Jump to content

Swimming Finals Might Be Held In The Morning


arwebb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well that's progress at least. But you still haven't understood the point that NBC can show these finals at prime-time anyway. They can show them live, then show them again in the evening for those people who can't see them the first time round.

My problem with this is with the principal of it, as I alluded to earlier, and the precedent it sets. If NBC gets its way on this, is this going to be expected at future Games? And is there likely to be some sort of trade off next time the Games are in America? Somehow, I very much doubt the latter.

I am sick and tired of seeing sporting events in whatever field being shunted around just to suit television. Why, for once, can't television fit round the event?

As for my interest in swimming, well there are many things you do not know, that being one of them.

NBC won't air events live and then re-air them in primetime, because they feel that this would decrease their primetime ratings (and they're probably right).

There are trade-offs that go on. They aren't as drastic as late morning swim finals, but they certainly do happen. One famous case was in 1996, where the women's team gymnastics final, probably one of the 10 most famous moments in US Olympic history, started at 5 or 6 PM Atlanta time and was seen throughout the US on primetime tape delay. This was specifically done so that it could be seen at a reasonable hour in Europe. If NBC had their way, it would've started at 8 or 9 PM.

There is no slippery slope here; this will NOT lead to a day when NBC will be asking for 2 AM track & field finals in London. If you honestly think that would happen, you're kidding yourself. Other than a North American Olympics, an Olympics in the Far East is the best possible chance that NBC would get for live primetime coverage, and they're similar trying to take advantage of the opportunity. They know that live primetime coverage is impossible during a European Olympics, and that's why they've never sought it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NBC won't air events live and then re-air them in primetime, because they feel that this would decrease their primetime ratings (and they're probably right).

How do they know if they don't try it? For the past few games they haven't even attempted it.

It's a formula that seems to work in Oz (I'm not sure about Europe but I expect it does there too). Thos keen to see it live get uop to watch it at whatever hour (or crowd round the TV in their workplace), and then the local broadcasters can promote the hell out of it during the day leading up to primetime highlights.

It sure works better than trying to oretend nothing has happened at all, but finding the internet has stolen all the thunder out of the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they know if they don't try it? For the past few games they haven't even attempted it.

It's a formula that seems to work in Oz (I'm not sure about Europe but I expect it does there too). Thos keen to see it live get uop to watch it at whatever hour (or crowd round the TV in their workplace), and then the local broadcasters can promote the hell out of it during the day leading up to primetime highlights.

It sure works better than trying to oretend nothing has happened at all, but finding the internet has stolen all the thunder out of the action.

I'd like to see that too, but I think NBC is terrified of the possible consequences if it backfires. There's almost no question that airing the events live in the morning would put a noticable dent in their primetime ratings, and that's what they're afraid of. And while it would also create an increase in viewership and ad revenue during those live morning broadcasts, those increases would likely not make up for the decrease in night-time viewership. It's all about money to them, and they believe that they'll make more money by catering to the captive audiences who sit in front of their TVs at night, and not to the people who watch with the sound off at work or at the gym during the day.

I've been defending NBC's line of reasoning, but I agree that they're going to have to make a change some time in the near future. Since 1992, they've been bidding against themselves and pouring too much money into the IOC, and now they're finding that their jobs are being made much harder by the internet age. Hopefully, Dick Ebersol will retire or get fired some time soon and another network will be able to scoop up the Olympics for a lower price, and then give it the appropriate coverage. That's what I think it'll take before we see any drastic change in Olympic broadcasting in this country. NBC is too set in their ways, and with the ridiculous amounts that they've paid for rights, they have no choice but to focus entirely on primetime ratings. Unfortunately, they have the broadcasting rights through at least 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been defending NBC's line of reasoning, but I agree that they're going to have to make a change some time in the near future. Since 1992, they've been bidding against themselves and pouring too much money into the IOC, and now they're finding that their jobs are being made much harder by the internet age. Hopefully, Dick Ebersol will retire or get fired some time soon and another network will be able to scoop up the Olympics for a lower price, and then give it the appropriate coverage. That's what I think it'll take before we see any drastic change in Olympic broadcasting in this country. NBC is too set in their ways, and with the ridiculous amounts that they've paid for rights, they have no choice but to focus entirely on primetime ratings. Unfortunately, they have the broadcasting rights through at least 2016.

I think just through London -- which is why it's interesting to see how much a much increased, lesser, or stagnant situation the US broadcast/internet rights will be starting with the 2014 package (which includes 2016), and how much impact that will really have on the outcome of 2016.

But Bode, you're right. The US networks, NBC especially, have been paying too much for the Games. I've always thought that why rip each other over those astronomical rights. Why don't they just decide amongst themselves that -- say, "...we won't bid more than X dollars for these Games; and you can take it or leave it, Mr. IOC." I think they've shot themselves in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they know if they don't try it? For the past few games they haven't even attempted it.

It's a formula that seems to work in Oz (I'm not sure about Europe but I expect it does there too). Thos keen to see it live get uop to watch it at whatever hour (or crowd round the TV in their workplace), and then the local broadcasters can promote the hell out of it during the day leading up to primetime highlights.

It sure works better than trying to oretend nothing has happened at all, but finding the internet has stolen all the thunder out of the action.

The BBC show as much live coverage as they can no matter where the Games are held and then have at least a couple of hours of highlights during the primetime period - several million people stayed up beyond 2am in 2002 to watch the Women's Curling Final in Salt Lake City - and on a week night too! When the Summer Olympics or World Cup are on a lot of the country adapts itself to fit in as much coverage as possible - when British athletes are doing well in a particular event or one of the main disciplines are on, even people who aren't usually interested in sport tune in to see the results (they don't really have any choice as the Olympics tends to dominate the schedules and it's all people talk about at work or in the pub anyway). I remember waking up really early before going to school to watch the coverage of Seoul '88, the same happened in 2000 to watch the Sydney Games - only then I was staying up late and getting up early. It's all part of the Olympic experience.

Why don't they just decide amongst themselves that -- say, "...we won't bid more than X dollars for these Games; and you can take it or leave it, Mr. IOC." I think they've shot themselves in the foot.

Because that's very illegal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC show as much live coverage as they can no matter where the Games are held and then have at least a couple of hours of highlights during the primetime period - several million people stayed up beyond 2am in 2002 to watch the Women's Curling Final in Salt Lake City - and on a week night too! When the Summer Olympics or World Cup are on a lot of the country adapts itself to fit in as much coverage as possible - when British athletes are doing well in a particular event or one of the main disciplines are on, even people who aren't usually interested in sport tune in to see the results (they don't really have any choice as the Olympics tends to dominate the schedules and it's all people talk about at work or in the pub anyway). I remember waking up really early before going to school to watch the coverage of Seoul '88, the same happened in 2000 to watch the Sydney Games - only then I was staying up late and getting up early. It's all part of the Olympic experience.

Because that's very illegal!

i agree with you getting up early and staying up late is all part of the experience. I remember in Atlanta waking at 3 or so in the moring to watch the three day event equestrian show jumping where New Zealand won gold and silver. Nearly a million kiwis did the same (which is about 25% of our population). For New Zealanders we dont care where the games are we still support them no matter what time zone they are in! If we can do that anyone can!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBC won't air events live and then re-air them in primetime, because they feel that this would decrease their primetime ratings (and they're probably right).

There are trade-offs that go on. They aren't as drastic as late morning swim finals, but they certainly do happen. One famous case was in 1996, where the women's team gymnastics final, probably one of the 10 most famous moments in US Olympic history, started at 5 or 6 PM Atlanta time and was seen throughout the US on primetime tape delay. This was specifically done so that it could be seen at a reasonable hour in Europe. If NBC had their way, it would've started at 8 or 9 PM.

There is no slippery slope here; this will NOT lead to a day when NBC will be asking for 2 AM track & field finals in London. If you honestly think that would happen, you're kidding yourself. Other than a North American Olympics, an Olympics in the Far East is the best possible chance that NBC would get for live primetime coverage, and they're similar trying to take advantage of the opportunity. They know that live primetime coverage is impossible during a European Olympics, and that's why they've never sought it.

A reasonable hour? 6pm Atlanta time translates to about 11pm British Summer Time and midnight in Europe if I'm not mistaken. I can well remember seeing Kerri Strug's winning vault in the team competition sometime in the small hours of the morning. I suppose that depends on your definition of reasonable. I'm not sure 11pm is.

What I want to know is this - if they get this, what is to stop them asking for more and more at future Games? What is to stop them asking in the case of the London Games, for example, for finals to take place later in the evening to suit US audiences? They would be able to argue, with some justification, that it happens already with professional boxing (see the Joe Calzaghe-Jeff Lacy fight from earlier this year as an example), so why not here?

As I alluded to earlier, I'm fed up with television being allowed to or having the chance to dictate when sporting events are scheduled. Why can't television fit round the event for a change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reasonable hour? 6pm Atlanta time translates to about 11pm British Summer Time and midnight in Europe if I'm not mistaken. I can well remember seeing Kerri Strug's winning vault in the team competition sometime in the small hours of the morning. I suppose that depends on your definition of reasonable. I'm not sure 11pm is.

What I want to know is this - if they get this, what is to stop them asking for more and more at future Games? What is to stop them asking in the case of the London Games, for example, for finals to take place later in the evening to suit US audiences? They would be able to argue, with some justification, that it happens already with professional boxing (see the Joe Calzaghe-Jeff Lacy fight from earlier this year as an example), so why not here?

As I alluded to earlier, I'm fed up with television being allowed to or having the chance to dictate when sporting events are scheduled. Why can't television fit round the event for a change?

Well, you guys will just have to build up your population to top the US' one and your populace's buying power of consumer goods, so you can pull a bigger weight within the IOC. THat's the solution. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a much easier solution, Baron, and that is for this request to be buried in a deep, dark hole and never ever see the light of day again. Then let the local organisers sort the scheduling out themselves. Or is that too simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...