powerful name in sports in the US and verging on the World. I think if Disney or Fox have plans and want to move Olympic coverage to cable they'd be more than satisfied with the cable ratings they get even if they don't even come near to what NBC got on OTA.

It also seems like there is something that we keep tip toeing around and that is, the Olympic Games in the 21st Century are becoming or have become more of a niche product, and if they aren't forced onto OTA, a lot of people would probably not even realize they're missing. Then again maybe I'm misinterpreting, and they could still be widely loved by the masses and would be missed by moving them to cable, and showing the events live.

Exactly, like I said in my last comment, it seems like in the age of hundreds of digital cable networks the Olympic Games have moved into more of a niche space. Yeah it sucks that Americans may not be as big of fans of the games that we are, but there's a whole lot of competition now. I'm not scared of ESPN showing the events live, if the games are in fact worth a billion dollars they should be able to stand on their own don't you all agree?

The games are worth however much money the networks can generate from them. Because that number could vary greatly based on how they're covered (i.e. live versus tape-delayed), that makes a huge difference on how much they're worth to a network. It's not like there's 1 set number because it's not like a football game or a golf tournament where the start times are set largely for the benefit of TV. That can't always happen with the Olympics, especially when they're in a US TV-unfriendly time zone.

As for the Olympics becoming a nice event, I don't think that's true. The problem is that Americans like their football and their baseball and their basketball, so when it comes time for the Olympics, what's the draw? We see and hear about athletes like LeBron and Brett Favre on a far too regular basis, so there are people out there that follow their every move. Most people probably couldn't even tell you anything useful about Michael Phelps since Beijing. To me, the Olympics seem like an event that appeals to everyone, but it's not ingrained into the national consciousness like football or baseball is, so for the 2 1/2 weeks it comes around every 4 years, they can only get into it if there are interesting personalities and storylines involved. And the point I keep making about a network like ESPN.. they're known to hype a person or a story to death, but if they show the Sochi Olympics live and those headlines get buried behind ESPN's steady diet of college basketball, then that's going to seriously hurt the reputation of the Olympics in this country and that would be a Greek tragedy.

[OneTimeOnly]

First off, you're posting in an Olympics forum, so I'm guessing more than a couple of people here care, even if you don't. So let's make it seem like the Winter Olympics are unimportant simply because YOU don't care.

As for NBC's programming strategy, are they or is another network going to get better ratings (better ratings = more people consuming your product) showing things twice like you've suggested? I sure don't think so. I've read way too most posts from people like yourself who seem to think NBC isn't giving them what they want. Well tell that to all the people that tuned in to watch the Vancouver Olympics which had more viewers than American Idol which has been the most watched show on television for years now. An example like your brother isn't reason enough for NBC to do things any differently, so you and him need to get over that.

And the networks should bid less? We know NBC made a big mistake on the 2010-2012 bid, but they also made millions of dollars on every Olympics before that. The networks will bid what they believe the Olympics are worth and the IOC can't do a thing about it. When you have multiple bidders like we do in the United States, it's going to drive the price up. You can't just say "they should bid less" for no good reason.

Lot's of people tuned in to the Vancouver games, but were still pissed at NBC, what's your point? My parents live in the same time zone as Vancouver, but were unable to watch the Opening or Closing ceremonies live. Now, the Opening was on a Friday, so there's NBC's excuse "people are still at work" but what about the closing?" It was on a freaking SUNDAY. STILL DELAYED.

NBC is the worst network on television. Maybe you should realize that. They have good production values when it comes to the Olympic Games, but that's it. Everything else they do is pure crap. There's a reason they are in the toilet.

[GoNutz]

The games are worth however much money the networks can generate from them. Because that number could vary greatly based on how they're covered (i.e. live versus tape-delayed), that makes a huge difference on how much they're worth to a network. It's not like there's 1 set number because it's not like a football game or a golf tournament where the start times are set largely for the benefit of TV. That can't always happen with the Olympics, especially when they're in a US TV-unfriendly time zone.

As for the Olympics becoming a nice event, I don't think that's true. The problem is that Americans like their football and their baseball and their basketball, so when it comes time for the Olympics, what's the draw? We see and hear about athletes like LeBron and Brett Favre on a far too regular basis, so there are people out there that follow their every move. Most people probably couldn't even tell you anything useful about Michael Phelps since Beijing. To me, the Olympics seem like an event that appeals to everyone, but it's not ingrained into the national consciousness like football or baseball is, so for the 2 1/2 weeks it comes around every 4 years, they can only get into it if there are interesting personalities and storylines involved. And the point I keep making about a network like ESPN.. they're known to hype a person or a story to death, but if they show the Sochi Olympics live and those headlines get buried behind ESPN's steady diet of college basketball, then that's going to seriously hurt the reputation of the Olympics in this country and that would be a Greek tragedy.

That's the real rub though isn't it, the IOC has this golden goose the US that coughs up huge chunks of money and yet they disdain and treat the US with contempt. They do nothing to cultivate and differentiate the Olympic brand in the US other than expecting big fat checks from the networks. And in return in the competitive marketplace the games diminish in status and we get to a point now where someone like you fears showing the events live which is what people have said they want, you fear will start a self reinforcing chain reaction pushing the Olympic games into obscurity.

The degradation of the games status in the US comes only from the IOC. Instead of building on their Olympic brand in the US and reinforcing it here they choose to let it lie dormant for 2-4 years at a time when the games are broadcast, or twenty to thirty, or maybe even forty years when an Olympic games is held in the US. And that won't cut it when you have the sports leagues and the NCAA here everyday. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a tragedy, but it would suck to see Olympic coverage shunted off to some three digit channel like ESPN U but the IOC aren't doing anything to promote their product here and I can't see that anything is changing, the sports marketplace is crowded and competitive and the IOC is having its lunch eaten by guys that are running circles around them domestically.

[Quaker2001]

Lot's of people tuned in to the Vancouver games, but were still pissed at NBC, what's your point? My parents live in the same time zone as Vancouver, but were unable to watch the Opening or Closing ceremonies live. Now, the Opening was on a Friday, so there's NBC's excuse "people are still at work" but what about the closing?" It was on a freaking SUNDAY. STILL DELAYED.

NBC is the worst network on television. Maybe you should realize that. They have good production values when it comes to the Olympic Games, but that's it. Everything else they do is pure crap. There's a reason they are in the toilet.

My point is that those pissed people still watched, so why should NBC care if they're pissed. Did you parents watch the Opening and Closing Ceremonies? If they did, apparently the delay wasn't a big issue for them. Unless NBC sees a drop in the ratings as a result of the ratings (and the fact of the matter is that many cities out West were among the highest-rated from last year's Olympics), then why should they do things any different? Remember also.. the West coast delays go back to 2002 when they had Salt Lake. It was the affiliates that wanted the delay, not NBC, so that they could wait until later in the evening to start coverage and then get a stronger lead-in to the local news which is a huge revenue generator for local stations. I don't care how good or bad of a network NBC is, what difference does their other programming make? I think they do a good job with the Olympics, better than any other network would. Would I be upset if I lived on the West coast and had to deal with the delays? Yea, I probably would, but I'd still be watching, so what obligation does NBC have to make me and everyone else 'happy' unless they see value in that.

[Quaker2001]

That's the real rub though isn't it, the IOC has this golden goose the US that coughs up huge chunks of money and yet they disdain and treat the US with contempt. They do nothing to cultivate and differentiate the Olympic brand in the US other than expecting big fat checks from the networks. And in return in the competitive marketplace the games diminish in status and we get to a point now where someone like you fears showing the events live which is what people have said they want, you fear will start a self reinforcing chain reaction pushing the Olympic games into obscurity.

The degradation of the games status in the US comes only from the IOC. Instead of building on their Olympic brand in the US and reinforcing it here they choose to let it lie dormant for 2-4 years at a time when the games are broadcast, or twenty to thirty, or maybe even forty years when an Olympic games is held in the US. And that won't cut it when you have the sports leagues and the NCAA here everyday. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a tragedy, but it would suck to see Olympic coverage shunted off to some three digit channel like ESPN U but the IOC aren't doing anything to promote their product here and I can't see that anything is changing, the sports marketplace is crowded and competitive and the IOC is having its lunch eaten by guys that are running circles around them domestically.

The problem with the Olympic brand in this country is that people don't follow track & field or swimming or alpine skiing on a regular basis here like they do in other countries. There's too much football and baseball and basketball to allow that to happen. There was a time that the Olympics brought rivalries and gave us the good guy vs. bad guy mentality with the Soviets and that made them a big deal. That's gone away in the past 20 years. United States vs. Canada is a good rivalry as we saw from Vancouver, but it's not quite the same as United States vs. Soviet Union.

I agree it is a somewhat sad statement that the US networks provide so much money to the IOC and yet we're unlikely to see an Olympics in this country for at least another decade if not more. But even if the Games did come here, it would only provide a brief boost. The problem with most of the athletes is that unlike baseball players who are playing every day in season or football players who are playing once a week, most Olympic athletes are often built up as having other lives and it almost makes it seem that they don't compete elsewhere. How often is Michael Phelps actually in competition and when he is, where can people watch it? I don't know what the solution is (if there even is one), but I think it would take some sort of major worldwide event to bring the Olympics back to what they used to be.

[baron-pierreIV]

My parents live in the same time zone as Vancouver, but were unable to watch the Opening or Closing ceremonies live. Now, the Opening was on a Friday, so there's NBC's excuse "people are still at work" but what about the closing?" It was on a freaking SUNDAY. STILL DELAYED.

Well, your folks got the Opening & Closing skeds mixed up. Openings, unless they happen West Coast time (where I live) are always FIRST SHOWN on Friday nights (even tape-delayed). How could they have missed that? I think west coast coverage was only an hour late last year because the WOGs were in Vancouver.

Closings are ALWAYS Sunday night...and again, they may have started the LIVE proceedings an hour before Pacific broadcast time. So, if they missed them at the primetime schedule, that's NOT the network's fault. I didn't miss them on their 1st showing. Maybe you should've called them to remind them when they were on the 1st time?

[Quaker2001]

Well, your folks got the Opening & Closing skeds mixed up. Openings, unless they happen West Coast time (where I live) are always FIRST SHOWN on Friday nights (even tape-delayed). How could they have missed that? I think west coast coverage was only an hour late last year because the WOGs were in Vancouver.

Closings are ALWAYS Sunday night...and again, they may have started the LIVE proceedings an hour before Pacific broadcast time. So, if they missed them at the primetime schedule, that's NOT the network's fault. I didn't miss them on their 1st showing. Maybe you should've called them to remind them when they were on the 1st time?

The West coast coverage was delayed a full 3 hours, not 1. If something was shown at 8pm in the East, they got it at 8pm in the West. That includes the Opening and the Closing.

[OneTimeOnly]

Well, your folks got the Opening & Closing skeds mixed up. Openings, unless they happen West Coast time (where I live) are always FIRST SHOWN on Friday nights (even tape-delayed). How could they have missed that? I think west coast coverage was only an hour late last year because the WOGs were in Vancouver.

Closings are ALWAYS Sunday night...and again, they may have started the LIVE proceedings an hour before Pacific broadcast time. So, if they missed them at the primetime schedule, that's NOT the network's fault. I didn't miss them on their 1st showing. Maybe you should've called them to remind them when they were on the 1st time?

What the **** are you talking about? Both the opening and closing ceremonies from Vancouver were delayed three hours. They didn't miss them, but they didn't like having to wait to watch watch them at 9:00 PM Pacific time on a Sunday night when they started in Vancouver at 6:00 PM Pacific time. Your comment above makes no sense and isn't relevant to anything that was said previously in this thread.

My point is that those pissed people still watched, so why should NBC care if they're pissed. Did you parents watch the Opening and Closing Ceremonies? If they did, apparently the delay wasn't a big issue for them. Unless NBC sees a drop in the ratings as a result of the ratings (and the fact of the matter is that many cities out West were among the highest-rated from last year's Olympics), then why should they do things any different? Remember also.. the West coast delays go back to 2002 when they had Salt Lake. It was the affiliates that wanted the delay, not NBC, so that they could wait until later in the evening to start coverage and then get a stronger lead-in to the local news which is a huge revenue generator for local stations. I don't care how good or bad of a network NBC is, what difference does their other programming make? I think they do a good job with the Olympics, better than any other network would. Would I be upset if I lived on the West coast and had to deal with the delays? Yea, I probably would, but I'd still be watching, so what obligation does NBC have to make me and everyone else 'happy' unless they see value in that.

Yup and you are the typical arrogant network asshole attitude. And for the record my parents stopped watching the Closing Ceremony early. It should have aired at 6:00 PM PST LIVE, not delayed. For Gods sake, California and Vancouver are in the SAME FUCKING TIME ZONE.

[baron-pierreIV]

The West coast coverage was delayed a full 3 hours, not 1. If something was shown at 8pm in the East, they got it at 8pm in the West. That includes the Opening and the Closing.

So what you're saying is that the actual ceremonies started at 6:00pm in Vancouver -- which comes out to Pacific broadcast time at 9:00pm?)

Anyway, my point is...I got the C's in my prime-time and I was satisfied with it. (I just hate the one-hour lead-in they give. They (well, KRON) always says Opening C will start at 8:00pm, but the doggone ceremony doesn't actually start until 9:00PM. I HATE that. I always get suckered into that one-hour preshow, lead-in which is a waste of my time and anticipation. You'd think I would've learned by now.) And just as payback, I really never watch anything else on KRON the rest of the year. Ha!!

[OneTimeOnly]

How often is Michael Phelps actually in competition and when he is, where can people watch it?

Haha, the answer is on NBC for crying out loud, you don't know that? Between NBC and NBC's Universal Sports channel, swimming has been on more than it's ever been. the Olympic Games, Olympic Trials, U.S. Nationals, Pan Pacific Championships, the FINA World Aquatics Championships, FINA Short Course Swimming Championships, the USA Swimming Grand Prix Series, the FINA/ARENA World Cup Series (though Phelps specifically has not competed in the World Cup), all broadcast on either NBC or Universal Sports.

So what you're saying is that the actual ceremonies started at 6:00pm in Vancouver -- which comes out to Pacific broadcast time at 9:00pm?)

I thought you watched the ceremonies. You don't remember what time they started? Or were you stupid enough to think they were live?

[baron-pierreIV]

I thought you watched the ceremonies. You don't remember what time they started? Or were you stupid enough to think they were live?

F*Ck u -- assh*le. But I think u'd like that.

For your unclear brain, I remember when they STARTED. I don't really care whether they started 3 or 2 hours or 16 minutes earlier because I AM ONLY concerned with what I am seeing!

Quaker mentioned a 3-hour delay...which I KNOW and understand. So therefore, I was merely clarifying the matter based on that calculation of his that the actual Opening in vancouver must've started at 6:00pm to get the 9:00pm primetime broadcast for the East Coast -- NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS TO ME Then or NOW!!

Whining and speculating on when it is happening live, doesn't alter my then-and-there moment. DUH!!

Get your head out of your pithole.

[OneTimeOnly]

F*Ck u -- assh*le. But I think u'd like that.

We know you would. You're the biggest not-so-in-the-closet self hating/in denial gay around here.

[baron-pierreIV]

speak 4 yourself.

Now u're getting tedious.