NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Troy Hea » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:42:50


First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
off-the-air TV.

That said, I'm disappointed with NBC's coverage of this Olympic games.
 They did a far better job in 1996 and 2000, but this time they
skipped all kinds of different sports.  No doubt they did this,
because these sports are not popular, but I still don't consider that
acceptable:
- NBC only broadcast 9 hours a day they still had plenty of time to
show the other less-popular sports
- The 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. slot was a stupid *repeat* show!  That would
have been an ideal time to show these other events (and is what NBC
did in 92, 96 and 2000).

As I said, I'm disappointed I didn't get to see these sports (the *
indicates the ones I really wanted to see).

*Archery
Badminton
boxing
*Equestrian (a beautiful sport... imho just as beautiful as the
gymnastics or diving NBC dedicated 20+ hours to)
Fencing
Field hockey
*karate (I love martial arts)
*Handball
*Ping pong
racewalking
Sailing
Shooting
Tennis
*WOMEN'S basketball (argh! They won a gold medal, and I didn't even
see it!!!!!)

Stupid, stupid NBC.  As I said before, you could have easily run these
less-popular sports during the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. timeslot, so I could
tape it and watch it later... but no.  You have a rerun.  Idiots.

Troy

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Long Joh » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:57:15



Quote:
> Stupid, stupid NBC.  As I said before, you could have easily run these
> less-popular sports during the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. timeslot, so I could
> tape it and watch it later... but no.  You have a rerun.  Idiots.

NBC doesn't have a 2am to 6am time slot, that time belongs to your local
TV station to do with what they want. Some chose to repeat the Network
feed from primetime and others did not. I had one NBC affiliate rerunning
Olympic coverage while another was programming infomercials.

Quote:
> As I said, I'm disappointed I didn't get to see these sports (the *
> indicates the ones I really wanted to see).

> *Archery
> Badminton
> boxing
> *Equestrian (a beautiful sport... imho just as beautiful as the
> gymnastics or diving NBC dedicated 20+ hours to)
> Fencing
> Field hockey
> *karate (I love martial arts)
> *Handball
> *Ping pong
> racewalking
> Sailing
> Shooting
> Tennis
> *WOMEN'S basketball (argh! They won a gold medal, and I didn't even
> see it!!!!!)

Most all of these sports were covered almost to boredom (all except
Katate which isn't an Olympic event) on the various NBC sister networks.

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Rich Clar » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:18:52


Quote:
> First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
> off-the-air TV.

That's your problem. Broadcast TV is dead. NBC would be stupid to tailor
their coverage to a market that doesn't matter to them economically.

TV networks are not a public service. The viewers they care about -- the
ones who can give advertisers a return on their investment -- have cable.

The world has moved on. It's unreasonable to expect Olympic coverage to be
like it was when everybody watched broadcast TV.

RichC

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by shcr » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:35:28

Quote:
> > First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
> > off-the-air TV.

> That's your problem. Broadcast TV is dead. NBC would be stupid to tailor
> their coverage to a market that doesn't matter to them economically.

> TV networks are not a public service. The viewers they care about -- the
> ones who can give advertisers a return on their investment -- have cable.

> The world has moved on. It's unreasonable to expect Olympic coverage to be
> like it was when everybody watched broadcast TV.

> RichC

 I wouldn't mind paying a fee to have the Olympics like MLB Season Pass on
Directv.  That way they can show all the sports.
I'd rather pay the fee, than see all the commercials anyhow.
 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by kaydig » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:11:45

Quote:
> *Archery
> boxing
> *Equestrian (a beautiful sport... imho just as beautiful as the
> gymnastics or diving NBC dedicated 20+ hours to)
> Fencing
> *karate (I love martial arts)
> Sailing
> Shooting
> Tennis

Those were televised.
 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Mark Jone » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:52:36


Quote:
> TV networks are not a public service. The viewers they care about -- the
> ones who can give advertisers a return on their investment -- have cable.

Advertisers target people who have money to spend regardless of
whether they receive the ad over cable or via an antenna. I have
more money to spend on advertised items because I haven't
spent the money already on a cable bill.
 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by D.F. Mann » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:24:53


Quote:

> I wouldn't mind paying a fee to have the Olympics like MLB Season Pass on
> Directv.  That way they can show all the sports.
> I'd rather pay the fee, than see all the commercials anyhow.

NBC tried that in 1992. The "Olympic Triplecast" was a flop.
--
I'm D.F. Manno, and I don't approve of George Bush's message.
 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Rich Clar » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:44:58


Quote:


>> TV networks are not a public service. The viewers they care about -- the
>> ones who can give advertisers a return on their investment -- have cable.

> Advertisers target people who have money to spend regardless of
> whether they receive the ad over cable or via an antenna. I have
> more money to spend on advertised items because I haven't
> spent the money already on a cable bill.

And demographically, the people with money to spend have cable (or
satellite). The fact that you may be a statistical anomaly is insignificant.

RichC

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Don Del Grand » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:51:44

Quote:

> First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
> off-the-air TV.

Remember, it's "free" because advertisers buy commercial time, and
expect decent ratings in return - and as much as fan of "other sports"
as I am, I see NBC's point in only showing events where they expect to
get good ratings on their main channel.

Quote:
> As I said, I'm disappointed I didn't get to see these sports (the *
> indicates the ones I really wanted to see).

> *karate (I love martial arts)

"The Karate Kid" movies notwithstanding, karate is not an Olympic
sport.  (Judo and taekwondo are, but karate is not.)

-- Don

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Brissi » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:55:28

Here in Australia we got 23.5 hours a day, but unfortunatly spent a
lot of time showing repeats, especially of Aussies winning, and not
showing live sport, or events they didn't show - like high jump final,
long jump final, etc.



Quote:
>First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
>off-the-air TV.

>That said, I'm disappointed with NBC's coverage of this Olympic games.
> They did a far better job in 1996 and 2000, but this time they
>skipped all kinds of different sports.  No doubt they did this,
>because these sports are not popular, but I still don't consider that
>acceptable:
>- NBC only broadcast 9 hours a day they still had plenty of time to
>show the other less-popular sports
>- The 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. slot was a stupid *repeat* show!  That would
>have been an ideal time to show these other events (and is what NBC
>did in 92, 96 and 2000).

>As I said, I'm disappointed I didn't get to see these sports (the *
>indicates the ones I really wanted to see).

>*Archery
>Badminton
>boxing
>*Equestrian (a beautiful sport... imho just as beautiful as the
>gymnastics or diving NBC dedicated 20+ hours to)
>Fencing
>Field hockey
>*karate (I love martial arts)
>*Handball
>*Ping pong
>racewalking
>Sailing
>Shooting
>Tennis
>*WOMEN'S basketball (argh! They won a gold medal, and I didn't even
>see it!!!!!)

>Stupid, stupid NBC.  As I said before, you could have easily run these
>less-popular sports during the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. timeslot, so I could
>tape it and watch it later... but no.  You have a rerun.  Idiots.

>Troy

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Chris Lamber » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:14:08

Quote:

> First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
> off-the-air TV.

That would be your own fault.

-C!

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Zach » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:27:58

Quote:

> First, let me say that I don't have cable.  All I have is free
> off-the-air TV.

> That said, I'm disappointed with NBC's coverage of this Olympic games.
>  They did a far better job in 1996 and 2000, but this time they
> skipped all kinds of different sports.  No doubt they did this,
> because these sports are not popular, but I still don't consider that
> acceptable:
> - NBC only broadcast 9 hours a day ? they still had plenty of time to
> show the other less-popular sports
> - The 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. slot was a stupid *repeat* show!  That would
> have been an ideal time to show these other events (and is what NBC
> did in 92, 96 and 2000).

> As I said, I'm disappointed I didn't get to see these sports (the *
> indicates the ones I really wanted to see).

> *Archery
> Badminton
> boxing
> *Equestrian (a beautiful sport... imho just as beautiful as the
> gymnastics or diving NBC dedicated 20+ hours to)
> Fencing
> Field hockey
> *karate (I love martial arts)
> *Handball
> *Ping pong
> racewalking
> Sailing
> Shooting
> Tennis
> *WOMEN'S basketball (argh! They won a gold medal, and I didn't even
> see it!!!!!)

Each of the sports you mention with the * were shown frequently on
various cable stations.  Equestrian, for example, was on during the
day a *lot*. Also, karate is not an Olympic sport. Do you mean
Taekwondo or judo?

I realize you don't have cable, but NBC has to make decisions about
what to show based on what they perceive people are interested in
watching. At this point something like 80% of the US population has
either cable or satellite TV.  I certainly don't think you have to get
that if you don't want, but it's a little unreasonable to say, I don't
want to pay for cable AND I want to be able to see niche sports that
aren't generally broadcast on regular TV. It's a little like saying,
"How dare they not show me what I want to see for free."

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Patty Wint » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:27:34

I can see why someone who only has NBC would be disappointed, but
when you include the cable networks, I think NBC did an excellent
job with the Olympics this year--including, finally, a lot of
live broadcasts.

Patty

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Troy Hea » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:24:15

Long John

Quote:

> > Stupid, stupid NBC.  As I said before, you could have easily run these
> > less-popular sports during the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. timeslot, so I could
> > tape it and watch it later... but no.  You have a rerun.  Idiots.

> NBC doesn't have a 2 to 6am time slot that time belongs to your local

NBC used that timeslot during the 2000 Sydney games to broadcast
footage of less popular sports.  Why not use it again?

Also, NBC only broadcast 9 hours each weekday.  Pathetic.  2000 Sydney
had 17 hours each weekday.

Quote:
> Most all of these sports were covered almost to boredom (all except
> Katate which isn't an Olympic event) on the various NBC sister networks.

My error: Karate should be Tai Kwon Do

And, I don't have the cable channels.  Living in the countryside,
cable has not reached this area yet.

 
 
 

NBC's (Lack of) Olympic Coverage was disappointing

Post by Sara » Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:27:04

Quote:

> I can see why someone who only has NBC would be disappointed, but
> when you include the cable networks, I think NBC did an excellent
> job with the Olympics this year--including, finally, a lot of
> live broadcasts.

Agreed. It really stinks for those in SF who don't have cable who then
don't even have NBC! But that's neither here nor there, the point is,
NBC _did_ cover the games with several live events, so much so, your
head could spin making choices of what to watch and it was IMO, well
done.

sarah

"sarah says" - The Serial Bowl for the new millenium
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/16094