# NBC Olympics coverage may be improving



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Press Release

More hours of coverage (TV and online) than ever, as expected. However, I see a substantial amount of live sport mentioned in there as well. Sounds like a number of things will be shown live, on say NBCSN, and also shown "packaged" on NBC that evening.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

what's the time difference between the East Coast and Sochi?


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Yeah we've heard that before.....

But the stuff most people will actually want to watch, like the figure skating will be stretched out in that prime time slot, and the one or two American figure skaters that we will be rooting for won't be on until 11:30pm, even though it happened earlier in the day with no option to watch it live.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> what's the time difference between the East Coast and Sochi?


Looks like 9 hours?


----------



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)

Are they dropping Bob Costas? That would improve the coverage greatly for me.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Rainy Dave said:


> Are they dropping Bob Costas? That would improve the coverage greatly for me.


Yeah if they got rid of Costas, Mary Carillo doing some quirky piece on the locals, and Chris Collinsworth acting all amazed at some athlete he interviewed while they were training, they would actually be able to show sports.


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Rainy Dave said:


> Are they dropping Bob Costas? That would improve the coverage greatly for me.


I wont even watch it if Costas is on.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> Looks like 9 hours?


That's gonna make it hard to have live events during prime time.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

What's with the Costas hate?


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> That's gonna make it hard to have live events during prime time.


Hey, cut it out. _Your _user title isn't Captain Obvious. You don't think they will hold events between 5 am and 8 am local time?


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Marco said:


> Hey, cut it out. _Your _user title isn't Captain Obvious. You don't think they will hold events between 5 am and 8 am local time?


No it will be too cold for Putin to walk around shirtless at that time.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> But the stuff most people will actually want to watch, like the figure skating will be stretched out in that prime time slot, and the one or two American figure skaters that we will be rooting for won't be on until 11:30pm, even though it happened earlier in the day with no option to watch it live.


From the press release:


> NBCOlympics.com will serve as the preeminent digital destination for Olympic content and the exclusive home of Olympic video coverage, featuring, for the first time, *live streaming of all Winter Games competition*, plus event rewinds and extensive video highlights.


Didn't they do this for London as well?

It also says that every performance in figure skating will air on NBC Sports Network, although it doesn't say how much of it will be live. Note that there is a new "team" event in figure skating this year. (The short version: 10 countries have a men's skater, a ladies' skater, a pairs couple, and a dance couple perform their short programs; each one is ranked from first (10 points) to tenth (1 point), and the top 5 countries in team points advance to perform long programs to decide the medals.)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

They did. And, IIRC, a lot for Beijing too.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, it helps that NBC literally doesn't have to do anything to make the online streaming happen. Olympic Broadcasting provides the pool video, including the graphics and everything; all NBC has to do is just relay the video to their internet audience.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

GoPackGo said:


> What's with the Costas hate?


Because Bob is horrible when he's not talking about baseball.

Although to be fair, I can't think of anyone I would like to see as a studio host, instead of actually being able to watch a sports event instead.

I don't tune in to see people sit around in the studio and talk about the last Olympiad. I tune in to watch the current Olympics.

This simple fact seems to escape the grasp of most of the producers who work on the Olympics.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

As always, if what they were doing didn't get huge ratings, they would change it.


----------



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't tune in to see people sit around in the studio and talk about the last Olympiad. I tune in to watch the current Olympics.


This!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

lambertman said:


> As always, if what they were doing didn't get huge ratings, they would change it.


You know, people say this, but we don't really have a choice.

It's not like we have a legitimate means of choosing one network's broadcast over another.

It would be interesting to see real head-to-head competition, e.g. if Americans could buy TV licenses for the BBC and then watch it via iPlayer, or if our cable or satellite packages regularly included the Canadian coverage of the Olympics as well as the US Networks.

Maybe if we had prime time coverage that actually showed some sports vs. what NBC usually does, and fans of the same sports could pick which broadcast team we wanted, then the ratings would actually mean something besides how many Nielsen families had the Olympics on in the background for noise while they were doing something else.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Marco said:


> Press Release
> 
> More hours of coverage (TV and online) than ever, as expected. However, I see a substantial amount of live sport mentioned in there as well. Sounds like a number of things will be shown live, on say NBCSN, and also shown "packaged" on NBC that evening.


Hmm, I think I had 4 tuners during the last Olympics (and I don't think I was able to record everything I wanted).. I wonder how many tuners will be in use this time.

Note, I often recorded shows that claimed to be sports I had no interest in.. and the vast vast vast vast majority of the time, they were right. I think once in a while something else was covered, and/or there were small bits in the hours of other coverage.


----------



## Bardman (Aug 26, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't tune in to see people sit around in the studio and talk about the last Olympiad. I tune in to watch the current Olympics.
> 
> This simple fact seems to escape the grasp of most of the producers who work on the Olympics.


This x1000

I would also like to watch the events ( including the opening and closing ceremonies) without the constant blather of whoever is covering it.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I don't want to hear about the "human interest" stories, the hardships they had to overcome, the fact that someone's mom is in the hospital, the school mates cheering them on through an injury or illness, the family members sitting in the stands, the fact that it's their birthday, etc. Couldn't possibly care less. I just want to watch them compete.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You know, people say this, but we don't really have a choice.
> 
> It's not like we have a legitimate means of choosing one network's broadcast over another.
> 
> ...


Except your reality is probably different than most casual Olympic fans. I doubt ratings would take a huge hit, and in fact probably no hit at all. The die hards will find a way to watch it how ever they want. The bulk of people watching though will watch NBC. They mostly like the puff pieces (I don't mind them when they are well done), Costas, is an engaging guy that people know. he may not be an expert in any of these sports, but he's certainly seasoned as a studio host. And I think for most fans, watching the Olympics from a USA point of view is going to get the most ratings. Sorry, it's just the way it is. People tend to root for teams and people they have some vested interest in. For most, it will be because they are American. BBC, CBC coverage is less biased? Probably because they just don't have as many competitive athletes in the competitions.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> From the press release:
> 
> Didn't they do this for London as well?


This is the first time for *Winter* Olympic coverage.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Where are they this year?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Bob_Newhart said:


> Where are they this year?


Sochi, Russia.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I kinda like Mary Carillo's quirky pieces.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I think because of all the turmoil surrounding Putin and the "new cold war" politics, you're going to see a lot of "news" stories this time around. I bet Brian Williams does some interesting pieces on the subject.

I hope there's a network dedicated to the hockey tourney. I will be watching a lot of that. Olympic hockey is great.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

JoBeth66 said:


> I don't want to hear about the "human interest" stories, the hardships they had to overcome, the fact that someone's mom is in the hospital, the school mates cheering them on through an injury or illness, the family members sitting in the stands, the fact that it's their birthday, etc. Couldn't possibly care less. I just want to watch them compete.


x 1000

I don't want to watch any human interest stories about (mostly U.S.) athletes. Just show as many events as possible.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> I don't want to hear about the "human interest" stories, the hardships they had to overcome, the fact that someone's mom is in the hospital, the school mates cheering them on through an injury or illness, the family members sitting in the stands, the fact that it's their birthday, etc. Couldn't possibly care less. I just want to watch them compete.


The original up close and personal pieces done by abc way back in the 60s were good and interesting because they were things like glimpses into the daily life of a Swiss villager which we don't know. But they have exploded into overwrought stories about everybody's struggles when they often aren't more than any one else's.

If the story is short and really different or interesting, I like it. But to hear about the skater who had to get up at 5 am to walk three miles to get a bus then do her homework late at night. Nah.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You know, people say this, but we don't really have a choice.
> 
> It's not like we have a legitimate means of choosing one network's broadcast over another.


That's the point. NBC pays BILLIONS of dollars to be the exclusive Olympics broadcaster for the US. Then they have to figure out how to get the most viewers and highest possible ratings so they can sell enough advertising to make back those BILLIONS of dollars. Do you really think that if they just had coverage of the competitions without all the extra fluff that the ratings would increase? Do you really think they haven't researched this extensively?

Of course those of us who are passionate sports fans want to see the competition and don't care about the human interest stories. But we don't pay the bills. NBC needs to appeal to a much broader demographic and be able to bring in families, women who don't know or care anything about sports, men who generally don't care about sports, men who like football and basketball but know nothing about figure skating and snowboarding, etc. They have to try and make their coverage appeal to everyone. And in order to do that, they have to make it less appealing for the die hards. That's just an economic fact. If they produced the type of coverage that you (and I) want, they'd lose money. And they are in this to make a profit.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the point. NBC pays BILLIONS of dollars to be the exclusive Olympics broadcaster for the US. Then they have to figure out how to get the most viewers and highest possible ratings so they can sell enough advertising to make back those BILLIONS of dollars. Do you really think that if they just had coverage of the competitions without all the extra fluff that the ratings would increase? Do you really think they haven't researched this extensively?
> 
> Of course those of us who are passionate sports fans want to see the competition and don't care about the human interest stories. But we don't pay the bills. NBC needs to appeal to a much broader demographic and be able to bring in families, women who don't know or care anything about sports, men who generally don't care about sports, men who like football and basketball but know nothing about figure skating and snowboarding, etc. They have to try and make their coverage appeal to everyone. And in order to do that, they have to make it less appealing for the die hards. That's just an economic fact. If they produced the type of coverage that you (and I) want, they'd lose money. And they are in this to make a profit.


Exactly. Also, consider that the vast majority of the sports in either Olympics are sports I don't watch otherwise. I know who Lindsey Vonn is because she was in the last Olympics and she's been on TV, but I couldn't tell you about any of the other skiers. It's not a bad thing to learn a little bit about some of the other athletes so when you watch the competition you get some sense of who they are. I agree, some of these pieces are too long and some are worthless, but there are some VERY good ones.

I do think, for those who JUST want to watch the competitions, you'll have ample opportunities, either via the other NBC channels or the internet. You just won't get that on NBC.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Exactly. Also, consider that the vast majority of the sports in either Olympics are sports I don't watch otherwise. I know who Lindsey Vonn is because she was in the last Olympics and she's been on TV, but I couldn't tell you about any of the other skiers. It's not a bad thing to learn a little bit about some of the other athletes so when you watch the competition you get some sense of who they are. I agree, some of these pieces are too long and some are worthless, but there are some VERY good ones.
> 
> I do think, for those who JUST want to watch the competitions, you'll have ample opportunities, either via the other NBC channels or the internet. You just won't get that on NBC.


Couldn't agree more. These are sports that the vast majority of us (myself included) almost never watch outside of the Olympics. I need to hear something about the competitors so that I'm actually interested in the results. I'm a huge sports fan and watch a ton of it, but I'm not watching the downhill skiing races if I don't know anything about the skiers. The competition itself just isn't that compelling. There's a reason we don't watch this stuff the other 4 years.

I hate the stupid Mary Carillo pieces and find a lot of the "human interest" stuff to be lame and boring but we at least need some of it. I just record all the Olympics stuff and sift through it all at night with a healthy amount of fast forwarding.

I don't watch any of this stuff live anyway so I don't mind if NBC doesn't show it to us live. I do find it ironic that people on a Tivo forum frequently complain about NBC showing stuff on a tape delay. I just avoid Twitter completely during the Olympics and mostly avoid the internet. I'm actually much more productive at work during the Olympics


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

DeDondeEs said:


> Yeah we've heard that before.....
> 
> But the stuff most people will actually want to watch, like the figure skating will be stretched out in that prime time slot, and the one or two American figure skaters that we will be rooting for won't be on until 11:30pm, even though it happened earlier in the day with no option to watch it live.


Oh God, please show figure skating at 4am and not prime time. I can't stand it, and don't consider it a sport. A big wish is that someday it gets dropped from the Olympics altogether and I never have to hear about it again.

But I know a lot of people watch it. I just don't understand those people


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Flop said:


> Oh God, please show figure skating at 4am and not prime time. I can't stand it, and don't consider it a sport. A big wish is that someday it gets dropped from the Olympics altogether and I never have to hear about it again.
> 
> But I know a lot of people watch it. I just don't understand those people


Figure skating is probably the highest rated Winter Olympic sport on TV. So, you won't get your wish. I watch to see them fall on their butts. It's funny sometimes


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I watch for the fabulous costumes!!  


I need a small amount of human interest. I don't watch these sports but once every 4 years. I don't know who most of these athletes are. I want to know a little bit about them. I get my fill of Tony Romo and Dez Bryant. Let me "meet" someone new. 


As far as commentary, I suspect we'll get a lot of comments on who is gay. It's gonna be a major running theme for the coverage of these games.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I watch for the fabulous costumes!!
> 
> I need a small amount of human interest. I don't watch these sports but once every 4 years. I don't know who most of these athletes are. I want to know a little bit about them. I get my fill of Tony Romo and Dez Bryant. Let me "meet" someone new.
> 
> As far as commentary, I suspect we'll get a lot of comments on who is gay. It's gonna be a major running theme for the coverage of these games.


Sounds like an opportunity to make some PPV Money - "Olympic Dorm Sex Coverage"


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I like to learn about people.

Hockey will be on at breakfast time. I can do that. Ya!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> If the story is short and really different or interesting, I like it. But to hear about the skater who had to get up at 5 am to walk three miles to get a bus then do her homework late at night.


This particular story makes me think of a great comeback I heard on a favorite sitcom. "Who doesn't?"



DevdogAZ said:


> NBC needs to appeal to a much broader demographic and be able to bring in families, women who don't know or care anything about sports, men who generally don't care about sports, men who like football and basketball but know nothing about figure skating and snowboarding, etc. *They have to try and make their coverage appeal to everyone. And in order to do that, they have to make it less appealing for the die hards.*


See, I disagree with this. I think if people were more creative, they could make it more appealing to both groups at once. I think the TV people are too eager to make themselves part of the spectacle. There is too much emphasis on getting themselves on air at the expense of the athletes. It's the difference between listening to Vin Scully broadcast a ballgame, and sitting in front of some guy at the movies who has already seen the film, who is intent on telling you what's about to happen next and how he felt about it and how you should, too. The amount of stuff they cram at you is so intrusive, you can't experience the event as it's happening now, and when NBC cuts away from something they could _show_ us in favor of someone else on camera _telling us_ about it -- or worse, telling us about what happened four years ago -- it distances the viewer from the event. This is basic storytelling stuff, which any writer or filmmaker knows.



NYHeel said:


> Couldn't agree more. These are sports that the vast majority of us (myself included) almost never watch outside of the Olympics. I need to hear something about the competitors so that I'm actually interested in the results. I'm a huge sports fan and watch a ton of it, but *I'm not watching the downhill skiing races if I don't know anything about the skiers. The competition itself just isn't that compelling. *




Well, there's an argument for teaching physics in high school.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

It would be hard for the coverage to get any worse.

The time difference is bad enough so folks can't watch much live and NBC has spent too much $ to avoid pimping the good events in primetime.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> It also says that every performance in figure skating will air on NBC Sports Network, although it doesn't say how much of it will be live.


Apparently, NBCSN will show every figure skating routine live, except for the men's and pairs performances in the qualifying round of the team event, as they take place the day before the opening ceremonies (and NBCSN's coverage begins the day after the opening), and presumably the post-competition exhibition as well.

According to the schedule, each night's competition starts no earlier than 10 AM Eastern time (except for the first Saturday, where it starts at 9:30) and ends no later than 2:30 PM Eastern.

At least figure skating has gotten to the point where they can figure out what place somebody is in when the scores appear (up through 1980, the only way to know for sure who was ahead was to know all of the scores of all of the judges, including the compulsory figures), and once a skater is ahead of another skater, that won't change because of a third skater.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Bob_Newhart said:


> Where are they this year?


This year, nowhere.
Next year in 2014, they'll be held in Sochi, Russia


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

The one thing that DOES bother me about NBC's coverage is they split up the events. So for instance, they will show half the figure skating competition at 8PM and then come back to it around 10:30PM. In between you'll get all the other stuff. I understand why they do it, but I'd much prefer they show it all at 10PM and show the whole thing. They do this with all of their premiere events (except hockey I think where they will show a whole game, but generally those games are not shown during primetime except the medal round games.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the point. NBC pays BILLIONS of dollars to be the exclusive Olympics broadcaster for the US. Then they have to figure out how to get the most viewers and highest possible ratings so they can sell enough advertising to make back those BILLIONS of dollars. Do you really think that if they just had coverage of the competitions without all the extra fluff that the ratings would increase? Do you really think they haven't researched this extensively? Of course those of us who are passionate sports fans want to see the competition and don't care about the human interest stories. But we don't pay the bills. NBC needs to appeal to a much broader demographic and be able to bring in families, women who don't know or care anything about sports, men who generally don't care about sports, men who like football and basketball but know nothing about figure skating and snowboarding, etc. They have to try and make their coverage appeal to everyone. And in order to do that, they have to make it less appealing for the die hards. That's just an economic fact. If they produced the type of coverage that you (and I) want, they'd lose money. And they are in this to make a profit.


You are talking about the network that moved Leno to 10 pm. I think they researched that, too.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Well, there's an argument for teaching physics in high school.


I never said it was easy to do. Just not very interesting to watch especially when they're not racing against each other at the same time. Now add in the extremely high stakes of the Olympics, a little rooting for your national team, and a little personal information and I might care enough to watch. We've already seen that basically nobody watches Skiing when it's not the Olympics. Clearly something needs to be done to make people watch when it's the Olympics. THe high stakes adds a lot. Now just tell me who these competitors are. I don't need a 30 minute piece on them, just a brief explanation of their history and their previous results in high level competition.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

shouldn't they always be in merica so we can watch the events in prime time?


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

The overall medal count winner should get home field advantage.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Bob_Newhart said:


> shouldn't they always be in merica so we can watch the events in prime time?


yes


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the point. NBC pays BILLIONS of dollars to be the exclusive Olympics broadcaster for the US. Then they have to figure out how to get the most viewers and highest possible ratings so they can sell enough advertising to make back those BILLIONS of dollars. Do you really think that if they just had coverage of the competitions without all the extra fluff that the ratings would increase? Do you really think they haven't researched this extensively?
> 
> Of course those of us who are passionate sports fans want to see the competition and don't care about the human interest stories. But we don't pay the bills. NBC needs to appeal to a much broader demographic and be able to bring in families, women who don't know or care anything about sports, men who generally don't care about sports, men who like football and basketball but know nothing about figure skating and snowboarding, etc. They have to try and make their coverage appeal to everyone. And in order to do that, they have to make it less appealing for the die hards. That's just an economic fact. If they produced the type of coverage that you (and I) want, they'd lose money. And they are in this to make a profit.


There will be some of us who gives a RA on the Olympics and will not be watching at all.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Kablemodem said:


> The overall medal count winner should get home field advantage.


Kenyan winter olympics would be awesome!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Bob_Newhart said:


> shouldn't they always be in merica so we can watch the events in prime time?


No. They can have every other Olympics in Canada and be able to do it as well. Of course, if NBC is showing it, it won't be live in the western half of the country even if it's being held in the western half of North America (e.g. Salt Lake City, Vancouver).


Kablemodem said:


> The overall medal count winner should get home field advantage.


The USA is pretty much the only country that ranks countries by total medals. The "standard" method is by most gold medals, with silvers and then bronzes used only as tiebreakers.

My idea: don't hold all of the events in the same country. Yes, I realize that pretty much the entire point of the Olympics is to get athletes of all nations together at one time and place, but they're trying to squeeze in too much in a two-week period. Besides, (a) 3/4 of the teams in the men's soccer tournament never get to the host city except for the closing ceremonies, and (b) a considerable number of athletes skip the opening ceremony, either because they have events in the next day or two, or because their events are in the second week (e.g. track and field) and they don't bother going to the site before then.
Why not have, say, the basketball in one country, the boxing in a second, the track and field in a third, and so on?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That is what the World Cup is for. And the international basketball federation is trying to setup a "World Cup of Basketball" so that baseball gets a prime international spotlight with nothing else going on to compete for attention.


But nor really sure how moving events to different countries solves any issues with things getting lost in the shuffle.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

isn't curling pretty much the only sport people are interested in? (in which people are interested?)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Bob_Newhart said:


> isn't curling pretty much the only sport people are interested in? (in which people are interested?)


I think they like the figure skating, mostly.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I like the one where they are skiing along and then pull out a gun and start shooting at stuff.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

They should combine curling and figure skating.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> I never said it was easy to do. Just not very interesting to watch especially when they're not racing against each other at the same time. Now add in the extremely high stakes of the Olympics, a little rooting for your national team, and a little personal information and I might care enough to watch. We've already seen that basically nobody watches Skiing when it's not the Olympics. Clearly something needs to be done to make people watch when it's the Olympics. THe high stakes adds a lot. Now just tell me who these competitors are. I don't need a 30 minute piece on them, just a brief explanation of their history and their previous results in high level competition.


I think you're a bit exaggerating there. The vast majority of those pieces are probably no more than 10 minutes. Occasionally they will have a longer piece on someone with a very compelling story. And usually those I watch. And usually those are more about the host country than an athlete. So I expect to see a piece perhaps on Sochi and the strife in all the countries around it for instance Georgia and Chechnia are fairly close by). I will find that interesting. To me anyway, without those introductions to the key "players" it would be a little like watching a TV show and jumping into the middle of the plot from the beginning. You'd feel somewhat lost.

Also realize, that the Winter Olympics has FAR fewer events than summer, so there might be times they have to fill. They could do that by showing the WHOLE skiing competition for instance. But I don't know about you, watching the non-contenders ski is really boring. I'd rather watch the puff pieces


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

brianric said:


> There will be some of us who gives a RA on the Olympics and will not be watching at all.


Of course there will. Just like for ANY other TV show. The idea is to compel as many of you who usually don't watch, to watch  Some just never will.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Howie said:


> I like the one where they are skiing along and then pull out a gun and start shooting at stuff.


Biatholon. I think it would be much cooler if they could shoot each other. Sort of a paintball on skis


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I think you're a bit exaggerating there. The vast majority of those pieces are probably no more than 10 minutes. Occasionally they will have a longer piece on someone with a very compelling story. And usually those I watch. And usually those are more about the host country than an athlete. So I expect to see a piece perhaps on Sochi and the strife in all the countries around it for instance Georgia and Chechnia are fairly close by). I will find that interesting. To me anyway, without those introductions to the key "players" it would be a little like watching a TV show and jumping into the middle of the plot from the beginning. You'd feel somewhat lost.
> 
> Also realize, that the Winter Olympics has FAR fewer events than summer, so there might be times they have to fill. They could do that by showing the WHOLE skiing competition for instance. But I don't know about you, watching the non-contenders ski is really boring. I'd rather watch the puff pieces


Yeah, the Winter Olympics aren't great as I pretty much avoid all "judging" sports. By that I mean sports where the results are solely determined by judges like figure skating and gymnastics. I find it incredibly boring as I can never tell what's truly good short of falling/not falling. I like the racing style sports where there's a clock as the primary scorer. I know that many of those sports have judges but those are mostly referees whose job is just to make sure no rules were violated. The clock, measuring tape or scoreboard (from goals or non-judged points) determine the winner.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> Yeah, the Winter Olympics aren't great as I pretty much avoid all "judging" sports. By that I mean sports where the results are solely determined by judges like figure skating and gymnastics. I find it incredibly boring as I can never tell what's truly good short of falling/not falling. I like the racing style sports where there's a clock as the primary scorer. I know that many of those sports have judges but those are mostly referees whose job is just to make sure no rules were violated. The clock, measuring tape or scoreboard (from goals or non-judged points) determine the winner.


I watch it all, and I realize that the judging is probably very subjective and much of it is based on reputation. And when it's blatantly bad, it's good water cooler talk for the next day at work. Sort of like it was in the 60s and 70s when boxing was in its heyday and people would complain about boxers being jobbed on the decision. To me, those sports are about entertainment most of the time. And I like to watch these expert skaters fall on their butts and listen to the announcers sound like they are about to cry. I guess it's a little like watching an auto race for the crashes. 

I much prefer the races, and hockey. I will watch a LOT of hockey if I can, especially USA, Russia, Canada and Sweden.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Kablemodem said:


> They should combine curling and figure skating.


They should combine figure skating and hockey.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

NYHeel said:


> I never said it was easy to do. Just not very interesting to watch especially when they're not racing against each other at the same time. Now add in the extremely high stakes of the Olympics, a little rooting for your national team, and a little personal information and I might care enough to watch. We've already seen that basically nobody watches Skiing when it's not the Olympics. Clearly something needs to be done to make people watch when it's the Olympics. THe high stakes adds a lot. Now just tell me who these competitors are. I don't need a 30 minute piece on them, just a brief explanation of their history and their previous results in high level competition.


I was surprised at your comment because you were talking about downhill.

For a summer equivalent, watching the descents during the Tour de France brings back the feeling of what it was like to go downhill when riding my bike. I don't have the bike-handling skills of any of those riders, of course, so the idea of going downhill at the speed those guys do is compelling by nature. The downhill skiing is the same way. If I stumble across it while it's on, I have to watch.

Maybe it's more fun for people who have a fear of falling. 

To steal a phrase from my brother (who was talking about flying at the time) -- I like the falling part -- it's the hitting-the-ground part I can't stand.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

daveak said:


> They should combine figure skating and hockey.


Didn't they try that once - "women's ice hockey"? (Or is there another way to describe ice hockey where body checking is illegal?) This ended when the line between "body checking" (illegal) and "accidentally running into an opponent while playing the puck" (legal) became more and more blurred.



Steveknj said:


> I watch it all, and I realize that the judging is probably very subjective and much of it is based on reputation. And when it's blatantly bad, it's good water cooler talk for the next day at work.


This is harder to do ever since they changed the scoring system. The only way you can find out individual judges' scores is to go to the International Skating Union website - and even there, they don't tell you which judges gave which scores. The incident with the pairs competition in 2002 probably would still be a mystery today had this system been in place (and, ironically, that incident is a major factor in why this system was invented).

As for skiing and snowboarding, the one thing I wish they would do is to go back to the original "one at a time" method for the snowboarding giant slalom; I was never a fan of the head-to-head single-elimination format, even in skiing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Didn't they try that once - "women's ice hockey"? (Or is there another way to describe ice hockey where body checking is illegal?) This ended when the line between "body checking" (illegal) and "accidentally running into an opponent while playing the puck" (legal) became more and more blurred.


I thought Women's Ice Hockey was part of the Olympics.



That Don Guy said:


> As for skiing and snowboarding, the one thing I wish they would do is to go back to the original "one at a time" method for the snowboarding giant slalom; I was never a fan of the head-to-head single-elimination format, even in skiing.


Those are two different events. There's the traditional skiing and snowboarding events where competitors go one at a time and are timed, and then there is the Skiier X/Boarder X events that are supposed to be like motocross and BMX. I find the X events to be much more fun to watch, if for no other reason than the courses look like they would be so much fun to ski down.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

I liked a few Olympics ago when they had speed skiing where they wore these super slick outfits and funky helmets and would start down the mountain and once they reached a certain point (and reached a high rate of speed) is when they would start timing them. I think they got up to 300 or 400 mph.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Bob_Newhart said:


> I liked a few Olympics ago when they had speed skiing where they wore these super slick outfits and funky helmets and would start down the mountain and once they reached a certain point (and reached a high rate of speed) is when they would start timing them. I think they got up to 300 or 400 mph.


I hope you added an extra 0 there.

-smak-


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

I think I only really take decathalon and marathon seriously as Olympic events.

They should just do them in the snow for Winter Olympics.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Agree with you there  These were the original events of course. Though Biathlon and Cross-Country Skiing are probably closest to this in winter.



alpacaboy said:


> I think I only really take decathalon and marathon seriously as Olympic events.
> 
> They should just do them in the snow for Winter Olympics.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

X-Games 
Jan 23 - 26 
2014 
schedule -- http://xgames.espn.go.com/events/2014/aspen/schedule/

video highlights from the 2013 x games --


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> This is harder to do ever since they changed the scoring system. The only way you can find out individual judges' scores is to go to the International Skating Union website - and even there, they don't tell you which judges gave which scores. The incident with the pairs competition in 2002 probably would still be a mystery today had this system been in place (and, ironically, that incident is a major factor in why this system was invented).


Still, if the judging is bad, it's still fodder for water cooler talk. I still think they tell you where the judges are from, no? Even if they don't reveal who scored what, it's usually pretty easy to figure out who screwed who based on where the judges are from.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I thought Women's Ice Hockey was part of the Olympics.


Yes, still a part of the Olympics. And this year, there's kind of a blood feud between the US and Canada teams. They've had brawls in 2 of the last 5 matches and LOTS of chippyness that comes close to crossing the no body checking rules. Should be fun.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> They should combine curling and figure skating.





daveak said:


> They should combine figure skating and hockey.


Don't be silly. 

If you want to combine Figure skating with something, it should be shooting! Hard to shoot them when they are jumping and spinning and such!


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Figure skating and Pole dancing.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Still, if the judging is bad, it's still fodder for water cooler talk. I still think they tell you where the judges are from, no? Even if they don't reveal who scored what, it's usually pretty easy to figure out who screwed who based on where the judges are from.


Not when the people watching only see two numbers for each skater (well, three, but the third one is the sum of the first two). Yes, they do know where the judges are from (and, in fact, their names), but if the 2002 pairs incident happened in 2014, while you could guess four of the five judges that favored the Russian couple over the Canadian one, there would be no way of knowing for certain who the fifth one was; back in 2002, we knew which judges gave which scores to which skaters because we were told this as the scores were displayed.

Little-known fact: a computer decided the winner of the men's figure skating competition in 2010. Back then, there were 12 judges, and at the start of each round, a computer would secretly choose three of them to be ignored (to make it harder to make deals to rig scores - who would make a deal if there was a chance that the judge's scores wouldn't even be counted?). As it turned out, about 1/3 of the possible combinations of 3 judges would have given Evgeni Plushecko the gold over Evan Lysacek. (In 2014, there will be nine judges for each round, and all nine will count.)



DevdogAZ said:


> Those are two different events. There's the traditional skiing and snowboarding events where competitors go one at a time and are timed, and then there is the Skiier X/Boarder X events that are supposed to be like motocross and BMX. I find the X events to be much more fun to watch, if for no other reason than the courses look like they would be so much fun to ski down.


The first year "traditional snowboard giant slalom" was done, it was done the way the skiing giant slalom is done - one at a time; fastest combined times of two runs wins. Now, after a preliminary run, the top 16 advance to a single-elimination round where there are two parallel courses (in fact, the event is called "parallel giant slalom" now); each pair does a run on each course, and the faster combined time advances to the next round.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with how Snowboard Cross (four at a time, on the same course) is done.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Not when the people watching only see two numbers for each skater (well, three, but the third one is the sum of the first two). Yes, they do know where the judges are from (and, in fact, their names), but if the 2002 pairs incident happened in 2014, while you could guess four of the five judges that favored the Russian couple over the Canadian one, there would be no way of knowing for certain who the fifth one was; back in 2002, we knew which judges gave which scores to which skaters because we were told this as the scores were displayed.
> 
> Little-known fact: a computer decided the winner of the men's figure skating competition in 2010. Back then, there were 12 judges, and at the start of each round, a computer would secretly choose three of them to be ignored (to make it harder to make deals to rig scores - who would make a deal if there was a chance that the judge's scores wouldn't even be counted?). As it turned out, about 1/3 of the possible combinations of 3 judges would have given Evgeni Plushecko the gold over Evan Lysacek. (In 2014, there will be nine judges for each round, and all nine will count.)
> 
> ...


I don't pay enough attention to these sports to care how they are judged or how they are run. Honestly it's all fun entertainment and I'm glad they made it less transparent. I don't watch enough figure skating to be able to tell the subtle differences in skating to judge. I can only tell if someone got jobbed by what the announcers are telling me, and if it's really obvious (skater 1 skates clean and skater 2 falls, but skater 2 wins). Usually if a skater skates to a song I like, rather than some boring ballet, I'll root for them


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Still, if the judging is bad, it's still fodder for water cooler talk. I still think they tell you where the judges are from, no? Even if they don't reveal who scored what, it's usually pretty easy to figure out who screwed who based on where the judges are from.


Eh, that game got less fun once you no longer had the East German judge's score to mock.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Eh, that game got less fun once you no longer had the East German judge's score to mock.




It used to be fun in the days when it was an American vs. a Soviet and you can see where the judges are from. So, you'd have judges from USSR, GDR, HUN, and POL and you knew they are were all going to vote favorably for the Soviet skater. Then you'd see judges from the USA, CAN, GBR and S. Korea and you knew they'd all vote for the USA skater. The trick was to figure out how the judge from Switzerland might vote


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Little-known fact: a computer decided the winner of the men's figure skating competition in 2010. Back then, there were 12 judges, and at the start of each round, a computer would secretly choose three of them to be ignored (to make it harder to make deals to rig scores - who would make a deal if there was a chance that the judge's scores wouldn't even be counted?). As it turned out, about 1/3 of the possible combinations of 3 judges would have given Evgeni Plushecko the gold over Evan Lysacek. (In 2014, there will be nine judges for each round, and all nine will count.)


This is why I don't enjoy "judging sports". It just seems crazy that a judge has to submit a score 2-3 minutes afterwards without having analyzed the performance. Do they at least get to watch the routine over on replay to see if they missed something.

Also, as Steveknj said, I can't really tell the difference between the performances unless someone falls or looks much much worse. So I'm relying on what the announcers say is good and I just come along for the ride. I'd rather just watch the racing oriented competitions.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> This is why I don't enjoy "judging sports". It just seems crazy that a judge has to submit a score 2-3 minutes afterwards without having analyzed the performance. Do they at least get to watch the routine over on replay to see if they missed something.
> 
> Also, as Steveknj said, I can't really tell the difference between the performances unless someone falls or looks much much worse. So I'm relying on what the announcers say is good and I just come along for the ride. I'd rather just watch the racing oriented competitions.


I tend to watch...because it's the Olympics. My wife enjoys the skating stuff, so I watch along with her. The racing competitions are better, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE the hockey tourney. I am very much looking forward to that.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> It used to be fun in the days when it was an American vs. a Soviet and you can see where the judges are from. So, you'd have judges from USSR, GDR, HUN, and POL and you knew they are were all going to vote favorably for the Soviet skater. Then you'd see judges from the USA, CAN, GBR and S. Korea and you knew they'd all vote for the USA skater. The trick was to figure out how the judge from Switzerland might vote


Yeah, back in the days of MAD and detente' when things were more predictable.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

NBC finally has reasonably detailed TV listings posted. http://www.nbcolympics.com/tv


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JoBeth66 said:


> I don't want to hear about the "human interest" stories, the hardships they had to overcome, the fact that someone's mom is in the hospital, the school mates cheering them on through an injury or illness, the family members sitting in the stands, the fact that it's their birthday, etc. Couldn't possibly care less. I just want to watch them compete.


I tell myself I feel this way, but...



laria said:


> I kinda like Mary Carillo's quirky pieces.


Then the fluff stuff comes on and I watch it (and usually enjoy.)



Marco said:


> NBC finally has reasonably detailed TV listings posted. http://www.nbcolympics.com/tv


Thanks for the link. I was just going to search!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I don't want "tell me what's on what channel when." I want "tell me when this sport is on."

When can we get that? They have a schedule of the events, sort of, but no channels listed yet as far as I can see. 

And, not to be sexist, but can I get a schedule for men's hockey that doesn't also include women's hockey?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aindik said:


> I don't want "tell me what's on what channel when." I want "tell me when this sport is on."
> 
> When can we get that? They have a schedule of the events, sort of, but no channels listed yet as far as I can see.


NBC can't possibly tell you when each sport will be on with any degree of certainty because they have to add things like interviews and medal ceremonies; also, they tend to cut away from an event and come back to it later (especially with something like figure skating - on final round nights, they'll probably show the Americans out of the medal hunt early, and then an hour-or-so block of the medal contenders later), and some events are heavily edited (obviously NBC isn't going to show a 30km cross-country race in its entirety).

If you go to the TV link in post 81, and enter your information, the events appear to be separated by channel.



aindik said:


> And, not to be sexist, but can I get a schedule for men's hockey that doesn't also include women's hockey?


Here you go. All times Eastern.

Wed 12
Noon Czech Republic - Sweden
Noon Latvia - Switzerland

Thu 13
3 AM Finland - Austria
7:30 AM Russia - Slovenia
7:30 AM Slovakia - USA
Noon Canada - Norway

Fri 14
3 AM Czech Republic - Latvia
7:30 AM Sweden - Switzerland
Noon Canada - Austria
Noon Norway - Finland

Sat 15
3 AM Slovakia - Slovenia
7:30 AM USA - Russia
Noon Switzerland - Czech Republic
Noon Sweden - Latvia

Sun 16
3 AM Austria - Norway
7:30 AM Russia - Slovakia
7:30 AM Slovenia - USA
Noon Finland - Canada

Tue 18
3 AM Playoff First Round Game 1
7:30 AM Playoff First Round Game 2
Noon Playoff First Round Game 3
Noon Playoff First Round Game 4

Wed 19
3 AM Quarter-Final 1
7:30 AM Quarter-Final 2
Noon Quarter-Final 3
Noon Quarter-Final 4

Fri 21
7 AM Semi-Final 1
Noon Semi-Final 2

Sat 22
10 AM Bronze Medal Game

Sun 23
7 AM Gold Medal Game


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> NBC *won't* tell you when each sport will be on with any degree of certainty because they *want *to add things like interviews and medal ceremonies; also, they tend to cut away from an event and come back to it later *to pad ratings* (especially with something like figure skating - on final round nights, they'll probably show the Americans out of the medal hunt early, and then an hour-or-so block of the medal contenders later), and some events are heavily edited (obviously NBC isn't going to show a 30km cross-country race in its entirety).


Fixed that for ya.

The official Olympic site will tell you what events happen when. You'll have to work from that (for non-hockey - thanks Don for putting that together).


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Here is another men's only schedule. Note that the times are Sochi local (9 hours ahead of Eastern). The "medal round" schedule will be finalized once they know which teams are in which positions, in part to allow teams to be placed in time slots that are best for viewing in their home countries. (Most of the countries outside of USA and Canada appear to be 3 hours behind Sochi.)

Also, here's the quick version of how the tournament works:
All games that are tied at the end of regulation will have a 10-minute 4-on-4 (5-on-5, including the goalies) sudden-death period (exception: 20 minutes in the Gold Medal game), followed by a 3-player shootout if necessary.
Once all of the preliminary round games are done, the teams are ranked 1-12 as follows:
1. The group winners are ranked 1-3, second place teams 4-6, third-place teams 7-9, and fourth-place teams 10-12.
Placing in a group is based on record (3 points for a regulation win; 2 for an OT/shootout win; 1 for an OT/shootout loss).
A 2-way tie is broken in favor of whoever won the game between the two teams.
A 3-way tie is broken by:
(a) Record against the other two tied teams
(b) Combined margin of victory against the other two tied teams
(c) Goals scored against the other two tied teams
(d) Apply (a), (b), and (c) against the team in the group not in the tie
(e) Higher world ranking at the end of 2013
If, at any time, one team drops out of the tie, use the 2-team tiebreaker.
Note that a 4-way tie is impossible (there are 6 games in each group, and each game has a total of 3 points; a 4-way tie would mean each team has 4 1/2 points.)
2. The first-place teams are seeded 1-3 using overall record, then total margin of victory, then total goals scored, then 2013 world ranking.
Similarly, the second-place teams are seeded 4-6, the third-place teams are seeded 7-9, and the fourth-place teams are seeded 10-12.
The "medal round" is a single-elimination tournament with brackets based on seed:
#8 vs #9; winner plays #1
#5 vs #12; winner plays #4
The winners of the games with the #1 and #4 seeds play in one semi-final
#7 vs #10; winner plays #2
#6 vs #11; winner plays #3
The winners of the games with the #2 and #3 seeds play in the other semi-final
Note that there are no separate games to determine 5th through 12th place; once you lose in the medal round (except if you lose in the semi-final, because there is a Bronze Medal game), your Olympics are over.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Marco said:


> Fixed that for ya.
> 
> The official Olympic site will tell you what events happen when. You'll have to work from that.


Keeping in mind a couple of things:
First, none of them are between 7 PM and midnight Eastern time (4 AM and 9 AM Sochi time), so when an event actually takes place is irrelevant most of the time. Yes, NBC does things for the highest prime-time ratings - in fact, the executive producer for NBC's Olympics coverage said, "First and foremost, our mission is to protect prime time - that's still the No. 1 priority."

Second, what happens if NBC wants to show two events that are taking place at the same time? The official schedule isn't of too much use for this.

You also have to allow for last-second schedule changes. I am under the impression that Sochi is a little warmer than the IOC would have liked, and there is a chance that some alpine events may have to be postponed because somebody feels that the snow surface isn't safe.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> Second, what happens if NBC wants to show two events that are taking place at the same time? The official schedule isn't of too much use for this.


The official schedule is still useful for a couple of things.

1) It's easier to figure out if an event will be on TV if you start from a list of what events are supposed to take place.

2) If the event hasn't happened yet, it's not likely to be on TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Are the NBC satellite channels (like NBCSN, USA, etc.) going to cover these events live, even though some might be very early in the morning? Or will those even be delayed? Or repeated.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Here's our USA Women's curling team:


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Are the NBC satellite channels (like NBCSN, USA, etc.) going to cover these events live, even though some might be very early in the morning? Or will those even be delayed? Or repeated.


NBCSN is showing all of the figure skating live (except for the two parts of the team competition that take place before the opening ceremonies). The "important" parts of the figure skating coverage will be repeated by NBC.

It looks like most of the ice hockey and curling will be live.

Right now, the online schedule appears to go up just to the first Monday, so it's hard to tell. However, on the first Saturday, NBC Sports Network is airing the USA-Finland women's hockey game live starting at 3 AM Eastern, with some cross country skiing and speed skating at 5:30 AM.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

That's good info, Don. Why bother with NBC's site when we have you?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aindik said:


> That's good info, Don. Why bother with NBC's site when we have you?


Because two years from now, when the summer Olympics are in Rio, chances are that a lot of things will be live in New York prime time...but I live out west, where most things will probably be on a 3-hour tape delay like they did for Vancouver. (One reason I heard why NBC didn't air the prime time coverage live on, say, Bravo (they would have to use a channel with separate east coast and west coast feeds so they wouldn't tie up a channel out east with something airing simultaneously on NBC), was, somebody was afraid that people would overhear their neighbors' TVs and hear what was happening, which would spoil the coverage they wanted to watch three hours later.)


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

That Don Guy said:


> (One reason I heard why NBC didn't air the prime time coverage live on, say, Bravo (they would have to use a channel with separate east coast and west coast feeds so they wouldn't tie up a channel out east with something airing simultaneously on NBC), was, somebody was afraid that people would overhear their neighbors' TVs and hear what was happening, which would spoil the coverage they wanted to watch three hours later.)


That is so dumb that only a TV exec could follow that logic, so it must be true.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Because of the sports for the winter Olympics, I won't be watching any of it. I mean what is there to watch, except maybe hockey if the USA gets in the finals.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> NBCSN is showing all of the figure skating live (except for the two parts of the team competition that take place before the opening ceremonies). The "important" parts of the figure skating coverage will be repeated by NBC.
> 
> It looks like most of the ice hockey and curling will be live.
> 
> Right now, the online schedule appears to go up just to the first Monday, so it's hard to tell. However, on the first Saturday, NBC Sports Network is airing the USA-Finland women's hockey game live starting at 3 AM Eastern, with some cross country skiing and speed skating at 5:30 AM.


I'm actually surprised that MSNBC will show all the figure skating live, considering it's their marquee event for the Olympics. You'd think that will cut into their audience on the channel that is getting the higher ad rates (at least I would imagine sponsors will pay more for NBC primetime coverage). I guess they figure, with the time difference much of their audience is going to know the results ahead of time anyway. Have they done this before with marquee events?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

replaytv said:


> Because of the sports for the winter Olympics, I won't be watching any of it. I mean what is there to watch, except maybe hockey if the USA gets in the finals.


For me, that's what makes it interesting. I watch sports I'd never watch otherwise, because it's the big event. And I enjoy most of them. I've actually watched a little of the US Trials in a few sports on NBCSN to get to know a few athletes in some sports. I equate it to those who watch the Super Bowl, but don't watch football the rest of the season. I do get how for some that might be boring, to watch something you don't normally have a desire to watch, but what can I say? I'm a sucker for the big event.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I'm actually surprised that MSNBC will show all the figure skating live, considering it's their marquee event for the Olympics. You'd think that will cut into their audience on the channel that is getting the higher ad rates (at least I would imagine sponsors will pay more for NBC primetime coverage). I guess they figure, with the time difference much of their audience is going to know the results ahead of time anyway. Have they done this before with marquee events?


Remember, "live" means "the events end by 2:30 PM Eastern time". NBC probably figures there won't be that many people watching it live, and since the results will be spoiled on local news programs anyway, it might as well get some ratings (and TV commercial revenue) out of it.

Also remember that every event is streamed live online, although you might need to have a cable/satellite subscription that includes a particular channel in order to watch an event that's being shown live on that channel, and there's no guarantee that every event online will have commentary. (I remember a cycling event in 2012 where, without commentary, you didn't realize that the winner had been dropped to second place for some foul until you saw a results listing about 10 minutes after the event ended that had the apparent silver medalist placed first.)


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

But everyone these days has a DVR. Why watch figure skating "live" (as it airs) in prime time when, instead, you could record it in the morning and watch your recording during prime time, fast forwarding through all the commercials?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> But everyone these days has a DVR. Why watch figure skating "live" (as it airs) in prime time when, instead, you could record it in the morning and watch your recording during prime time, fast forwarding through all the commercials?


I have to say, i watch the Olympics differently than I do other sporting events. I generally prefer to sit down at prime time and watch a hodgepodge of different events. So on a given night, I might enjoy watching some skiing, figure skating and bob sledding. I think just watching 4 hours of figure skating, even without commercials would bore me. My only exception is hockey. If I'm home and there's hockey on, I'll watch the whole games and use the NBC time to watch the other stuff.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

aindik said:


> But everyone these days has a DVR. Why watch figure skating "live" (as it airs) in prime time when, instead, you could record it in the morning and watch your recording during prime time, fast forwarding through all the commercials?


Right, but if you're using a DVR who cares if the stuff is live anyway. It's much easier the way NBC does it because I don't have to worry about recording stuff on different channels and different times. NBC just puts the main stuff on during primetime (with prelim stuff during the day) and I could just cull through that with my DVR. If you want to watch any of the non-main sports you could go searching for those channels.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

aindik said:


> But everyone these days has a DVR. Why watch figure skating "live" (as it airs) in prime time when, instead, you could record it in the morning and watch your recording during prime time, fast forwarding through all the commercials?


You would think anybody in their right minds would have a DVR, but none of my family or friends ( except one ) have them and I have tried to give each of them one with lifetime for free!! Go figure.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

The Olympics is the time I am the most grateful for my TiVo. I honestly don't know how anybody could possibly get through the NBC coverage without a DVR. I FF through all the commercials, puff pieces, interviews, profiles, sob stories, and other crap, and can usually watch a 4-hour prime time broadcast in well under 2 hours -- even less if I'm not interested in all the sports that are being shown. 

It is pretty pathetic how little actual competition they show in prime time broadcasts. If you're lucky, you see very American (no matter whether they have any chance of medaling), plus the top 4-5 medal contenders, and that's it. If they cut down on all the puff pieces and BS that has nothing to do with sports, they could show so much more and the coverage would be SO much better. I love to watch all the unusual sports that you only see at the Olympics (speed skating is my favorite, both kinds), but I couldn't care less about all the personal interest BS. 

I guess showing whole events live is an improvement -- but it's a lot of different recordings to manage. What I'd really love to see is a prime-time broadcast that combines the day's competitions into one show, but without all the fluffy crap pieces. I bet they could show 2x the sports in the same amount of time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ruth said:


> The Olympics is the time I am the most grateful for my TiVo. I honestly don't know how anybody could possibly get through the NBC coverage without a DVR. I FF through all the commercials, puff pieces, interviews, profiles, sob stories, and other crap, and can usually watch a 4-hour prime time broadcast in well under 2 hours -- even less if I'm not interested in all the sports that are being shown.
> 
> It is pretty pathetic how little actual competition they show in prime time broadcasts. If you're lucky, you see very American (no matter whether they have any chance of medaling), plus the top 4-5 medal contenders, and that's it. If they cut down on all the puff pieces and BS that has nothing to do with sports, they could show so much more and the coverage would be SO much better. I love to watch all the unusual sports that you only see at the Olympics (speed skating is my favorite, both kinds), but I couldn't care less about all the personal interest BS.
> 
> I guess showing whole events live is an improvement -- but it's a lot of different recordings to manage. What I'd really love to see is a prime-time broadcast that combines the day's competitions into one show, but without all the fluffy crap pieces. I bet they could show 2x the sports in the same amount of time.


I look at the Olympics differently than I do say the NFL or MLB. To me, watching the Olympics is a lot more like watching Survivor than the NFL playoffs for instance. I watch it for pure entertainment much more than caring about the sport and even the outcomes (except hockey, which I care immensely about). I don't watch these sports the other 3 years and 50 weeks between Olympics. I have no idea who any of these people are, nor will I care about them a week after the Olympics are over. So during those two weeks I want to know who they are, what their story is and why I should root for (or against) them. Much like Survivor or Big Brother a lot of that comes from their stories, and their struggle and about them trying to be the best they can be. Watching a skiing event not knowing about any of these people is similar to watching a stock ticker. I just have no feelings about it. And it's boring. And I consider myself a big Olympics fan, having watched as much as I can of every Olympiad since 1968, and I even have a lot of older Olympics still recorded on VHS and DVD (from 1984 on). I suppose if you follow these sports and know who all the skier are besides Lindsey Vonn (who's not participating anyway), then you want to see as much as possible. For most of us who don't, I think it's much more interesting to something about them.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ruth said:


> The Olympics is the time I am the most grateful for my TiVo. I honestly don't know how anybody could possibly get through the NBC coverage without a DVR. I FF through all the commercials, puff pieces, interviews, profiles, sob stories, and other crap, and can usually watch a 4-hour prime time broadcast in well under 2 hours -- even less if I'm not interested in all the sports that are being shown.


Don't be ridiculous. There is not enough actual sports to cover even 2 hours, it seems.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Ruth said:


> What I'd really love to see is a prime-time broadcast that combines the day's competitions into one show, but without all the fluffy crap pieces. I bet they could show 2x the sports in the same amount of time.


So would I. One small problem; besides us, who would watch?

Remember how Olympic broadcasting works.
Step one: NBC bids against CBS, Fox, and ABC/ESPN for the sole rights to air the Olympics in the USA (which is something I think they should change - let networks bid on, say, individual sports; to handle the "Who would bid for, say, badminton or judo?" problem, lump sports without separate bidders together and give those rights to whoever bids highest for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies).
Step two: NBC promises sky-high ratings to advertisers in order to make enough money to make this profitable.
Step three: NBC airs too many sports (besides figure skating) and not enough human interest stories, and half of the potential audience (and pardon me for sounding sexist, but I am under the impression that it's "the female half") don't watch.
Step four: NBC doesn't deliver the ratings it promised the advertisers, so it has to give heavily discounted advertising time on its popular shows (which, nowadays, is pretty much _The Voice_ and its Sunday night NFL coverage).

NBC's stated priority is to protect its prime time Olympics ratings.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> So would I. One small problem; besides us, who would watch?
> 
> Remember how Olympic broadcasting works.
> Step one: NBC bids against CBS, Fox, and ABC/ESPN for the sole rights to air the Olympics in the USA (which is something I think they should change - let networks bid on, say, individual sports; to handle the "Who would bid for, say, badminton or judo?" problem, lump sports without separate bidders together and give those rights to whoever bids highest for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies).
> ...


They are using a formula that has worked for years. And for those who want to watch "just the sports", there are options. The NBC cable outlets usually cover the sports without as many fluff pieces and you can online stream just about anything.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

Ruth said:


> The Olympics is the time I am the most grateful for my TiVo. I honestly don't know how anybody could possibly get through the NBC coverage without a DVR. I FF through all the commercials, puff pieces, interviews, profiles, sob stories, and other crap, and can usually watch a 4-hour prime time broadcast in well under 2 hours -- even less if I'm not interested in all the sports that are being shown.
> 
> It is pretty pathetic how little actual competition they show in prime time broadcasts. If you're lucky, you see very American (no matter whether they have any chance of medaling), plus the top 4-5 medal contenders, and that's it. If they cut down on all the puff pieces and BS that has nothing to do with sports, they could show so much more and the coverage would be SO much better. I love to watch all the unusual sports that you only see at the Olympics (speed skating is my favorite, both kinds), but I couldn't care less about all the personal interest BS.
> 
> I guess showing whole events live is an improvement -- but it's a lot of different recordings to manage. What I'd really love to see is a prime-time broadcast that combines the day's competitions into one show, but without all the fluffy crap pieces. I bet they could show 2x the sports in the same amount of time.


The problem is that the sports aren't good enough to stand on their own. There's a reason we don't watch these sports between Olympics (with a few exceptions like Hockey). I don't mean to offend someone who is a big fan of skiing but the overwhelming majority of viewers only watch these sports every 4 years. And we need the pomp and prestige of the big event to make the competitions interesting. We need to see how big a deal the Olympics are to the competitors and what they did to get there. We need the story set.

With all that said I think NBC could probably cut down on a lot of their non-sports pieces. I almost never watch the Mary Carillo stuff and they do go a little overboard at times with the puff pieces.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> The problem is that the sports aren't good enough to stand on their own. There's a reason we don't watch these sports between Olympics (with a few exceptions like Hockey). I don't mean to offend someone who is a big fan of skiing but the overwhelming majority of viewers only watch these sports every 4 years. And we need the pomp and prestige of the big event to make the competitions interesting. We need to see how big a deal the Olympics are to the competitors and what they did to get there. We need the story set.
> 
> With all that said I think NBC could probably cut down on a lot of their non-sports pieces. I almost never watch the Mary Carillo stuff and they do go a little overboard at times with the puff pieces.


As a history and travel guy, I enjoy the pieces on the host city and country. I will be interested to see if they cover any of the controversy around location, corruption and Putin? My guess is they tread lightly on those issues.

My one complaint on those puff pieces is sometimes they are just way too long. Those half hour pieces they runs sometimes on late night or to open up a slow event night are too much. A 3-5 minute piece on the key athletes and a few 5 minute pieces on stuff around the Olympics is fine.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

NYHeel said:


> The problem is that the sports aren't good enough to stand on their own. There's a reason we don't watch these sports between Olympics (with a few exceptions like Hockey). I don't mean to offend someone who is a big fan of skiing but the overwhelming majority of viewers only watch these sports every 4 years. And we need the pomp and prestige of the big event to make the competitions interesting. We need to see how big a deal the Olympics are to the competitors and what they did to get there. We need the story set.


I honestly think I get nearly all of that stuff anyway, because the commentary constantly is talking about all that stuff instead of the actual sports. So even if you FF through the fluff segment about how hard it was for so-and-so to rehab her knee and she was told she would never compete again and now here she is at the Olympics! -- as soon as she leaves the starting gate in the actual race, someone says "Yes, isn't it amazing how strong she looks after that knee injury that everyone thought was career-ending? And that was just last April!" Boom! You're up to date with the backstory.

I know they say it's women who need all that stuff or they won't watch, but I guess I'm just not like that at all. I guess I don't mind a little human interest stuff now and then (although some of the stuff they talk about is pretty stupid)-- but it shouldn't be at the expense of broadcasting the actual sports. If you really feel compelled to mention it, there is plenty of downtime during the actual competition to tell us how so-and-so just loves her little dog named Sochi and doesn't the fact she named her dog that 5 years ago that prove that was destined for Olympic glory? All you have to do is SAY that and I get it. I don't need to waste 5 minutes actually watching her with the dog.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ruth said:


> I honestly think I get nearly all of that stuff anyway, because the commentary constantly is talking about all that stuff instead of the actual sports. So even if you FF through the fluff segment about how hard it was for so-and-so to rehab her knee and she was told she would never compete again and now here she is at the Olympics! -- as soon as she leaves the starting gate in the actual race, someone says "Yes, isn't it amazing how strong she looks after that knee injury that everyone thought was career-ending? And that was just last April!" Boom! You're up to date with the backstory.
> 
> I know they say it's women who need all that stuff or they won't watch, but I guess I'm just not like that at all. I guess I don't mind a little human interest stuff now and then (although some of the stuff they talk about is pretty stupid)-- but it shouldn't be at the expense of broadcasting the actual sports. If you really feel compelled to mention it, there is plenty of downtime during the actual competition to tell us how so-and-so just loves her little dog named Sochi and doesn't the fact she named her dog that 5 years ago that prove that was destined for Olympic glory? All you have to do is SAY that and I get it. I don't need to waste 5 minutes actually watching her with the dog.


I guess I'm just not like that. I want to know a bit more about the athletes, otherwise I just don't have a feel for who they are and why I should even bother watching them. Saying a couple of things while the race is going on just doesn't do it for me. One of my complaints as a non-fan of Soccer who might watch a bit of the World Cup is they DON'T do that. I'd love to know who the star players are and why they are stars and something about their careers. I watch the matches and frankly it bores me because I have ZERO idea who these players are. Maybe they do this between matches, I'm not sure, but I haven't seen it. Part of it is because I think a lot of the coverage is done using foreign announcers who don't understand the American audience and assume we follow it like everyone else does.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

Ruth said:


> I honestly think I get nearly all of that stuff anyway, because the commentary constantly is talking about all that stuff instead of the actual sports. So even if you FF through the fluff segment about how hard it was for so-and-so to rehab her knee and she was told she would never compete again and now here she is at the Olympics! -- as soon as she leaves the starting gate in the actual race, someone says "Yes, isn't it amazing how strong she looks after that knee injury that everyone thought was career-ending? And that was just last April!" Boom! You're up to date with the backstory.
> 
> I know they say it's women who need all that stuff or they won't watch, but I guess I'm just not like that at all. I guess I don't mind a little human interest stuff now and then (although some of the stuff they talk about is pretty stupid)-- but it shouldn't be at the expense of broadcasting the actual sports. If you really feel compelled to mention it, there is plenty of downtime during the actual competition to tell us how so-and-so just loves her little dog named Sochi and doesn't the fact she named her dog that 5 years ago that prove that was destined for Olympic glory? All you have to do is SAY that and I get it. I don't need to waste 5 minutes actually watching her with the dog.


So very much this! I watch the Olympics to watch the countries competing in the events, not the human interest and geography pieces. If I cared about that I'd watch the Travel Channel or Biography. Or I'd spend all day on Wikipedia reading about the competitors and their home towns.

I get so annoyed when I fire up the TV to watch a very specific event's coverage and then have to waste 15 minutes learning about some Brazilian luge athlete who had a rough childhood, only to see them eliminated from the competition completely 5 minutes later. Meanwhile, the team who goes on to win that competition wasn't shown competing at all because of that fluff piece.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> Step three: NBC airs too many sports (besides figure skating) and not enough human interest stories, and half of the potential audience (*and pardon me for sounding sexist, but I am under the impression that it's "the female half"*) don't watch.


You are mistaken.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You are mistaken.


An interesting article from prior to the London Olympics in Time Magazine

http://olympics.time.com/2012/07/10/why-women-watch-the-olympics-but-tune-out-other-sports/

From the article:



> In a new study published in Communication, Culture & Critique, Erin Whiteside, an assistant professor in the school of journalism and electronic media at the University of Tenn., and Marie Hardin, at the College of Communication at Penn State University, explore why women may be participating in sports but not watching it on TV. The researchers interviewed 19 women aged 26 to 43 in small groups for about 90 minutes each. They asked the participants about what sports they watched on television, why they watched, and what factors influenced their viewing habits. Overall, it's clear that despite participating in sports, women still don't watch athletic events on television for a variety of surprisingly gender-based reasons.
> 
> .
> .
> ...


In your case, this probably doesn't fit.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aindik said:


> I don't want "tell me what's on what channel when." I want "tell me when this sport is on."
> 
> When can we get that? They have a schedule of the events, sort of, but no channels listed yet as far as I can see.
> 
> And, not to be sexist, but can I get a schedule for men's hockey that doesn't also include women's hockey?


Umm, if you're going to record it (manually) you need to know what channel it's on.. so I sort of don't understand your complaint.. but it also leads into my answer for your other question..

Autorecording wishlists.. Olympics + hockey - women*


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aindik said:


> I don't want "tell me what's on what channel when." I want "tell me when this sport is on."
> 
> When can we get that? They have a schedule of the events, sort of, but no channels listed yet as far as I can see.
> 
> And, not to be sexist, but can I get a schedule for men's hockey that doesn't also include women's hockey?


They don;t usually program such discreet blocks. They like to hop around to force you to watch more. But with something like a hockey game, they usually show the full thing without any gaps other than commercial breaks at intermission. And the intermission lasts as long as an actual intermission. They don't re-join an hour later.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

mattack said:


> Umm, if you're going to record it (manually) you need to know what channel it's on.. so I sort of don't understand your complaint.. but it also leads into my answer for your other question..
> 
> Autorecording wishlists.. Olympics + hockey - women*


I don't want to know "what does NBCSN have on Tuesday at noon." I want to know "when (and what channel) is hockey on."


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aindik said:


> I don't want to know "what does NBCSN have on Tuesday at noon." I want to know "when (and what channel) is hockey on."


Your best chance of this is to wait until just before the Olympics begin, then check the listings for each of the Olympics channels (NBC, NBC Sports Network, MSNBC, CNBC, USA - note Bravo will not have any coverage this time like it did in London) and when a program says "Olympics", check the details for something like "Ice Hockey (M)". Ice hockey games tend to be aired in dedicated blocks.

Right now, you can try going to the NBC Olympic TV Schedule site and scrolling through the whole thing. Yes, it is tedious, but that seems to be the only way right now of finding out when hockey is on. (The schedule has some glitches; the first men's game I found was "Czech Republic vs. Czech Republic.")

Note that NBC Sports Network is airing something called "Ice Hockey Game of the Day" each day at around 5 PM Eastern; they don't tell you in advance which game it is (or, for that matter, if it's men's or women's).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> An interesting article from prior to the London Olympics in Time Magazine
> 
> http://olympics.time.com/2012/07/10/why-women-watch-the-olympics-but-tune-out-other-sports/
> 
> ...


So they talked to some focus groups. Big hairy deal.

We have our own focus group right here, and Ruth and I (among others) are coming in on the side of people who want more sports, and you like some of the features that I would rather see on a pre-game show than in the middle of the competition I want to watch.

What I object to is that we have other people in the thread insisting that women like one thing and men like another, in direct contradiction of what is being posted in this very thread. Maybe I'm on a lot of people's ignore list, but Ruth's opinion, and yours, deserve to be heard.

The one thing that I can hope for, I guess, is that figure skating will be covered by a pool feed and shot by people who are used to covering figure skating, and not the ham-handed idiots that just worked the cameras at the US Nationals.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I watch both. I expect to see some real coverage in the longer daytime blocks with filler and recap during prime. I also expect to make liberal use if the ff button in my remote. I don't usually care for interviews (especially in figure skating for some reason). Background pieces are ok, but I know that after a few days, I'll tire of seeing the same stories over and over. I'm already tired of everyone commenting on Gracie Gold's name.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

realityboy said:


> I'm already tired of everyone commenting on Gracie Gold's name.


Hear, hear.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

realityboy said:


> I'm already tired of everyone commenting on Gracie Gold's name.


At this point, I am already rooting for her to fall on her ass early and out of competition so we don't have to hear it again.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> So they talked to some focus groups. Big hairy deal.
> 
> We have our own focus group right here, and Ruth and I (among others) are coming in on the side of people who want more sports, and you like some of the features that I would rather see on a pre-game show than in the middle of the competition I want to watch.
> 
> ...


I have to say, and maybe I'm in different circles than you, but you are much more into sports than most of the women I know. So perhaps you and Ruth are the exception to the rule? (it's an expression, obviously it's not a "rule"). My daughter (who's 14) is as much into sports at her brothers, but very few of her friends are. I think for her, growing up in a house with two much older brothers and her dad being sports crazy just made her the same way.

There was another very good article in the NYT this weekend about how and why they research these things:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/sports/olympics/unearthing-nuggets-of-gold-for-nbc.html


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

eddyj said:


> At this point, I am already rooting for her to fall on her ass early and out of competition so we don't have to hear it again.


The only way she doesn't skate four routines (all of which would air on NBC) is if (a) somebody decides not to use her in both rounds of the team competition (each country is allowed 2 substitutions between the short and long programs), or (b) she does so poorly in the individual short program that she's not in the top 18 and so doesn't qualify for the long program. 
All three USA ladies' skaters (Gold, "wunderkind" Polina Edmunds, and Ashley Wagner - note that the rules do not allow Mirai Nagasu to be on the team as just part of the team competition) will, almost certainly, have all of their routines air on NBC. 
Furthermore, even If, somehow, Gold doesn't medal, I wouldn't be surprised to see NBC talk the organizers into letting her perform in the exhibition the night before the closing ceremonies.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

eddyj said:


> At this point, I am already rooting for her to fall on her ass early and out of competition so we don't have to hear it again.


Wouldn't it be great if reporters just commented on the performances, instead of falling all over themselves trying to be clever and calling attention to themselves?

Yeah, I know, it won't happen.

Picking up on the link that Steveknj posted -- now I see what the problem is. If ABC hired Ebersol as a researcher at the Olympics, it's no wonder he's got an overblown sense of how important the puff pieces are.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> There was another very good article in the NYT this weekend about how and why they research these things:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/sports/olympics/unearthing-nuggets-of-gold-for-nbc.html





> And unlike the 43 ½ hours that ABC televised from Innsbruck, Austria, in 1976, five NBC Universal networks will carry 539 hours of live coverage from Sochi, and nbcolympics.com will stream at least 1,000 more.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Horrible! Bring back the olden days when things were better!!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


>


It means you could pretty much watch the Olympics any way you want. Don't want to watch the fluff pieces and want to watch the whole events? You can do that via streaming and in some cases via the NBC family of cable channels.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Wouldn't it be great if reporters just commented on the performances, instead of falling all over themselves trying to be clever and calling attention to themselves?


Clearly, you have never watched any sports on TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Clearly, you have never watched any sports on TV.


Especially in the last 20 years or so.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I have the DVR space ( and 6 HD tuners) so I pretty much record everything.

If I remember correctly from last winter Olympics,
I pretty much deleted 80% before even watching

Only so much hockey you can watch ( time wise)

But will probably recorded everything again this time.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I have the DVR space ( and 6 HD tuners) so I pretty much record everything.
> 
> If I remember correctly from last winter Olympics,
> I pretty much deleted 80% before even watching
> ...


That's kind of what I do. I do only selectively record stuff on the secondary networks since I won't record stuff that NBC will reair primetime since I'm not going to watch until primetime anyway.

I spend most of the 2 weeks avoiding twitter and the internet, except for maybe the early morning.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Slightly Off topic, but for those of you who collect pins, the NBC store at NBC.com has the new Sochi/NBC pins for sale. They sold out early last olympics:

http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/pins/index.php?v=olympics_pins&icid=leftnav_olympics_pins


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Clearly, you have never watched any sports on TV.





Steveknj said:


> Especially in the last 20 years or so.


Hey, a fan can dream.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Hey, a fan can dream.


I'm with you.

MNF made announcers into celebrities and John Madden made it so that you can be an expert AND be a celebrity (which guys like Cosell weren't exactly experts). Now every broadcaster tries to be a celebrity and in too many cases it gets in the way of the game, which is what I tuned in for. In all honesty there is exactly ONE announcer I've ever tuned in for just because it's him, and that's Vin Scully, who ironically, doesn't try and be a celebrity.

(I should be clearer in that I've tuned in to MNF to here what guys like Dennis Miller or Tony Kornheieser sound like, but after a week, it was back to tuning in to see the game....but, when I get my free week of MLB EI, I make sure to at least tune in to listen to Vin Scully do a game at least once.)


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> Slightly Off topic, but for those of you who collect pins, the NBC store at NBC.com has the new Sochi/NBC pins for sale. They sold out early last olympics:
> 
> http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/pins/index.php?v=olympics_pins&icid=leftnav_olympics_pins


When the Olympics were in L.A. I worked for Sanyo who had like 4 different pins. I got a bunch of them, and then went some of the events, and traded them, ended up with about 20 or so different ones.. If I only knew where they were.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> It means you could pretty much watch the Olympics any way you want. Don't want to watch the fluff pieces and want to watch the whole events? You can do that via streaming and in some cases via the NBC family of cable channels.


Blech on streaming. I have yet to see a sporting event that is watchable streaming except on something as small as an iPad or iPhone. I have a 65 inch tv with some of the most advanced display capabilities (non-4k). And all sports streaming annoys the crap out of me on it. I hate SD. Why would I want to deal with streaming? (And not that nbc's steaming was non-problematic last time.)


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Blech on streaming. I have yet to see a sporting event that is watchable streaming except on something as small as an iPad or iPhone. I have a 65 inch tv with some of the most advanced display capabilities (non-4k). And all sports streaming annoys the crap out of me on it. I hate SD. Why would I want to deal with streaming? (And not that nbc's steaming was non-problematic last time.)


The streams are in HD if your bandwidth can handle it. They looked pretty good two years ago. YMMV.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I'm with you.
> 
> MNF made announcers into celebrities and John Madden made it so that you can be an expert AND be a celebrity (which guys like Cosell weren't exactly experts). Now every broadcaster tries to be a celebrity and in too many cases it gets in the way of the game, which is what I tuned in for. In all honesty there is exactly ONE announcer I've ever tuned in for just because it's him, and that's Vin Scully, who ironically, doesn't try and be a celebrity.
> 
> (I should be clearer in that I've tuned in to MNF to here what guys like Dennis Miller or Tony Kornheieser sound like, but after a week, it was back to tuning in to see the game....but, when I get my free week of MLB EI, I make sure to at least tune in to listen to Vin Scully do a game at least once.)


I know I'm in the minority, but my rule of thumb is simple. I want the people in the booth to enhance my viewing of the game / event. If the experts tell me something that only a player would notice, that's a big plus; I watch a lot of sports, and even if I were good at sports, there's no way I could have tried to do/play as many as I can watch. And I want them to bring the experience of being at the game. In the good way, not the "I'm at the game and some tall loudmouthed jerk has just sat in the seat in front of me" way.

One year I was watching men's figure skating at US Nationals.* ABC had brought in Kurt Browning to sit in with Dick Button during the men's singles. ABC was always superb at capturing the special atmosphere at US Nationals, but this was genius, in part because Kurt is Canadian and had never been to a US Nationals before. Anyway, we had two skaters who had been the best at pushing the envelope in men's skating in their era, geeking out on what was happening technically. Imagine *two* HoF home-run hitters discussing the mechanics of people's swings in replays or two HoF pitchers describing a pitching duel during the World Series. It was fantastic. (pardon the pun)

What can I say? I'm a geek. Sports fascinate me because I like physics. One of the things Dick Button picked up on was that one of the skaters was spotting his rotations like a ballet dancer does (fixating on a single point, then 'snapping' his head around) instead of just spinning with his head in the same position like skaters usually do. Dick claimed that the skater would never master a quad jump until he stopped doing that. He's probably right (who am I to argue with a two-time Olympic gold medalist) but the point is, I hadn't noticed the skater was doing that until Dick pointed that out. All of the details that Dick pointed out during his long tenure as an expert commentator, I learned to watch out for, for myself. This is what I want from an expert commentator -- to become a better _viewer_ because of their commentary.

I'm sure a producer would say that nobody cares about stuff like that except for Dick Button and me, but I don't know how you can gain new long-time viewers for a sport unless you help them understand what is going on.

I've watched enough figure skating and equestrian events now that I know when some jumps have gone bad at the moment of takeoff. I may not be able to articulate what is wrong in real time, but I know that things are not going to end well.  Casual viewers who only see these sports during the Olympics are not going to get the experience it takes to see these things. IMHO the more you know, like being able to hear the difference in the sound of a home-run ball or a broken-bat hit when you're watching baseball, the more you enjoy the game.

*Edited to add: the nerd-fest conversation I was remembering between Dick Button and Kurt Browning was actually during the men's competition at Skate America 2005. I was looking at old recordings yesterday and stumbled on it. Dick was initially talking about the skater's jumping technique during the warm-up session, and talked about it again during the actual performance.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Blech on streaming. I have yet to see a sporting event that is watchable streaming except on something as small as an iPad or iPhone. I have a 65 inch tv with some of the most advanced display capabilities (non-4k). And all sports streaming annoys the crap out of me on it. I hate SD. Why would I want to deal with streaming? (And not that nbc's steaming was non-problematic last time.)


If you asked me 4 or 5 years ago, I'd agree with you. I stream lots of stuff on my TV these days and for all the "name" websites (Netflix, Amazon, the networks) I can't even tell the difference between a stream and a satellite feed. That said, live TV, especially from half way around the world could be a little glitchy, but I'm not sure. For folks that have MLB EI for example, that wasn't bad when I had it 3-4 years ago, so I would imagine it's better now. Can you corroborate?

Still, if you want to watch something live bad enough, it's available. and the sub networks of NBC will have a lot of it via your content provider (USA, NBCSN, etc.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I know I'm in the minority, but my rule of thumb is simple. I want the people in the booth to enhance my viewing of the game / event. If the experts tell me something that only a player would notice, that's a big plus; I watch a lot of sports, and even if I were good at sports, there's no way I could have tried to do/play as many as I can watch. And I want them to bring the experience of being at the game. In the good way, not the "I'm at the game and some tall loudmouthed jerk has just sat in the seat in front of me" way.
> 
> One year I was watching men's figure skating at US Nationals. ABC had brought in Kurt Browning to sit in with Dick Button during the men's singles. ABC was always superb at capturing the special atmosphere at US Nationals, but this was genius, in part because Kurt is Canadian and had never been to a US Nationals before. Anyway, we had two skaters who had been the best at pushing the envelope in men's skating in their era, geeking out on what was happening technically. Imagine *two* HoF home-run hitters discussing the mechanics of people's swings in replays or two HoF pitchers describing a pitching duel during the World Series. It was fantastic. (pardon the pun)
> 
> ...


No argument from me, I'm the same way. When Tim McCarver first started doing games (and I know for most people here, he's a dirty word), he was probably the best at teaching the finer points of the game. And he could do it in an entertaining way (and in many respects, he's uniquely qualified for doing it, because as a catcher he was a hitter, a fielder who could see the whole field from his position and knew the mechanics of pitching. And he had the personality to explain it so a layman could understand it. John Madden was the same way. Except once Madden became immensely popular, there were lots of imitators, who lacked his skills as a commentator, but tried to emulate his personality. And then it just went over the top most of the time. For sports that I don't completely understand all the nuances and technical aspects, it's even more important, as you point out that they explain it to me so I can understand. It's hard to find someone who can do that well without sounding either boring, or being an over the top fan. (Button who you mention had one annoying habit, he went over the top with his exclamations, Scott Hamilton has the same problem).

Anyway, I think that for sports fans, we want to know the nuts and bolts, but we're going to watch anyway. They try and bring in those who want to be entertained, not us junkies.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> If you asked me 4 or 5 years ago, I'd agree with you. I stream lots of stuff on my TV these days and for all the "name" websites (Netflix, Amazon, the networks) I can't even tell the difference between a stream and a satellite feed. That said, live TV, especially from half way around the world could be a little glitchy, but I'm not sure. For folks that have MLB EI for example, that wasn't bad when I had it 3-4 years ago, so I would imagine it's better now. Can you corroborate? Still, if you want to watch something live bad enough, it's available. and the sub networks of NBC will have a lot of it via your content provider (USA, NBCSN, etc.)


I also watch movies and stuff on Netflix and others. They are typically okay. I have not seen any sports yet that stands up to real HD. That includes MLB, ESPN3 et al.

I shouldn't have to want to watch it bad enough. This isn't my little sister's third grade volleyball game. This is the Olympics. And there is so much waste of real HD bandwidth.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> No argument from me, I'm the same way. When Tim McCarver first started doing games (and I know for most people here, he's a dirty word), he was probably the best at teaching the finer points of the game. And he could do it in an entertaining way (and in many respects, he's uniquely qualified for doing it, because as a catcher he was a hitter, a fielder who could see the whole field from his position and knew the mechanics of pitching. And he had the personality to explain it so a layman could understand it. John Madden was the same way. Except once Madden became immensely popular, there were lots of imitators, who lacked his skills as a commentator, but tried to emulate his personality. And then it just went over the top most of the time. For sports that I don't completely understand all the nuances and technical aspects, it's even more important, as you point out that they explain it to me so I can understand. It's hard to find someone who can do that well without sounding either boring, or being an over the top fan. (Button who you mention had one annoying habit, he went over the top with his exclamations, Scott Hamilton has the same problem). Anyway, I think that for sports fans, we want to know the nuts and bolts, but we're going to watch anyway. They try and bring in those who want to be entertained, not us junkies.


Ick. You just complimented Tim McCarver. One of the absolute worst announcers ever. His "fine points" consist of making jokes about 2-2 pitches with two on and two outs. Or this gem: players consider being down 1-0 no different than 0-0 because they need to score anyway. He's an idiot. I know baseball and I know a lot of players. His fine points are just nonsense. But he had you fooled.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> When the Olympics were in L.A. I worked for Sanyo who had like 4 different pins. I got a bunch of them, and then went some of the events, and traded them, ended up with about 20 or so different ones.. If I only knew where they were.


Back when I was with TBS in Atlanta, the Nation Cable Television folks had their national convention in town, and a friend and I just managed to get in at the close on the last day. After wondering around a while, we came upon the USA Network booth, which had one of those large brandy snifters on the table, over half filled with USA Network pins. The guy running the booth was quickly packing and obviously wanted to get out of there. We asked him if we could have more than one pin, as there was a sign on the glass saying "one to a customer". His reply, "You can have the entire lot of them. That's one last thing I have to pack. Help yourself!"

Well, we ended up with over 200 pins. They came in very handy for years as trading stock.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> For sports that I don't completely understand all the nuances and technical aspects, it's even more important, as you point out that they explain it to me so I can understand. It's hard to find someone who can do that well without sounding either boring, or being an over the top fan. (Button who you mention had one annoying habit, he went over the top with his exclamations, Scott Hamilton has the same problem).
> 
> Anyway, I think that for sports fans, we want to know the nuts and bolts, but we're going to watch anyway. They try and bring in those who want to be entertained, not us junkies.


Button has many annoying habits, but when he is talking about technical stuff, he knows his stuff. Which is why it was genius putting Kurt Browning in the booth with him. It gave Button an audience, someone he could talk to who would understand anything he said. So then he started to really talk technique.

Of course Button can be incredibly annoying, as can Scott Hamilton. But the thing that has annoyed me even more this season is Tom Hammond. I realize it's probably some producer asking him to do this, but he's trying to cram the entire contents of the media guide down the throat of the viewer in the 20 seconds or less that they're showing a skater taking a position before each program. FFS, this is TV, not radio. The world won't come to an end if there is a moment of 'dead air'.

The same thing happens on the horse racing broadcasts, too. Interviews, puff pieces, celebrity shots in the crowd, pre-race analysis blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and then all of a sudden it's post time and BLAM they switch away from all their other crap and show you the last horse being loaded into the gate before the start of the race. You barely see the horses warm up; you don't get any of the atmosphere of being at the event. There's no chance for the dramatic tension to build. The game/race/event is almost an afterthought. I hate it.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Of course Button can be incredibly annoying, as can Scott Hamilton. But the thing that has annoyed me even more this season is Tom Hammond. I realize it's probably some producer asking him to do this, but he's trying to cram the entire contents of the media guide down the throat of the viewer in the 20 seconds or less that they're showing a skater taking a position before each program. FFS, this is TV, not radio. The world won't come to an end if there is a moment of 'dead air'.


It was worse in the days of the 6.0 scoring system (and with pretty much every commentator). In order to make sure all of the judges had their acts together, after the first skater performed, they were each told the average of their first marks, and the average of their second marks, and could modify them accordingly, which made the gap between the performance and the announcement of scores even longer.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Ick. You just complimented Tim McCarver. One of the absolute worst announcers ever. His "fine points" consist of making jokes about 2-2 pitches with two on and two outs. Or this gem: players consider being down 1-0 no different than 0-0 because they need to score anyway. He's an idiot. I know baseball and I know a lot of players. His fine points are just nonsense. But he had you fooled.


Don't judge him now working with Joe Buck, a horrible PxP announcer who brings out the worst in whoever he works with. Buck tries to make the game into one big running gag of one liners only he thinks is funny and McCarver plays along. McCarver in the days covering the Mets in NY was an excellent color guy, considered the John Madden of baseball. His book is considered a go to for teaching novices about baseball. I think you're just going along with the consensus here who don't like the guy. Playing the game is a lot different than "knowing a few baseball players". I know baseball, probably as well as you, and I think in the day, he was a great announcer. Is he great now? No. Who do you think it a great baseball announcer today?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Button has many annoying habits, but when he is talking about technical stuff, he knows his stuff. Which is why it was genius putting Kurt Browning in the booth with him. It gave Button an audience, someone he could talk to who would understand anything he said. So then he started to really talk technique.
> 
> Of course Button can be incredibly annoying, as can Scott Hamilton. But the thing that has annoyed me even more this season is Tom Hammond. I realize it's probably some producer asking him to do this, but he's trying to cram the entire contents of the media guide down the throat of the viewer in the 20 seconds or less that they're showing a skater taking a position before each program. FFS, this is TV, not radio. The world won't come to an end if there is a moment of 'dead air'.
> 
> The same thing happens on the horse racing broadcasts, too. Interviews, puff pieces, celebrity shots in the crowd, pre-race analysis blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and then all of a sudden it's post time and BLAM they switch away from all their other crap and show you the last horse being loaded into the gate before the start of the race. You barely see the horses warm up; you don't get any of the atmosphere of being at the event. There's no chance for the dramatic tension to build. The game/race/event is almost an afterthought. I hate it.


The thing is for these sports, Olympic sports, horse racing and some others, they have to present the sport to an audience that probably don't know the competitors, don't know the finer points of the sport (and especially the technical aspects), and in most cases couldn't care less. They need to be entertaining first. That probably pisses off the die hard fans, and some of us who enjoy some of the the technical aspects. But those people are already tuning in. So how do you balance that? I didn't see the skating competition you mentioned with Kurt and Button, so I can't speak to it, but for a large chunk of the audience, two analysts going back and forth on technical minutia can be a colossal bore. The good one (John Madden for NFL football for example) can make the technical stuff sound interesting. Maybe that was the case with Kurt and Button. It's a problem I have with this trend in baseball, especially ESPN's coverage where they fill the screen with a million stats and speak to them as if everyone understands them.

So if your NBC, who do go after as an audience? Do you go after the core fans who understand everything about the sport and you can go into all the technical aspect, or do you go after the casual fan who might be bored to tears if you get too technical and turn to something else? You most certainly already have the core fan as an audience, so you need to target the rest to get ratings up. Sorry, but that's the TV business in this country.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I also watch movies and stuff on Netflix and others. They are typically okay. I have not seen any sports yet that stands up to real HD. That includes MLB, ESPN3 et al.
> 
> I shouldn't have to want to watch it bad enough. This isn't my little sister's third grade volleyball game. This is the Olympics. And there is so much waste of real HD bandwidth.


So what do you suggest? NBC already has 4 or 5 networks dedicated to the Olympics. There's no way they could show EVERYTHING. So they stream.

It's nice to complain but unless you have a better solution....


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is for these sports, Olympic sports, horse racing and some others, they have to present the sport to an audience that probably don't know the competitors, don't know the finer points of the sport (and especially the technical aspects), and in most cases couldn't care less. They need to be entertaining first. That probably pisses off the die hard fans, and some of us who enjoy some of the the technical aspects. But those people are already tuning in. So how do you balance that? I didn't see the skating competition you mentioned with Kurt and Button, so I can't speak to it, but for a large chunk of the audience, two analysts going back and forth on technical minutia can be a colossal bore. The good one (John Madden for NFL football for example) can make the technical stuff sound interesting. Maybe that was the case with Kurt and Button. It's a problem I have with this trend in baseball, especially ESPN's coverage where they fill the screen with a million stats and speak to them as if everyone understands them.
> 
> So if your NBC, who do go after as an audience? Do you go after the core fans who understand everything about the sport and you can go into all the technical aspect, or do you go after the casual fan who might be bored to tears if you get too technical and turn to something else? You most certainly already have the core fan as an audience, so you need to target the rest to get ratings up. Sorry, but that's the TV business in this country.


These days we hear a lot of talk about how the program will rack up points under the new judging system, and not much else. So NBC is getting pretty good now at boring both the casual and experienced fans at the same time.

(Disclaimer: I just watched the European championships over the weekend -- often a huge snooze-fest for me, especially when they only show singles skating.)


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I have the DVR space ( and 6 HD tuners) so I pretty much record everything.
> 
> If I remember correctly from last winter Olympics,
> I pretty much deleted 80% before even watching
> ...


Was setting up for recording the Olympics with a "XXII Winter Olympics" Wishlist on my 6-Tuner Roamio using an HD-only filter. Noticed that USA, MSNBC, and CNBC weren't being auto-recorded because the HD flag wasn't set on those channels. Only NBC and NBC Sports were recording. Ended up creating 5 Season Passes for each of the HD channels carrying the Games.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I never bother setting up the HD-only flag on wishlists anymore. We just delete all the non-HD channels from our channel list.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

A little comparison chart of national Olympic TV packages.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

laria said:


> I never bother setting up the HD-only flag on wishlists anymore. We just delete all the non-HD channels from our channel list.


I didn't even know there was a filter 

only SD channels I have are like TVLAND or such, that we don't have HD.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Marco said:


> A little comparison chart of national Olympic TV packages.


To be fair, of course the three European countries are going to be showing a lot of things live. Notice that they are all starting live coverage at pretty much the same time - Friday, at 7:30 PM Sochi time (GMT+4), just before the Opening Ceremony begins.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Canada is covering a lot of hours, but it's interesting in that they have THREE separate English speaking networks covering the Olympics, so it's non exclusive (or maybe they have separate deals by sport). The US has one family of networks (NBC Universal).


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Coverage starts TONIGHT.


I had thought that the TEAM skating competition was simply taking scores from the other competitions (men, women, pairs, dance) and then using that to give an award to a team (country). But it seems like it's a totally separate competition? I.e. performances specifically for the TEAM competition that are not connected to the other performances for men, women, pairs, and dance?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Coverage starts TONIGHT.
> 
> I had thought that the TEAM skating competition was simply taking scores from the other competitions (men, women, pairs, dance) and then using that to give an award to a team (country). But it seems like it's a totally separate competition? I.e. performances specifically for the TEAM competition that are not connected to the other performances for men, women, pairs, and dance?


It's a totally separate competition. I watched some of it (men's short program and pairs short program) via streaming this morning.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Coverage starts TONIGHT.


I tuned in at 8pm and one of the first things Bob Costas mentioned was that later in the evening, as part of the primetime coverage, there'll be some discussion, along with some talking head expert, on some of the issues that have been surrounding the games: security, how ready is Russia, terror threats, political something-or-other, blah blah blah.

Really? Can't they just have their prime time coverage of the games - I don't know - just stick to the games?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I had thought that the TEAM skating competition was simply taking scores from the other competitions (men, women, pairs, dance) and then using that to give an award to a team (country). But it seems like it's a totally separate competition? I.e. performances specifically for the TEAM competition that are not connected to the other performances for men, women, pairs, and dance?


Correct. Ten countries qualified based on performances in 2013 competitions; each one has one entry in each discipline (men, ladies, pairs, dance) perform a short program; each discipline scores 10 team points for first, 9 for second, and so on. The top five in points after the short programs then do a free skate (the new name for "long program") in each discipline, again with the 10-down-to-1 points for places; the most points (combining the short and free rounds) wins the gold. Note that each country may make two changes (changing either or both skaters in pairs or dance counts as one change) between the short and free rounds. Also, each entry has to have qualified in an individual event, except in the case where a country didn't qualify anybody in a particular discipline (so, for example, USA couldn't add Mirai Nagasu to the Olympic team to compete in just the team competition).


----------



## Quaker2001 (Feb 7, 2014)

Jeeters said:


> I tuned in at 8pm and one of the first things Bob Costas mentioned was that later in the evening, as part of the primetime coverage, there'll be some discussion, along with some talking head expert, on some of the issues that have been surrounding the games: security, how ready is Russia, terror threats, political something-or-other, blah blah blah.
> 
> Really? Can't they just have their prime time coverage of the games - I don't know - just stick to the games?


"The Games" includes everything that's going on in Russia. They can't entirely ignore all the side stories going on there. I'm with you that I hope they strike the right balance between covering the competition and dealing with all the politics, but they wouldn't be doing their jobs there if they didn't at least acknowledge all that other nonsense.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> The top five in points after the short programs then do a free skate (the new name for "long program") in each discipline


Au contraire. The 'short program' (aka technical progam) is a johnny-come lately; it was introduced in 1964 for pairs, and in 1973 for singles. The 'long program' is the new name for the free skating part of the competition.

Before the introduction of the technical program, competitions for singles skaters consisted of compulsory figures and free skating, and free skating for pairs.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

For ice dancing, it goes like this:

Ice dancing came into being in 1952, and did not join the Olympics until 1976. Ice dancers used to skate two compulsory dances (where, apart from an introduction and a few steps at the end, all of the skaters performed exactly the same steps, to one of four different selections of music), an Original Set Pattern (OSP), and a free dance.






The OSP was an original dance created by each couple, in which they had to perform a sequence of steps three times. Theoretically the best OSPs could be added to the list of compulsory dances.






In 1995 the OSP morphed into the Original Dance (OD) and dropped the requirement that the dancers had to repeat the steps.






Eventually the compulsory dances were dropped from two to one and in the 2010-11 season, the compulsory and the OD were combined to make what we have now, the *Short Dance*. The short dance has a required pattern from one of the old compulsory dances and half choreography made up by the couple themselves. For all of these forms -- OSP, OD, or SD -- the dance rhythm is dictated by the rules each year.






The free dance, like the free skate in pairs and singles, is done to music of the couples' own choosing.

This is a simplified explanation. Like all of the singles and pairs programs the dancers (now) have technical requirements the programs have to meet; it's all spelled out in the rulebook each year.

You can only get away with skating around in circles and waving your arms frantically if you are Russian.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I tuned in at 8pm and one of the first things Bob Costas mentioned was that later in the evening, as part of the primetime coverage, there'll be some discussion, along with some talking head expert, on some of the issues that have been surrounding the games: security, how ready is Russia, terror threats, political something-or-other, blah blah blah.
> 
> Really? Can't they just have their prime time coverage of the games - I don't know - just stick to the games?


Wouldn't that be like showing the Super Bowl without discussing Sherman's tirade after the NFC Championship. I think it's fine to have this discussion, especially when it's the first night which only has a few events and they can use it to set the stage as to what's going on.

To me the Olympics is not just about the sports, but about the culture of the Olympics, of the host city. Each Olympics have their own story to tell. Part of the story is that it's Putin's Olympics and how it's effecting everything about it.

I didn't see much of the first night but flipped it on when they were talking about this with Vladimir Pozner who was a former Soviet Era TV reporter who used to be on American TV to discuss the USSR. Was this what they were talking about? (Pozner always creeped me out during the Cold War as his English is flawless. I always swore he was a spy.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Wouldn't that be like showing the Super Bowl without discussing Sherman's tirade after the NFC Championship. I think it's fine to have this discussion, especially when it's the first night which only has a few events and they can use it to set the stage as to what's going on. To me the Olympics is not just about the sports, but about the culture of the Olympics, of the host city. Each Olympics have their own story to tell. Part of the story is that it's Putin's Olympics and how it's effecting everything about it. I didn't see much of the first night but flipped it on when they were talking about this with Vladimir Pozner who was a former Soviet Era TV reporter who used to be on American TV to discuss the USSR. Was this what they were talking about? (Pozner always creeped me out during the Cold War as his English is flawless. I always swore he was a spy.


Of course he was a spy. All soviets were spies back then.

Unless you meant one of ours. Then, no, we'd have the guy speak like Boris Badenov.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Here's the TV schedule for the next three days. Note that NBCSN's programming "blocks" don't necessarily correspond to events.

All times are Eastern, and are AM unless otherwise noted

Events not on NBC are live unless otherwise noted

[D] indicates this will also be on NBC's daytime afternoon broadcast
[P] indicates this will also be on NBC's primetime broadcast
[L] indicates this will also be on NBC's late night broadcast

Saturday 2/8
12:30 - Snowboarding - M Slopestyle Final (NBC prime)
3:00 - Hockey - W USA-Finland (NBCSN)
5:00 - Cross-Country - W Skiathlon 15K (NBCSN [D])
6:30 - Speed Skating - M 5000 (NBCSN [D])
8:00 - Hockey - W Canada-Switzerland (MSNBC)
9:00 - Skiing - W Moguls Final (NBC prime)
9:30 - Biathlon - M Sprint 10K (NBC day)
9:30 - Figure Skating - Team Dance & W Short, Pairs Free (NBCSN [P,L])
9:30 - Luge - M Singles Runs 1 & 2 (NBC late)
11:30 - Ski Jumping - M Normal Hill Qualifying (NBC day)

Sunday 2/9
1:30 - Snowboarding - W Slopestyle Final (NBC prime)
2:00 - Skiing - M Downhill (NBC prime)
3:00 - Hockey - W Sweden-Japan (NBCSN)
5:00 - Cross-Country - M Skiathlon 30K (NBCSN 5:30 [D])
6:30 - Speed Skating - W 3000 (NBCSN [D])
8:00 - Hockey - W Russia-Germany (MSNBC)
9:30 - Biathlon - W 7.5K Sprint (NBC day)
9:30 - Luge - Men's Singles Final Runs (NBCSN [L])
10:00 - Figure Skating - Team Men, Ladies, Dance Free (NBCSN [D,P])
12:30 PM - Ski Jumping - M Normal Hill Final (NBCSN [P])

Monday 2/10
Midnight - Curling - M rounds 1 & 2, W round 1 (Canada-Germany on NBCSN at 3:00)
2:00 - Skiing - Women's Super Combined (NBC prime)
4:45 - Short Track - M 1500; W 500 heats; W Relay SF (NBC prime (M 1500); NBC late (W 500 & Relay))
5:00 - Curling - W round 1 (USA-Switzerland on USA)
5:00 - Hockey - W USA-SUI (NBCSN)
8:00 - Speed Skating - M 500 (NBCSN [D])
9:00 - Skiing - M Moguls (NBC prime)
9:45 - Luge - W Singles Runs 1 & 2 (NBCSN 0815 [L])
10:00 - Curling - M round 2 (USA-Norway on CNBC 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Biathlon - M 12.5K Pursuit (NBC Day)
10:00 - Hockey - W Canada-Finland (NBCSN)

Tuesday 2/11
Midnight - Curling - W round 2 (USA-Russia on NBCSN at 3:00)
1:00 - Skiing - W Slopestyle Final (NBC Day & Prime)
5:00 - Hockey - W Germany-Sweden (* not on TV)
5:00 - Curling - M round 3 (USA-China on USA)
5:00 - Cross-Country - W & M Sprint (NBCSN [D])
5:00 - Snowboarding - M Halfpipe (NBC Prime)
7:45 - Speed Skating - W 500 (NBCSN 1:30 PM [L])
9:30 - Luge - W Singles Final Runs (NBC Day)
10:00 - Hockey - W Russia-Japan (MSNBC)
10:00 - Curling - W round 3 (USA-Great Britain CNBC 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Biathlon - W 10K Pursuit {NBC Late)
10:00 - Figure Skating - Pairs Short (NBCSN [P])
12:30 PM - Ski Jumping - W Normal Hill (NBCSN 1:30 PM [P])

Wednesday 2/12
Midnight - Curling - M round 4 (USA-Denmark on NBCSN at 3:00)
2:00 - Skiing - W Downhill (NBC Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - W Switzerland-Finland (MSNBC)
4:30 - Nordic Combined - Individual Normal Hill (NBCSN [D])
5:00 - Curling - W round 4 (USA-China on USA)
5:00 - Snowboarding - W Halfpipe (NBC Prime)
7:30 - Hockey - W USA-Canada (NBCSN)
9:00 - Speed Skating - M 1000 (NBC Prime)
9:15 - Luge - M Doubles Runs 1 & 2 (NBCSN [L])
10:00 - Curling - M round 5 (Great Britain-Switzerland on CNBC)
10:45 - Figure Skating - Pairs Free (NBCSN [P])
Noon - Hockey - M Czech Republic-Sweden, Latvia-Switzerland (USA / MSNBC)

Thursday 2/13
Midnight - Curling - W round 5 (* no games in this round are on TV)
1:15 - Skiing - M Slopestyle (NBC prime)
2:30 - Skeleton - W Runs 1 & 2 (NBCSN [P])
3:00 - Hockey - M Finland-Austria, W Japan-Germany (NBCSN / * Japan-Germany not on TV)
5:00 - Curling - M round 6 (USA-Great Britain on USA; Canada-Denmark on MSNBC at 1000)
5:00 - Cross-Country - W 10K Classical (NBCSN)
5:00 - Short Track - W 500; M 1000 heats; M Relay SF (NBC late (may not include M 1000))
7:30 - Hockey - M Russia-Slovenia, USA-Slovakia (MSNBC / NBCSN)
9:00 - Biathlon - M 20K (NBC Day)
9:00 - Speed Skating - W 1000 (NBC prime)
9:00 - Figure Skating - M Short (NBCSN [P])
10:00 - Hockey - M Canada-Norway, W Sweden-Russia (USA / MSNBC)
10:00 - Curling - W round 6 (USA-Japan on CNBC at 5:00 PM)
11:15 - Luge - Team Relay (NBC Day)

Friday 2/14
Midnight - Curling - M round 7 (USA-Germany on NBCSN at 3:00)
2:00 - Skiing - M Super Combined (NBC Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - M Czech Republic-Latvia (MSNBC)
5:00 - Curling - W round 7 (USA-Denmark on USA)
5:00 - Cross-Country - M 15K Classical (NBCSN)
7:30 - Skeleton - Men's Runs 1 & 2; Women's Final Runs (Women on NBC Prime; Men on NBC Late)
7:30 - Hockey - M Sweden-Switzerland (NBCSN)
8:45 - Skiing - W Aerials (NBC Day & Prime)
9:00 - Biathlon - W 15K (NBC Day)
5:00 - Curling - M round 8 (USA-Russia on CNBC at 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Figure Skating - M Free (NBCSN [P])
Noon - Hockey - M Canada-Austria, Norway-Finland (USA / MSNBC)
12:30 PM - Ski Jumping - M Large Hill Qualifying (NBCSN [L])

Saturday 2/15
Midnight - Curling - W round 8 (Canada-Japan on MSNBC at 5:30)
2:00 - Skiing - W Super-G (NBC Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - M Slovakia-Slovenia, W Quarter-Final (M on NBCSN / W on MSNBC)
5:00 - Curling - M round 9 (* no games in this round are on TV)
5:00 - Cross-Country - W 4x5K Relay (NBCSN [D])
5:00 - Short Track - W 1500; M 1000 (W 1500 on NBC Day; M 1000 on NBC Prime)
7:00 - Hockey - M USA-Russia, W Quarter-Final (M on NBCSN / W on MSNBC)
8:30 - Speed Skating - M 1500 (NBC Prime)
9:45 - Skeleton - M Final Runs (NBCSN [D])
10:00 - Curling - W round 9 (USA-Sweden on CNBC at 5:00 PM [L])
Noon - Hockey - M Sweden-Latvia, Switzerland-Czech Republic (USA / NBCSN)
12:30 PM - Ski Jumping - M Large Hill (NBC Prime)

Sunday 2/16
Midnight - Curling - M round 10 (USA-Canada on NBCSN at 3:00)
2:00 - Skiing - M Super-G (NBC Prime)
2:00 - Snowboading - W Snowboard Cross (NBC Day & Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - M Austria-Norway, W Consolation (M on USA)
5:00 - Curling - W round 10 (USA-Canada on MSNBC)
5:00 - Cross-Country - M 4x10K Relay (NBCSN [D])
7:30 - Hockey - M USA-Slovenia, Russia-Slovakia (NBCSN / USA)
9:00 - Speed Skating - W 1500 (NBC Prime)
10:00 - Curling - M round 11 (USA-SWE on CNBC at 4:00 PM) 
10:00 - Biathlon - M 15K Mass Start (NBCSN at 2:00 PM [L])
10:00 - Figure Skating - Dance Short (NBCSN [P])
11:15 - Bobsled - 2-Man Runs 1 & 2 (NBC Prime)
Noon - Hockey - M Finland-Canada, W Consolation (M on USA)


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

So is there a way to watch the opening ceremonies live online?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> So is there a way to watch the opening ceremonies live online?


My guess is, no (at least not in the USA...at least, not without finding a way to get a foreign broadcaster to think you're in their country) - I don't think NBC streamed the opening or closing ceremonies for London either.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

DUDE_NJX said:


> So is there a way to watch the opening ceremonies live online?


Yes, using a VPN to pretend you're not in the US.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> To me the Olympics is not just about the sports, but about the culture of the Olympics, of the host city. Each Olympics have their own story to tell. Part of the story is that it's Putin's Olympics and how it's effecting everything about it.
> .


Yup.

If it wasn't about the culture of the host city/country, they wouldn't have such an elaborate process for selecting a host city. If they wanted to remove all of that, they would host the Olympics in the exact same place every time.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Here's the TV schedule for the next three days. {snip}
> 
> [D] indicates this will also be on NBC's daytime afternoon broadcast
> [P] indicates this will also be on NBC's primetime broadcast
> [L] indicates this will also be on NBC's late night broadcast


So this means that if I record absolutely everything, I'm going to get duplicates, or at least partial duplicates of everything with these letters? Ugh...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Yup.
> 
> If it wasn't about the culture of the host city/country, they wouldn't have such an elaborate process for selecting a host city. If they wanted to remove all of that, they would host the Olympics in the exact same place every time.


I can't wait for the Rio games. What an interesting place to hold the Olympics. I hope they show plenty of beach scenes


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I can't wait for the Rio games. What an interesting place to hold the Olympics. I hope they show plenty of beach scenes


Bach Volleyball will be epic.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Bach Volleyball will be epic.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

kettledrum said:


> So this means that if I record absolutely everything, I'm going to get duplicates, or at least partial duplicates of everything with these letters? Ugh...


Yes. Or did you really think that NBC wouldn't air figure skating in prime time when it announced that every figure skating routine would air live on NBC Sports Network?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Marco said:


> Yes, using a VPN to pretend you're not in the US.


A VPN, Playcast and Roku enabled me to watch the commercial free BBC feed on my big screen. Picture was a little pixelated at times but overall it wasn't bad.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> Yes. Or did you really think that NBC wouldn't air figure skating in prime time when it announced that every figure skating routine would air live on NBC Sports Network?


Not only that, they re-air their prime-time programing late at night/early in the morning.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Yes. Or did you really think that NBC wouldn't air figure skating in prime time when it announced that every figure skating routine would air live on NBC Sports Network?


You assume that I have been paying enough attention to remember such announcements


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I have decided I hate Mary carillo


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Not only that, they re-air their prime-time programing late at night/early in the morning.


The prime time commentary is different than the live commentary, though NBC is pretending the prime time commentary is live. I don't know why the prime time commentary is different, considering the live commentary is infinitely better. The current prime time commentary for figure skating is horrible with them poorly feigning surprise at things they already no are about to happen. It was better this morning.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

zordude said:


> I have decided I hate Mary carillo


Join the club. If she's not talking about tennis, then I don't need to hear her.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

morac said:


> The prime time commentary is different than the live commentary, though NBC is pretending the prime time commentary is live. I don't know why the prime time commentary is different, considering the live commentary is infinitely better. The current prime time commentary for figure skating is horrible with them poorly feigning surprise at things they already no are about to happen. It was better this morning.


I noticed and made a comment over in the main happy hour forum about this.


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Why is NBC touting we can watch live streaming on any device, anywhere...when they are using FLASH? I just tried watching a stream using every device, smart tv, and add on box in my collection, and NONE of them will work. I ended up plugging my laptop into the TV via HDMI. Why would they not use something compatible with more platforms?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Another "interesting" thing is that you need to have Xfinity (Comcast) cable to get access to all the streaming. Comcast owns NBC. I see no conflict of interest there.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Davelnlr_ said:


> Why is NBC touting we can watch live streaming on any device, anywhere...when they are using FLASH? I just tried watching a stream using every device, smart tv, and add on box in my collection, and NONE of them will work. I ended up plugging my laptop into the TV via HDMI. Why would they not use something compatible with more platforms?


By device they mean devices with web browsers such as Macs/PCs and tablets/smartphones. They specifically do not support box devices such as Roku or Apple TV.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

morac said:


> Another "interesting" thing is that you need to have Xfinity (Comcast) cable to get access to all the streaming. Comcast owns NBC. I see no conflict of interest there.


 I have Armstrong Cable and am able to stream just fine. First time on the site I had to go through a shortverification process where I had to pick my cable company from a list of about two dozen then enter my Armstrong account name/passwd.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I have Armstrong Cable and am able to stream just fine. First time on the site I had to go through a shortverification process where I had to pick my cable company from a list of about two dozen then enter my Armstrong account name/passwd.


Maybe it's just the mobile app. The only cable provider option I was given was Xfinity, though that's what I have.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> [SNIP]I don't know how you can gain new long-time viewers for a sport unless you help them understand what is going on. [SNIP]


This is the one thing that makes me a little crazy. I wish they would replace all the "human interest" stories with 60-90-second overviews of what we're about to watch, how it's scored, and what to be watching out for.

We couldn't figure out how they were arriving at the scores for the skijump yesterday...we ended up going online. Is it too much to ask for them to say "the final scores are based on three different scores: you can get up to 20 execution points from each of three judges, for a total of 60 points. You also get 60 points if your jump goes at least 95 meters, plus two points per meter if it goes longer than that. Finally, there are adjustments for wind and starting position at the top. You're looking at scores in the 140s for the winners."

That way, when the first person up only scores 110, I know it wasn't a good jump.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Lori said:


> Is it too much to ask for them to say "the final scores are based on three different scores: you can get up to 20 execution points from each of three judges, for a total of 60 points. You also get 60 points if your jump goes at least 95 meters, plus two points per meter if it goes longer than that. Finally, there are adjustments for wind and starting position at the top. You're looking at scores in the 140s for the winners." That way, when the first person up only scores 110, I know it wasn't a good jump.


When I was watching live, they did explain all of that. The prime time commentary is dumbed down for the masses expecting the normally gibberish commentary from prime time sports.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I wonder how much the love broadcasts are effecting ratings? I watched most of the figure skating live during the day and once it came on prime time, I watched some DVR stuff of some sitcoms I had saved up. I repeated this both early and later in the NBC broadcast. I would imagine lots of people were doing the same. Last night especially with lots of other choices to watch, it had to be bad for NBC (or maybe not). As I'm not a big figure skating fan anyway, there was NO way I was going to watch it twice.

I think most of the features are fine and not overly long, but there was one feature that completely annoyed me because it was REALLY unnecessary and pointless. I can't remember who the athlete was, but they had a segment where they showed her transitioning to becoming a "housewife". They showed how she loved to clean and how she decided she needed to learn this because she'll have to do it eventually anyway. Then they showed her in the kitchen showing (I think it was Mary Carillo) how she cooked something. Really? Do I need to know this. I felt like I was reading her Facebook commentary. Show me how she trains, or what is special about her. NBC, you can do better.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> When I was watching live, they did explain all of that. The prime time commentary is dumbed down for the masses expecting the normally gibberish commentary from prime time sports.


Which is butt-backwards. The "die hards" are probably watching the live broadcasts and the casual viewer, who is who you need to explain things to, is watching primetime.

There are two things you can count of for the Olympics. People winning gold, silver and bronze, and people complaining about NBC's broadcast (and before them ABC, or CBS). You could show wall to wall LIVE broadcasts of JUST the events, and people will complain there are no special features about the athletes so they are just nameless faces to us. You can show EVERY event, and someone will complain that the CBC (or BBC, or French TV or Mongolian TV) was better.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

morac said:


> When I was watching live, they did explain all of that. The prime time commentary is dumbed down for the masses expecting the normally gibberish commentary from prime time sports.


Except for figure skating, the primetime and live commentaries are the same. I assume the problem is, the explanation came during part of the live coverage that didn't make it to prime time - after all, they have to squeeze a number of events, including alpine skiing, into that 4-hour-or-so slot.

And at least they explained how the scoring worked. In snowboarding, they just put up a single number, and don't bother explaining how the judges got there. Then again, the official rules for Olympic snowboard slopestyle don't explain how to do it, either:

_"All judges will score the run by evaluating the run from start to finish with an overall precision. The judges evaluate the precise nature of the run in relation to maneuvers attempted, both individually and as a sequence. The overall composition of the run is very important as the judges evaluate the sequences of tricks, the amount of risk in the routine, and how the rider uses the course. The judges take falls, mistakes and stops into consideration and can deduct up to 20% of the points of the run/judge for each fall/stop."_

As expected, at least one snowboarder has complained that one of the problems is, the event is run by FIS (the international skiing federation) rather than by an organization of snowboarders (in fact, when snowboarding was first added to the Olympics, some of the top names threatened to boycott because of this).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> As expected, at least one snowboarder has complained that one of the problems is, the event is run by FIS (the international skiing federation) rather than by an organization of snowboarders (in fact, when snowboarding was first added to the Olympics, some of the top names threatened to boycott because of this).


I can't blame them. One of the reasons figure skating is so screwed up now is that they are stuck in an organization that is run by speedskaters.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

morac said:


> Maybe it's just the mobile app. The only cable provider option I was given was Xfinity, though that's what I have.


There's a tiny "tap here to see the full list" button under the giant Xfinit banner.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

So, is NBC just re hosting some internationally produced videos? The events either have different announcers than were on TV or no announcers. I was hoping to use their site to binge on hockey games on my birthday next Sunday, rather than DVR them (space is at a premium) but I tried the women's hockey web feed last night and there are no announcers. I know earlier in the day the game was on NBCSN and Kenny Albert was calling it. 

Also, the full screen video has a giant banner ad at the top, forcing them to shrink the image and possibly also screw up the aspect ratio (I couldn't tell). Their interstitial commercials aren't enough, they can't give us full screen video? And what's the funniest part, they didn't actually sell the banner. It just says watch the Olympics on NBC tonight. No actual paying sponsor.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aindik said:


> So, is NBC just re hosting some internationally produced videos? The events either have different announcers than were on TV or no announcers.


Yes, for the most part. This was also how it was done in London. Occasionally, there would be an NBC commentator, but for the most part, either there is no commentary (this is what is fed to the broadcasters (including NBC), so they can dub their own commentators over it) or commentary is provided by the host nation.

Sometimes, this backfires. At London, in the women's team sprint cycling final, if you watched the online stream, you saw China win the event, but they kept the feed on (I think they were waiting for the next event), and about five minutes later, they show the results again, and this time Germany is placed first and China second; they then show a replay where the viewers are supposed to guess that the Chinese team had done something illegal.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I expect that for events they didn't broadcast. But for events they did, they can't host their own video instead? If not, why not?


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder how much the love broadcasts are effecting ratings? ...snip


I think these might actually get pretty good ratings.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

aindik said:


> Also, the full screen video has a giant banner ad at the top, forcing them to shrink the image and possibly also screw up the aspect ratio (I couldn't tell). Their interstitial commercials aren't enough, they can't give us full screen video? And what's the funniest part, they didn't actually sell the banner. It just says watch the Olympics on NBC tonight. No actual paying sponsor.


The banner ad on the streaming is hugely annoying. I watched figure skating on Thursday because the early stuff wasn't aired live, and I ended up taping a piece of paper over the top of my monitor to mask the banner ad.

I understand the annoyance at not having the commentary if you actually like the NBC broadcasters and commentary, but in some cases the naked pool feed with only the audio from the venue = blessed relief.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Where can I find this feed of the naked pool? Asking for a friend. And myself.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> ... I don't know how you can gain new long-time viewers for a sport unless you help them understand what is going on.





Lori said:


> This is the one thing that makes me a little crazy. I wish they would replace all the "human interest" stories with 60-90-second overviews of what we're about to watch, how it's scored, and what to be watching out for.
> 
> We couldn't figure out how they were arriving at the scores for the skijump yesterday...we ended up going online. Is it too much to ask for them to say "the final scores are based on three different scores: you can get up to 20 execution points from each of three judges, for a total of 60 points. You also get 60 points if your jump goes at least 95 meters, plus two points per meter if it goes longer than that. Finally, there are adjustments for wind and starting position at the top. You're looking at scores in the 140s for the winners."
> 
> That way, when the first person up only scores 110, I know it wasn't a good jump.


I agree, Lori. But apparently it is too much. Even experienced fans can benefit from a quick recap like that, because in some of these sports, the rules change every year, and if you only see the sport televised at the Olympics, you may not know about the rule change. And that's not even counting the cases where the rules for Olympic competitions are NOT THE SAME as the ordinary elite competitions. NBC really needs to do better in Primetime.



morac said:


> When I was watching live, they did explain all of that. The prime time commentary is dumbed down for the masses expecting the normally gibberish commentary from prime time sports.





Steveknj said:


> Which is butt-backwards. The "die hards" are probably watching the live broadcasts and the casual viewer, who is who you need to explain things to, is watching primetime.


Even viewers who do know what they are watching appreciate having someone else pointing out what they should be looking for.

I saw someone mess up a jump landing. So what went wrong? I wondered if he had landed with his weight too far back on his blade. Then Johnny Weir explained that the skater had landed with his weight too far back on his blade. So now I know I've gotten better about seeing what is happening.

In snowboarding, I may also see that someone has landed with his weight too far back on the board, but I appreciate hearing from the expert about why that happened (e.g the timing was off because he opened up from the twist/somersault at the wrong moment).

Snowboarding, figure skating, skiing, ski jumping, even curling -- so many of these sports are all about physics. But the basic principles you need to know are easy to understand, as long as you have someone who can explain them properly. Athletes are a mass moving themselves through space, or in curling and hockey, causing a mass to move through space. It's all about how you set that mass into motion, and how you keep it on the optimum path to go longer/faster/higher or to go where you want it to be.

As Lori said, the basic rules / scoring should be given at the outset; after that, the more complicated parts like tiebreakers can be explained if they come up.

There are some things that don't show up well when you are watching on TV. For figure skating, a TV-only viewer is not going to pick up the visual cues about how fast someone is moving across the ice as well as someone who has actually been at the rink and can translate their fixed-point experience of fast and slow skating to the TV-camera perspective. Ice dancing is one discipline that suffers especially from this -- it's difficult for the casual viewer to appreciate the difference in basic skating quality only from watching on TV.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

During the snowboarding the other day, one of the commentators mentioned how one of the athletes was using their non-dominant leg in some of their jumps and how much harder it was to do something like that. That's one of the things I really appreciate hearing as it's not obvious at all and would make a big difference in terms of difficulty, and makes the jumps much more impressive to watch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I agree, Lori. But apparently it is too much. Even experienced fans can benefit from a quick recap like that, because in some of these sports, the rules change every year, and if you only see the sport televised at the Olympics, you may not know about the rule change. And that's not even counting the cases where the rules for Olympic competitions are NOT THE SAME as the ordinary elite competitions. NBC really needs to do better in Primetime.
> 
> Even viewers who do know what they are watching appreciate having someone else pointing out what they should be looking for.
> 
> ...


I wonder if this is because of us being in such a connected world were so many of us have access to "second screens" where we could look up things like rules (which might bore viewers...I disagree, but maybe that's their thinking). Of course we could also see the human interest stories on the web as well and just leave the viewing to the actual contests


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> During the snowboarding the other day, one of the commentators mentioned how one of the athletes was using their non-dominant leg in some of their jumps and how much harder it was to do something like that. That's one of the things I really appreciate hearing as it's not obvious at all and would make a big difference in terms of difficulty, and makes the jumps much more impressive to watch.


I was shocked and horrified and amused at how many of the slopestyle terms I remembered from my near-obsession with CoolBoarders3.  

Of course, I still don't know how THAT was scored. There were just some numbers.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Who was doing the color commentary with Al Trautwig on Cross Country skiing. The guy was SCREAMING at us, he was so excited. If felt VERY unprofessional.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Who was doing the color commentary with Al Trautwig on Cross Country skiing. The guy was SCREAMING at us, he was so excited. If felt VERY unprofessional.


Ha. my comment to my wife: "This guy is VERY excited about what is going on here"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder if this is because of us being in such a connected world were so many of us have access to "second screens" where we could look up things like rules (which might bore viewers...I disagree, but maybe that's their thinking). Of course we could also see the human interest stories on the web as well and just leave the viewing to the actual contests


A broadcast should never assume that the viewers know much about the sport or that they'll be motivated to go find additional information on their own. If the broadcaster is expecting the viewer to go get additional info, then the commentator should mention that and they should post a URL where people can learn more. But aside from that, the commentators should provide all the information that a neophyte viewer would need in order to watch and enjoy that event. And with the Olympics, that's especially true, since most of these events are things that the average viewer knows nothing about and likely has never seen, or if they have, it was four years ago at the previous Olympics.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> A broadcast should never assume that the viewers know much about the sport or that they'll be motivated to go find additional information on their own. If the broadcaster is expecting the viewer to go get additional info, then the commentator should mention that and they should post a URL where people can learn more. But aside from that, the commentators should provide all the information that a neophyte viewer would need in order to watch and enjoy that event. And with the Olympics, that's especially true, since most of these events are things that the average viewer knows nothing about and likely has never seen, or if they have, it was four years ago at the previous Olympics.


I'm not disagreeing, but they have been mentioning their URL quite a bit. I think there is too much on the screen as it is, but, it wouldn't be a bad thing, that, when they move to a sport they haven't covered yet, they flash on the screen something like "Want to know more about <fill in the sport> go to <insert URL> It's a different world than it was even 10 years ago. The younger generation is more inclined to look things up on the web without thinking of it as a cumbersome task. Even 50 something me does it quite often when I'm watching shows. And for the networks it's another revenue stream to get you to go their sites for information.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> A broadcast should never assume that the viewers know much about the sport or that they'll be motivated to go find additional information on their own. If the broadcaster is expecting the viewer to go get additional info, then the commentator should mention that and they should post a URL where people can learn more. But aside from that, the commentators should provide all the information that a neophyte viewer would need in order to watch and enjoy that event. And with the Olympics, that's especially true, since most of these events are things that the average viewer knows nothing about and likely has never seen, or if they have, it was four years ago at the previous Olympics.


There's a limit to that. Could you imagine if football announcers spent the beginning of every game talking about how there are 4 downs and you have to get 10 yards, etc.? Even in the Super Bowl they don't start with that.

You have to assume some level of knowledge on the part of the audience. But it varies widely depending on the sport and other context. In the Olympics it's a lot lower than most other places.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

lambertman said:


> Where can I find this feed of the naked pool? Asking for a friend. And myself.


You only really get that in the Summer Olympics when they are playing water polo...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> So, is NBC just re hosting some internationally produced videos?


At this point, the vast majority of what you see for both television and the internet is provided by Olympic Broadcasting Services, the "host broadcaster." They provide what is called the International Signal, which is video, natural audio, and graphics providing results/scores/timing/etc. It's generally very good and is enough to cover the event.

Rights-holding broadcasters have the option to supplement the International Feed with video of their own, usually for stuff like interviews and the like.



> Also, the full screen video has a giant banner ad at the top, forcing them to shrink the image and possibly also screw up the aspect ratio (I couldn't tell). Their interstitial commercials aren't enough, they can't give us full screen video? And what's the funniest part, they didn't actually sell the banner. It just says watch the Olympics on NBC tonight. No actual paying sponsor.


I watched in Chrome with the AdBlock extension, and don't remember seeing any ads (banner or interstitials).


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> At this point, the vast majority of what you see for both television and the internet is provided by Olympic Broadcasting Services, the "host broadcaster." They provide what is called the International Signal, which is video and natural audio. It's generally very good and is enough to cover the event.
> 
> Rights-holding broadcasters have the option to supplement the International Feed with video of their own, usually for stuff like interviews and the like.


And NBC does so, obviously, for many events. So why, on their own website do they not host videos of their own production for an event they aired on TV?



LoadStar said:


> I watched in Chrome with the AdBlock extension, and don't remember seeing any ads (banner or interstitials).


That's a good tip if true. You watched full screen on a 16:9 screen and the video filled the screen? (Apologies for using the same word 3 times in the same sentence). I had black borders on 3 sides and a banner ad bar across the top. I used Safari.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

My XL4 is doing well with the XXII Olympics. I can't imagine how I watched them before without 4 tuners and two terabytes of disk space. My only complaint is how slow the menus are when the thing is recording on two or three tuners, with several wishlists and SPs for Olympic events.

I'm currently in the mid-40's percent, and I'm currently scheduled to run out of disk space on Friday. Obviously I'll have to delete some stuff by then. I've found that I can run through anywhere between 6 and 10+ hours of coverage in 3-4 hours with TiVo.

The coverage is a bit better, but it's still fluffed to all get out with feature crap, most of which, is, well, crap. There is also clearly less stuff being broadcast than the summer olympics, which are a lot harder to keep up with than the winter. Although it's not as bad as in the summer, where there are many sports that they don't cover at all, I wish that they would give more prime time attention to curling, biathlon, and the cross country. The summer olympics are way worse, where there are tons of cool sports that never get shown, with only a few sports being played over and over during primetime.

The one annoying thing about the live coverage is that they put commercials in, so in curling, you miss the first few rocks of every end. Soooo annoying. We pay every month for USA, which is basically a total crap channel, and use it once every two years for Olympics, you'd think they could broadcast without any freaking commercials when they are live.



morac said:


> Maybe it's just the mobile app. The only cable provider option I was given was Xfinity, though that's what I have.


They are auto-detecting based on IP address, so they know you're on Comcast's HSI network. WatchESPN does the same thing, which got really trippy when I brought my laptop, which is logged into my XFinity account to a friend's house who has Charter, and it said something like "Provided by Charter".


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bigg said:


> The coverage is a bit better, but it's still fluffed to all get out with feature crap, most of which, is, well, crap. There is also clearly less stuff being broadcast than the summer olympics, which are a lot harder to keep up with than the winter. Although it's not as bad as in the summer, where there are many sports that they don't cover at all, I wish that they would give more prime time attention to curling, biathlon, and the cross country. The summer olympics are way worse, where there are tons of cool sports that never get shown, with only a few sports being played over and over during primetime.


There's a lot fewer sports / events in the Winter than Summer. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing a lot of the live stuff repeated during prime time. I actually think the fluff has been mostly kept to a minimum, at least during prime time (although some of the stories are a joke). In the summer, since there are SO many sports to cover, they tend to show the sports that are considered most popular during prime time (track and field, swimming, gymnastics being the core summer sports). The problem with showing sports like Curling and X-country is they take hours to complete. So they will show short segments of those sports. But there's one channel almost designated to Curling, and I've seen quite a bit of X-Country on NBCSN over the weekend.



> The one annoying thing about the live coverage is that they put commercials in, so in curling, you miss the first few rocks of every end. Soooo annoying. We pay every month for USA, which is basically a total crap channel, and use it once every two years for Olympics, you'd think they could broadcast without any freaking commercials when they are live.


You want to watch the Olympics right? Well someone has to pay NBC so they can show them to you. So you get commercials. We don't notice it as much during our normal sports viewing because of the agreements between the sports leagues and TV to build in breaks for commercials so we don't miss the action. The IOC doesn't have such an agreement. I'm fine with commercials, but yeah, I've missed a goal or two in hockey and it annoyed me, but I'm not going to complain about it. Last thing I want is for NBC to go PPV again for Olympic coverage.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

The part of NBC coverage that's been annoying me is how many events seem to get aired multiple times; and not just during prime time.

I _understand_ that the prime time block is going to be repeats or edited versions of the overnight live (or less delayed) blocks; so I'm expecting that during prime time. But you get, for example, early morning coverage that re-airs events I'd watched the day before.

I don't want to have to constantly by trying to think whether I've seen this exact event before, or if that was training or semis or something and this is actually the next round.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Yeah, I noticed that yesterday for the first time. I started watching some skiing thinking it was new, then I realized it was the same skiing I'd seen on Sunday.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I guess they are trying to cover the west coast, so they are repeating stuff. Makes sense in a way. if they show X-Country live at 9AM, eastern and have no plans to show it prime time, then why not show them again for the West Coast folks?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I guess they are trying to cover the west coast, so they are repeating stuff. Makes sense in a way. if they show X-Country live at 9AM, eastern and have no plans to show it prime time, then why not show them again for the West Coast folks?


Well in particular this was the men's downhill coverage that had been in the Sunday primetime coverage, being re-shown in the Monday morning stuff.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The repeats are so annoying that now I am trying to have the Gold Zone thing on my iPad during the day, and just FFing through most of the coverage that has recorded throughout the day.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> There's a lot fewer sports / events in the Winter than Summer. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing a lot of the live stuff repeated during prime time. I actually think the fluff has been mostly kept to a minimum, at least during prime time (although some of the stories are a joke). In the summer, since there are SO many sports to cover, they tend to show the sports that are considered most popular during prime time (track and field, swimming, gymnastics being the core summer sports). The problem with showing sports like Curling and X-country is they take hours to complete. So they will show short segments of those sports. But there's one channel almost designated to Curling, and I've seen quite a bit of X-Country on NBCSN over the weekend.


Correct, there are about 1/4 the number of athletes and far fewer events. They may have reduced the fluff over previous Olympics, but there are still tons of it in there.

For the summer olympics, they should balance it more, and edit it to get more action. There are many sports they show absolutely nothing of in the primetime summer coverage, like fencing, canoeing, kayaking, some of the marathon and cycling events, and many more. And they don't broadcast sailing at all. It would be horribly boring to watch in real time, but a 10-minute, well-edited recap of the day's sailing with some infographics could be really good. But instead they show absurd amounts of gymnastics, track and field, and swimming.



> You want to watch the Olympics right? Well someone has to pay NBC so they can show them to you. So you get commercials. We don't notice it as much during our normal sports viewing because of the agreements between the sports leagues and TV to build in breaks for commercials so we don't miss the action. The IOC doesn't have such an agreement. I'm fine with commercials, but yeah, I've missed a goal or two in hockey and it annoyed me, but I'm not going to complain about it. Last thing I want is for NBC to go PPV again for Olympic coverage.


I get that on NBC, but USA is a cable channel. I pay them every single month, and they just show old re-runs except for once every two years they do Olympics stuff. At least for the live events, they could lose the commercials. I wouldn't mind some on-screen commercials at the bottom of the screen or something. Either that, or just tape delay it and make it that much longer than it really is. It's so annoying to not see the first few rocks of every end. Or do both.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> There's a lot fewer sports / events in the Winter than Summer. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing a lot of the live stuff repeated during prime time.


It's more noticeable this year because they have more total overall coverage (number of hours) than the last two olympics COMBINED. Combine that with limited number of events, you pretty much have to repeat it if you want to present a lot of Americans. They are even re-running hockey games during the day.

For the cross country skiing, I actually saw some sprint events today. They were cool. They didn't take long. Really, I think the times were just a few minutes.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Bigg said:


> I get that on NBC, but USA is a cable channel. I pay them every single month, and they just show old re-runs except for once every two years they do Olympics stuff. At least for the live events, they could lose the commercials. I wouldn't mind some on-screen commercials at the bottom of the screen or something. Either that, or just tape delay it and make it that much longer than it really is. It's so annoying to not see the first few rocks of every end. Or do both.


The majority of the channel's income comes from commercials. They're not going to just stop showing them. That would be financial suicide.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

If you aren't watching during the day, you are missing Johnny Weir's fabulous fashions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ossibly-the-best-thing-at-the-sochi-olympics/

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/02/johnny-weir-olympics-fashion-pink-chanel/


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Yes, that pink coat outfit yesterday was awesome. 

I have no idea what Tara was wearing or had in her hair though.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I continue to be impressed by Johnny's commentary. His technical commentary is clear and precise (and since he has skated pairs, he has the insight that singles-only skaters lack). Since he's an artistic skater, he can speak intelligently on music choices and how the music helps or hinders the skater. And he can do fashion commentary! 

Quick, someone send him to learn how to ice dance. Then we'll have the complete package. 

P.S. Thanks for the links, Jeff. It's nice to see the head-to-toe looks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> The majority of the channel's income comes from commercials. They're not going to just stop showing them. That would be financial suicide.


Don't a lot of cable channels make most of their money from subscriber fees? It's just aggravating the way they are doing it. It makes it so much harder to watch.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Don't a lot of cable channels make most of their money from subscriber fees? It's just aggravating the way they are doing it. It makes it so much harder to watch.


No.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Don't a lot of cable channels make most of their money from subscriber fees? It's just aggravating the way they are doing it. It makes it so much harder to watch.


ESPN has by far and away the highest suscriber fees of any cable channel, close to $6 per subscriber per month. And they make about 60% of their total revenue from subscriber fees. But there are only a small handful of channels that even get over $1/sub/month, and most are less than $0.50. So the vast majority of cable channels still make most of their revenue from ad sales.

According to this site, USA Network gets about $0.71/sub/month, so assuming they have about the same pentration as ESPN (100 million subscribers), that means their annual subscriber revenue is about $850 million. I suspect that their ad revenue is much higher than that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> The majority of the channel's income comes from commercials. They're not going to just stop showing them. That would be financial suicide.


FWIW, I had on Men's Hockey this morning. No commercials (on NBCSN) during the action. Only in between periods.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> FWIW, I had on Men's Hockey this morning. No commercials (on NBCSN) during the action. Only in between periods.


They make up for it during Prime Time with 5-6 minutes of coverage between commercial breaks.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mike_k said:


> They make up for it during Prime Time with 5-6 minutes of coverage between commercial breaks.


And streaming breaks randomly. Last time I watched it broke during scoring so I had I no idea who won the match I had just watched.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

The web archive of the Men's hockey game from yesterday had NBC announcers when I watched it last night. The web archive of the Men's hockey game from 3 a.m. today had no announcers when I watched a bit of it this morning at 8 a.m.

So, I can't figure out when the web will have NBC's coverage of an event and when it won't.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ESPN has by far and away the highest suscriber fees of any cable channel, close to $6 per subscriber per month. And they make about 60% of their total revenue from subscriber fees. But there are only a small handful of channels that even get over $1/sub/month, and most are less than $0.50. So the vast majority of cable channels still make most of their revenue from ad sales.
> 
> According to this site, USA Network gets about $0.71/sub/month, so assuming they have about the same pentration as ESPN (100 million subscribers), that means their annual subscriber revenue is about $850 million. I suspect that their ad revenue is much higher than that.


That's almost triple the typical $.25.

ESPN is beyond out of control, although they do a very nice job presenting games and have the best sound in the industry, but they are the biggest example of why cable and satellite prices are so out of control. Too bad the cable and satellite providers can't form a cartel and beat these out of control cable channels into submission and get the carriage fees way down. Imagine if DirecTV and Comcast Charlie Ergen'ed a channel at the same time... quick results!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bigg said:


> That's almost triple the typical $.25.


What makes $0.25 "typical?" A channel will charge as much as it can. Since USA is one of the most popular cable entertainment channels, it can charge more than the average.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> What makes $0.25 "typical?" A channel will charge as much as it can. Since USA is one of the most popular cable entertainment channels, it can charge more than the average.


Most cable channels get around $.25 last time I checked. Since when is USA popular? They run a bunch of junk re-runs, have a couple of shows of their own, and most people watch USA once every 2 years when NBC uses it for Olympics offloading from the main network feed.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Most cable channels get around $.25 last time I checked. Since when is USA popular? They run a bunch of junk re-runs, have a couple of shows of their own, and most people watch USA once every 2 years when NBC uses it for Olympics offloading from the main network feed.


They get 5 or 6 million people watching WWE every Monday night. Though, those rights are up soon.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Most cable channels get around $.25 last time I checked. Since when is USA popular? They run a bunch of junk re-runs, have a couple of shows of their own, and most people watch USA once every 2 years when NBC uses it for Olympics offloading from the main network feed.


USA has been one of the most popular entertainment cable channels for many years. Take away sports and news, and USA is one of the top 5 cable channels.

Every non-news cable channel runs a lot of reruns. None of them have the budget, viewership, or reason to program 24 hours a day of new content. But the most popular channels have the budget to license the most popular reruns, and so when you pair those reruns with high-quality original programming, you end up with a great channel like USA.

For example: Here's an article from 2010 ranking the most valuable cable channels. USA Network ranked 7th on that list, and when you remove ESPN, Fox News, Nickelodeon, and Disney Channel, which all have niche targets, it's in 3rd place behind only TBS and TNT for general entertainment networks.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

NBC pretends to be shocked by Plushenko's departure, even though it occurred eight hours earlier.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...etends_to_be_shocked_by_evgeni_plushenko.html


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> USA has been one of the most popular entertainment cable channels for many years. Take away sports and news, and USA is one of the top 5 cable channels.


Weird. What's even on it? I've never heard of any show to watch on it other than Olympics. Just old movies and TV re-runs.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Weird. What's even on it? I've never heard of any show to watch on it other than Olympics. Just old movies and TV re-runs.


Original series I've watched on USA...

Monk
Burn Notice
Psych
Suits
White Collar
Graceland
The 4400


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

CraigK said:


> Original series I've watched on USA...
> 
> Monk
> Burn Notice
> ...


In addition to those, some other current or recent USA original shows are:

Covert Affairs
Royal Pains
Common Law
Fairly Legal
In Plain Sight
The Dead Zone
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (first six seasons were on NBC, final four seasons were on USA)

Take a look at this list of all the shows that have aired on USA over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_USA_Network

I didn't realize USA produced a 4th season of Airwolf in 1987 after the first three seasons ran on CBS.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Weird. What's even on it? I've never heard of any show to watch on it other than Olympics. Just old movies and TV re-runs.


Some of the most popular shows on cable have been or are on USA Network. I guess you're just not paying attention.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I didn't realize USA produced a 4th season of Airwolf in 1987 after the first three seasons ran on CBS.


If you enjoyed Airwolf, don't bother with the 4th season.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Silk Stalkings.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Some of the most popular shows on cable have been or are on USA Network. I guess you're just not paying attention.


I've never heard of anything on USA other than Olympics before.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I've never heard of anything on USA other than Olympics before.


This is mind-boggling.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I watched so many Wings reruns on USA after school in junior high that somehow the episode order became embedded in my brain. This was way before we had episode guides on the internet, but I could tell you the plotline of tomorrow's episode based on the episode that was currently on, even though many of the storylines didn't carry over from one to the next.

It was weird.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I was quite distressed by the reporter who badgered Bode Miller until he broke down and cried.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I was quite distressed by the reporter who badgered Bode Miller until he broke down and cried.


I'm not sure what was worse, the fact that she did it or that NBC chose to air it.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Jagman_sl said:


> I'm not sure what was worse, the fact that she did it or that NBC chose to air it.


Was it live? Maybe they didn't realize where it was going until it was too late to pull out gracefully?

But yeah...from what I've read the reporter was way out of line. Sounds like he's been a class act though and has defended her.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Nothing is live in prime time.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Nothing is live in prime time.


Wow. Yeah, they should have thought twice before airing that.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> Was it live? Maybe they didn't realize where it was going until it was too late to pull out gracefully?
> 
> But yeah...from what I've read the reporter was way out of line. Sounds like he's been a class act though and has defended her.


Nothing that airs in prime time is happening live.

ETA: whoops there was another page.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Comcast is letting me stream the Olympics this time. During the London Games they wouldn't because all I had was Limited Basic. The only thing I've done since then is add HBO because it was $5 cheaper than not having it, so either they're more lenient this time or they accidentally reclassified my package above LB when I added HBO.

I'm able to stream other channels (e.g., History) that require subscriber authentication but which I can't tune in over cable, so maybe I'm just the beneficiary of another Comcast error. 

I thought over the weekend they were live streaming NBCSN according to a link at nbcolympics.com but I can't find that now. The streaming coverage has poor integration of the skating music (it sounds like they're just picking up the music from ambient sounds in the arena).


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Here's the schedule for the second week:

All times are Eastern, and are AM unless otherwise noted

Events not on NBC are live unless otherwise noted

Note that some events may be moved because of postponements (for example, the Men's Snowboard Snowcross was delayed by a day)

[D] indicates this will also be on NBC's daytime afternoon broadcast
[P] indicates this will also be on NBC's primetime broadcast
[L] indicates this will also be on NBC's late night broadcast

Monday 2/17
Midnight - Curling - W round 11 (USA-South Korea on NBCSN at 3:00)
2:00 - Snowboarding - M Snowboard Cross (NBC Day & Prime)
*Moved to Tuesday - note the qualifying runs were cancelled, and all 39 competitors put into races presumably using rankings*
5:00 - Curling - M round 12 (USA-Switzerland on USA)
7:30 - Hockey - W Semi-Finals (NBCSN)
8:45 - Skiing - M Aerials (NBC Day & Prime)
9:30 - Bobsled - 2-Man Final Runs (NBC Late)
10:00 - Curling - W round 12 (Great Britain-Denmark on CNBC at 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Biathlon - W 12.5K Mass Start (NBCSN 1:30 PM [D])
10:00 - Figure Skating - Dance Free (NBCSN [P])
Noon - Hockey - W Semi-Finals (MSNBC)
12:15 PM - Ski Jumping - M Team (NBCSN 1:30 PM [P])

Tuesday 2/18
Midnight - Curling - Tiebreaker (M Norway-Great Britain) (* not on TV)
1:30 - Snowboarding - M Snowcross (TV TBA, but expect it to be on NBC Prime)
2:00 - Skiing - W Giant Slalom (NBC Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - M Playoffs First Round (Slovenia-Austria) (NBCSN)
3:00 - Hockey - W 7th Place (Germany-Japan) (* not on TV)
4:30 - Nordic Combined - Large Hill (NBCSN [D])
4:30 - Short Track - W Relay Final; M 500 Heats; W 1000 Heats (W Relay on NBC Prime; M 500 & W 1000 on NBC Late)
5:30 - Biathlon - M 12.5K Mass Start (* TV TBA - this was moved from an earlier date)
7:30 - Hockey - M Playoffs First Round (Russia-Norway) (NBCSN)
7:30 - Hockey - W 5th Place (Finland-Russia) (* not on TV)
8:00 - Speed Skating - M 10,000 (NBCSN at 10:00 [D])
8:45 - Skiing - M Halfpipe (NBC Prime)
10:15 - Bobsled - 2-Woman Runs 1 & 2 (NBCSN at Noon [P])
Noon - Hockey - M Playoffs First Round (Czech Republic-Slovakia; Latvia-Switzerland) (one on NBCSN; the other on MSNBC)

Wednesday 2/19
12:15 - Snowboarding - W & M Parallel Giant Slalom (NBCSN at 5:30 [P])
2:00 - Skiing - M Giant Slalom (NBC Prime)
3:00 - Hockey - M Quarter-Finals (Sweden vs Slovenia-Austria winner) (NBCSN)
4:15 - Cross Country - W & M Team Sprint Classical (NBCSN at 5:30 [D])
5:00 - Curling - W & M Semi-Finals (W on USA / M on MSNBC at 2:30 PM)
7:30 - Hockey - M Quarter-Finals (Finland vs Russia-Norway winner) (NBCSN)
8:30 - Speed Skating - W 5000 (NBC Day)
9:30 - Biathlon - Mixed Relay (W 2x6K, M 2x7.5K) (NBC Late)
10:00 - Curling - W & M Semi-Finals (W on MSNBC / M on CNBC at 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Figure Skating - W Short (NBCSN [P])
11:15 - Bobsled - 2-Woman Final Runs (NBC Prime)
Noon - Hockey - M Quarter-Finals (USA vs Czech-Slovakia winner; Canada vs Latvia-Switzerland winner) (one on USA; the other on MSNBC)

Thursday 2/20
2:45 - Skiing - M Ski Cross; W Halfpipe (M on NBC at Noon [P]; W on NBC Prime)
3:00 - Nordic Combined - Team Large Hill (NBCSN [L])
3:30 - Curling - W Bronze (NBCSN)
7:00 - Hockey - W Bronze (NBCSN)
8:30 - Curling - W Final (CNBC at 5:00 PM)
10:00 - Figure Skating - W Free (NBCSN [P])
Noon - Hockey - W Final (NBC (live))

Friday 2/21
2:45 - Skiing - W Ski Cross (NBCSN [D])
3:30 - Curling - M Bronze (NBCSN)
7:00 - Hockey - M Semi-Finals (NBCSN)
7:45 - Skiing - W Slalom (NBC Prime)
8:30 - Speed Skating - M Team Pursuit QF & SF; W Team Pursuit QF (W on NBCSN at 11:30 * M is not on TV)
8:30 - Curling - M Final (CNBC at 5:00 PM)
9:30 - Biathlon - W 4x6K Relay (NBCSN [D])
11:30 - Short Track - M 500; W 1000; M Relay Final (NBC Prime)
Noon - Hockey - M Semi-Finals (NBCSN)
_*NBC will air the premiere of "About a Boy" at 10:30 PM*_

Saturday 2/22
12:15 - Snowboarding - W & M Parallel Slalom (NBCSN [D,P])
4:30 - Cross-Country - W 30K Freestyle Mass Start (NBCSN [D])
7:45 - Skiing - M Slalom (NBC Prime)
8:30 - Speed Skating - M & W Team Pursuit Final (NBC Prime)
9:30 - Biathlon - M 4x7.5K Relay (NBC Day)
10:00 - Hockey - M Bronze (NBCSN)
11:30 - Bobsled - 4-Man Runs 1 & 2 (* not on TV)
11:30 - Figure Skating - Exhibition (NBCSN at 12:30 PM [P,L])

Sunday 2/23
2:00 - Cross-Country - M 50K Freestyle Mass Start (NBC Day)
4:30 - Bobsled - 4-Man Final Runs (NBCSN [D])
7:00 - Hockey - M Final (NBC (live, and reaired later in the day))

7:00 PM - "Sochi Review Show" (hopefully without spending the first hour talking about some human interest story that has little to do with the Olympics this time)
8:30 PM - Closing Ceremonies (supposedly, the whole thing will air in the 2-hour time slot, rather than having Part 1 in prime time and Part 2 in late night)
10:30 PM - the premiere of "Growing Up Fisher" (which will air on Tuesdays at 9:30)


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Sunday 2/23
> 7:00 PM - "Sochi Review Show" (hopefully without spending the first hour talking about some human interest story that has little to do with the Olympics this time)


NBC just announced that they will be airing Mary Carillo's "documentary" of the 1994 Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan Story that night, unless they need to fill time earlier in the week if there is some sort of weather delay.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> NBC just announced that they will be airing Mary Carillo's "documentary" of the 1994 Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan Story that night, unless they need to fill time earlier in the week if there is some sort of weather delay.


Cool

i saw the recent ESPN 30 for 30 one, but I want to see THIS one because Nancy herself finally talks about it all these years later.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I fast forwarded through it, but didn't they show that in prime time tonight? Or was it just an excerpt?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Just a teaser, to let us know it will air on Sunday.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

yup

a little tease/preview


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I've never heard of anything on USA other than Olympics before.


Here are the top 5 cable networks by total viewers and 18-49 viewers for 2013. One could argue that USA is the #1 basic cable channel.

Total viewers

1. USA: 2.680
2. Disney: 2.438
3. ESPN: 2.210
4. History: 2.114
5. TNT: 2.070

18-49

1.TBS: 1.052
2.USA: 1.036
3.ESPN: 0.995
4.TNT: 0.822
5.A&E: 0.805


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Here are the top 5 cable networks by total viewers and 18-49 viewers for 2013. One could argue that USA is the #1 basic cable channel.
> 
> Total viewers
> 
> ...


I can't find a channel lineup, but I'm 95% sure it's NOT part of basic cable. I think it's in the old "Expanded Basic" package, which today Comcast calls "Digital Starter". Other providers may still use "Expanded Basic" or "Standard". TBS might actually be in basic cable, another junk channel.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I can't find a channel lineup, but I'm 95% sure it's NOT part of basic cable. I think it's in the old "Expanded Basic" package, which today Comcast calls "Digital Starter". Other providers may still use "Expanded Basic" or "Standard". TBS might actually be in basic cable, another junk channel.


Dude, with every post you lose little more credibility. First you've never heard of anything that airs on USA, one of the most popular channels on cable. Now you're saying that TBS, another of the most popular channels on cable is a "junk channel?" What next? Are you going to tell us that your favorite cable net is the Smithsonian Channel?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I can't find a channel lineup, but I'm 95% sure it's NOT part of basic cable. I think it's in the old "Expanded Basic" package, which today Comcast calls "Digital Starter". Other providers may still use "Expanded Basic" or "Standard". TBS might actually be in basic cable, another junk channel.


Looks like they are on the same tier of every other basic popular cable channel such as TNT, FX, History, MTV etc. etc.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Looks like they are on the same tier of every other basic popular cable channel such as TNT, FX, History, MTV etc. etc.


TNT? That's some junk channel showing reruns, right?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

What happened to the Olympics?


Does NBC ever show a medal ceremony these days?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> What happened to the Olympics? Does NBC ever show a medal ceremony these days?


Only in primetime apparently.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> TNT? That's some junk channel showing reruns, right?


Next, he's going to say that TCM is just some old, crappy channel that shows old b&W movies.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

morac said:


> Only in primetime apparently.


not always then. They didn't show the ceremony for the ice dancers. Did they hold it for "Today"??


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> not always then. They didn't show the ceremony for the ice dancers. Did they hold it for "Today"??


I don't think they showed it.

Probably because it doesn't matter. It happens eight hours later with a bunch of other events, one right after another after another. All of the drama and excitement is gone.

Imagine if instead of handing out the Lombardi Trophy on the field or the Stanley Cup on the ice, they did it three weeks later. Who would watch, other than the athletes' mothers?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> not always then. They didn't show the ceremony for the ice dancers. Did they hold it for "Today"??


It was the last thing they showed in prime time tonight. I think that's where they have usually shown them when they do.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

why > 24 hours later?

I don't recall such a lack of coverage of ceremonies in previous games, including London in 2012.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> why > 24 hours later? I don't recall such a lack of coverage of ceremonies in previous games, including London in 2012.


Probably trying to boost ratings for the local news and new Tonight Show.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

morac said:


> Probably trying to boost ratings for the local news and new Tonight Show.


They didn't want to do that last night??


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

What happened to the women's short-track relay final? No-show on the scheduled broadcast. Naturally, it's not one of the endless repeats we've been subject to.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I think it's in late night


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

What do you think of NBC repeating the exact same coverage in prime time that they showed during the day, either on NBC or one of their cable networks. I guess for most people who aren't home during the day, it's fine, but because of the weather and the holiday, I spent a lot of time at home, either working or off in the last week and having to spend my primetime viewing watching what I've already seen is disconcerting. I guess, since there are a lot less events in the Winter Olympics, it's a necessary evil, but still.

And I'm not talking about JUST the events they showed live, but some of the pre-recorded events, that they showed both in the afternoon and at night.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Not everything in Primetime is shown on an NBC channel. Some events are streamed only before being shown in Primetime.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> Not everything in Primetime is shown on an NBC channel. Some events are streamed only before being shown in Primetime.


Of course not, but for someone like me, who's seen a lot of what they've shown already, there's big blocks of time where I am watching a rerun. Especially on nights where there's figure skating. I'm not particularly interested in figure skating so watching it twice is pretty boring. On a positive note, I've been able to catch up on some shows I recorded over the last couple of weeks


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

If you're recording the hockey with a TiVo wishlist, you might miss one of the games at noon ET today, since both are mistakenly listed as Semifinal Game 3 and so TiVo thinks they're duplicates.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

aindik said:


> If you're recording the hockey with a TiVo wishlist, you might miss one of the games at noon ET today, since both are mistakenly listed as Semifinal Game 3 and so TiVo thinks they're duplicates.


Another problem I've found is that USA,Sport:Hockey wish lists won't pick up all the USA games even if USA is in the synopsis.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> why > 24 hours later?


All medal ceremonies (except for events on the last day) are at the outdoor Medal Ceremony area. Most ceremonies are the same day as the event, but figure skating ends at about 11:30 PM each night local time, so they hold the ceremony the following night.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> All medal ceremonies (except for events on the last day) are at the outdoor Medal Ceremony area. Most ceremonies are the same day as the event, but figure skating ends at about 11:30 PM each night local time, so they hold the ceremony the following night.


Which makes them anticlimactic and uninteresting to TV viewers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Which makes them anticlimactic and uninteresting to TV viewers.


They're already anticlimactic by their very nature. It's not like we don't know the winners until they step on the podium. The only reason anyone cares about the medal ceremonies is to hear their national anthem played when someone from their country wins the gold and to see their flag hoisted up. So it really shouldn't matter when they show it. It's going to be the same whether it's 10 minutes after an event or 24 hours after.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

still, it seems that we see a lot fewer ceremonies than we have before. In the past, I recall NBC showing basically the full ceremony many times. Calling of each name, presentation of all the medals, then the anthem for Gold medal country.

As mentioned previously (not sure if this thread or another), I understand why they present some where they do, at a big venue so that many people can see it and cheer for the medalists. But why do it for events where they already have a large audience? (i.e. the figure skating).

I guess if the organizers in Sochi put a huge delay in, NBC can't do much about it. But they still should eventually show it and show a decent portion of it. Dunno why they stopped dong that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Dude, with every post you lose little more credibility. First you've never heard of anything that airs on USA, one of the most popular channels on cable. Now you're saying that TBS, another of the most popular channels on cable is a "junk channel?" What next? Are you going to tell us that your favorite cable net is the Smithsonian Channel?


Favorite? Depends on whether it's basketball or other stuff. Basketball is on ESPN(x), SNY, CBSSports. Other than that, Discovery, Animal Planet, PBS, CC, MSNBC, HBO, an occasional network show.



Azlen said:


> Looks like they are on the same tier of every other basic popular cable channel such as TNT, FX, History, MTV etc. etc.


That's expanded basic, not basic. Basic is mostly locals plus local access, plus a couple of other random channels, depending on the area.



LoadStar said:


> TNT? That's some junk channel showing reruns, right?


Junk.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Nothing is live in prime time.


Does Costas do his segments live? If not, how much earlier than the East Coast prime time are they recorded? Same question about the late night segment.



Steveknj said:


> What do you think of NBC repeating the exact same coverage in prime time that they showed during the day, either on NBC or one of their cable networks.
> ...
> And I'm not talking about JUST the events they showed live, but some of the pre-recorded events, that they showed both in the afternoon and at night.


Can you give some examples? I admit I'm recording mostly the NBC specific broadcasts (they happen to have the events I'm interested in). I think I ran into this once, but I can't remember what one. I definitely don't remember seeing it happen multiple times.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

mattack said:


> Can you give some examples? I admit I'm recording mostly the NBC specific broadcasts (they happen to have the events I'm interested in). I think I ran into this once, but I can't remember what one. I definitely don't remember seeing it happen multiple times.


All of the ice skating has been shown live in the morning/early afternoon and then again in Primetime. I think Primetime is edited so that not all the skaters are shown.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> All of the ice skating has been shown live in the morning/early afternoon and then again in Primetime. I think Primetime is edited so that not all the skaters are shown.


Yes. Not even close to all of them. it's also broken up so that they show other events in-between groups of skaters.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> As mentioned previously (not sure if this thread or another), I understand why they present some where they do, at a big venue so that many people can see it and cheer for the medalists. But why do it for events where they already have a large audience? (i.e. the figure skating).


So visitors to the Olympic park who don't have tickets to the event can still see the ceremony live. It's actually nicer that way, as people run and fill the medals plaza with different flags, etc. I'm in Sochi right now, as
a volunteer, and have been to a few medal awards. The atmosphere is nothing like you get sitting in a stadium. Plus, the lit cauldron behind the crowd, dancing fountain, and the lights create great ambiance, sure more festive than a somewhat clinical stadium.

Unfortunately, I wish they started the ceremony a bit later than 8:14pm, regardless of symbolism, as spectators who watched late events the mountains (like biathlon) will not make the park in time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Favorite? Depends on whether it's basketball or other stuff. Basketball is on ESPN(x), SNY, CBSSports. Other than that, Discovery, Animal Planet, PBS, CC, MSNBC, HBO, an occasional network show.
> 
> That's expanded basic, not basic. Basic is mostly locals plus local access, plus a couple of other random channels, depending on the area.
> 
> Junk.


One person's junk is another person's enjoyable programming. And considering you have NO idea what's on those channels, you calling it junk has little credibility. It's obvious, by your channel choices that you really aren't into scripted shows, or even reality shows for that matter. That's fine.

BTW..basketball... junk sport


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> Does Costas do his segments live? If not, how much earlier than the East Coast prime time are they recorded? Same question about the late night segment.


Here's a good article on how the Costas pieces are done:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/s...-olympic-screen-time.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Can you give some examples? I admit I'm recording mostly the NBC specific broadcasts (they happen to have the events I'm interested in). I think I ran into this once, but I can't remember what one. I definitely don't remember seeing it happen multiple times.[/QUOTE]

Two examples that I recall off the top of my head are figure skating. They've been showing much of the competition live during the day and then showing it again at night. In this case, it's interesting that they use two totally different sets of announcers for the day and night broadcasts. And I know they've showed the "slide" sports tape delayed (and in some cases live) during the day, and then repeated them at night.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> BTW..basketball... junk sport


Basketball isn't a sport. It relies too much on the refs calling (or not calling) fouls.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

secondclaw said:


> So visitors to the Olympic park who don't have tickets to the event can still see the ceremony live. It's actually nicer that way, as people run and fill the medals plaza with different flags, etc. I'm in Sochi right now, as
> a volunteer, and have been to a few medal awards. The atmosphere is nothing like you get sitting in a stadium. Plus, the lit cauldron behind the crowd, dancing fountain, and the lights create great ambiance, sure more festive than a somewhat clinical stadium.
> 
> Unfortunately, I wish they started the ceremony a bit later than 8:14pm, regardless of symbolism, as spectators who watched late events the mountains (like biathlon) will not make the park in time.


I have to say, I miss NBC showing the medal ceremony. They used to always close their coverage with a gold medal ceremony. For me, I like seeing the reaction of the athletes during the ceremony. And we've seen some classic reactions over the years. In 1980, the Captain of the hockey team accepted the medal for the team by tradition and stood on the podium. I can still see Mike Eruzione wave his whole team to the podium as the anthem played. I can see Tommie Smith and John Carlos give the Black Power salute during THEIR ceremony. And I'm sure there have been others that are very memorable. It seems a moment could be missed here.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I have to say, I miss NBC showing the medal ceremony. They used to always close their coverage with a gold medal ceremony. For me, I like seeing the reaction of the athletes during the ceremony. And we've seen some classic reactions over the years. In 1980, the Captain of the hockey team accepted the medal for the team by tradition and stood on the podium. I can still see Mike Eruzione wave his whole team to the podium as the anthem played. I can see Tommie Smith and John Carlos give the Black Power salute during THEIR ceremony. And I'm sure there have been others that are very memorable. It seems a moment could be missed here.


And all of those moments happened immediately after the event, right?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> And all of those moments happened immediately after the event, right?


In the case of hockey, yes. In the track and field case, I'm not sure.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

right.. It depends on the event. Seems like they are delaying almost everything a long time this year. I still don't understand really long delays. It's annoying.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Two examples that I recall off the top of my head are figure skating. They've been showing much of the competition live during the day and then showing it again at night. In this case, it's interesting that they use two totally different sets of announcers for the day and night broadcasts. And I know they've showed the "slide" sports tape delayed (and in some cases live) during the day, and then repeated them at night.


They have showed ALL of the skating live. Every single skate by every single person/couple/pair. All LIVE on real TV. You can watching it streaming too. I think if you watching it streaming, you get yet another announcer.

For Prime Time, you are right that a lot of stuff has been already shown. Obviously, skating. Sometimes, stuff like bobsled. Though the stuff they showed in prime time last night aired sometime during the day (don't think it was actually LIVE though) on some NBC channel.

I don't think I have seen much or any traditional alpine skiing outside of prime time.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Johnny and Tara seem to have gotten Terry Gannon into the fashion coordination. Been waiting for that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> And all of those moments happened immediately after the event, right?


This isn't a new thing for Sochi. I know Salt Lake had a Medals Plaza in downtown SLC where the medal ceremonies were held each evening, and the only venue within ten miles of that location was the Delta Center where the figure skating was held.

I suspect, although I don't remember for sure, that many of the other Olympics host cities, both summer and winter, have done medal ceremonies in a central location as well.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the Vancouver Games had two locations for awarding medals: One was up at Whistler where most of the skiing, snowboarding, bobsled, and luge events were located. The other was at BC Place, the large arena where the Opening and Closing Ceremonies were held.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Is BC Place also the place where the figure staking was held and the hockey finals held? I know for sure medals were presented in those venues immediately after the competition was over and medalists decided.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Johnny and Tara seem to have gotten Terry Gannon into the fashion coordination. Been waiting for that.


I can't watch them anymore. It seems that it's about each of them trying to top each other outfit wise. I simply don't care. Neither of them are any better than the two who do it during primetime and I'm not sure I get why NBC needed two crews to do the SAME EVENT. Actually I kind of do. Having Johnny Weir on gives NBC some buzz because people are talking about his crazy outfits. Otherwise the use of two crews makes little sense.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I think they use two crews to make editing easier.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I can't watch them anymore. It seems that it's about each of them trying to top each other outfit wise. I simply don't care. Neither of them are any better than the two who do it during primetime and I'm not sure I get why NBC needed two crews to do the SAME EVENT. Actually I kind of do. Having Johnny Weir on gives NBC some buzz because people are talking about his crazy outfits. Otherwise the use of two crews makes little sense.


Well sure, if you ignore their commentary.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Well sure, if you ignore their commentary.


So according to this article:

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014...ve-and-primetime-figure-skating-coverage.html

It appears that NBC's plan is to have the day crew cater to the die hard fans and the night crew cater to the casual fan. Maybe that's why I can't tell the difference between them because I'm about as casual fan as their is. There's something about Johnny Weir that annoys me, perhaps it's his tendancy toward self promotion, but I just can't listen to him more than a few minutes. I think Hamilton and Bezic do a pretty good job explaining to me what's happening and that's enough for me and Tom Hammond is really the ultimate pro and I could listen to him call the tiddlywinks tourney in Upper Slobovia, Wisconsin and enjoy his announcing.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> I think they use two crews to make editing easier.


How so? From what I read, it looks like the two crews are working off of completely different feeds. The day crew is using the International feed and the night crew is using the NBC feed. Both broadcasts are called live.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> How so? From what I read, it looks like the two crews are working off of completely different feeds. The day crew is using the International feed and the night crew is using the NBC feed. Both broadcasts are called live.


If they're both called at the same time then I don't get it either.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Speaking of medals

Medals being presented RIGHT NOW for women's hock. The gold medal game just ended moments ago. No waiting around this time.



Spoiler



Gold to Canada. Winning goal in OT. on a 5 on 3 power play.

USA was up 2-0 with 4 minutes left in regulation


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> So according to this article:
> 
> http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014...ve-and-primetime-figure-skating-coverage.html
> 
> It appears that NBC's plan is to have the day crew cater to the die hard fans and the night crew cater to the casual fan. Maybe that's why I can't tell the difference between them because I'm about as casual fan as their is. There's something about Johnny Weir that annoys me, perhaps it's his tendancy toward self promotion, but I just can't listen to him more than a few minutes. I think Hamilton and Bezic do a pretty good job explaining to me what's happening and that's enough for me and Tom Hammond is really the ultimate pro and I could listen to him call the tiddlywinks tourney in Upper Slobovia, Wisconsin and enjoy his announcing.


Scott Hamilton is FAR too dramatic. Way too much screaming at every little thing. I have come to prefer Johnny's style.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Scott Hamilton is FAR too dramatic. Way too much screaming at every little thing. I have come to prefer Johnny's style.


I don't know, but I find it hard to say ANYONE is more dramatic than Johnny Weir 

But yeah, I get what you are saying.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Speaking of dramatic, there's NOBODY more dramatic than the color guy who does cross country. I swear that man is going to pop a heart valve with one more race. By the end of each race he has NO voice left. And I'm watching and I fail to see any of the drama


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It's obvious, by your channel choices that you really aren't into scripted shows, or even reality shows for that matter. That's fine.
> 
> BTW..basketball... junk sport


For the most part, yes. The Office was good, Big Bang Theory is hilarious, but most of those shows aren't very good. I do want to watch House of Cards though, I've heard it's amazing. I kind of want to get a 4K TV first though lol.

Bball is awesome. Only thing that comes close is Curling!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Bigg said:


> For the most part, yes. The Office was good, Big Bang Theory is hilarious, but most of those shows aren't very good.


TBS, one of your junk channels, is number 1 in the 18-49 dem primarily because they show Big Bang Theory reruns.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

For those of you who think coverage from other countries is more varied and less jingoistic:

http://news.yahoo.com/different-olympics-tvs-across-world-101814696.html

Really, every country emphasizes the sports they are best at or most popular. The Netherlands or Japan or Canada is no different in that respect than the USA. People want to watch events where their country does well.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> ...and Tom Hammond is really the ultimate pro and I could listen to him call the tiddlywinks tourney in Upper Slobovia, Wisconsin and enjoy his announcing.


I'm glad you're enjoying Hammond. I wish I could say the same. Every time I've watched a figure skating broadcast on ABC, I've wished they would send Tom back to thoroughbred racing, where he's obviously more comfortable.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I'm glad you're enjoying Hammond. I wish I could say the same. Every time I've watched a figure skating broadcast on ABC, I've wished they would send Tom back to thoroughbred racing, where he's obviously more comfortable.


I just think he has a great voice for sports broadcasting, in whatever he does. I'm no expert in figure skating, but I don't think he is either. I think he does what he's supposed to do, tell us who's skating and get out of the way so that the experts can talk about the actual skating. I think he does that fine.

None of these guys are as good as the old ABC broadcasters from when I was a kid, Dick Button and Chris Schenkel (I think Jim McKay might have done a few figure skating broadcasts, but I remember Schenkel as the main guy). The color guys these days, be it Lapinksi and Weir or Hamilton and Bezic are WAY too prone to hyperbole and this "no skater can skate badly, ever" attitude. A skater will fall on her duff or miss a turn or whatever and its "didn't she look lovely doing it" or "this is her intro to the International scene, she'll be better next time". I remember Button telling it like it was more often than not.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I just think he has a great voice for sports broadcasting, in whatever he does. I'm no expert in figure skating, but I don't think he is either. I think he does what he's supposed to do, tell us who's skating and get out of the way so that the experts can talk about the actual skating. I think he does that fine.
> 
> None of these guys are as good as the old ABC broadcasters from when I was a kid, Dick Button and Chris Schenkel (I think Jim McKay might have done a few figure skating broadcasts, but I remember Schenkel as the main guy). The color guys these days, be it Lapinksi and Weir or Hamilton and Bezic are WAY too prone to hyperbole and this "no skater can skate badly, ever" attitude. A skater will fall on her duff or miss a turn or whatever and its "didn't she look lovely doing it" or "this is her intro to the International scene, she'll be better next time". I remember Button telling it like it was more often than not.


That's what I like about Tara and Johnny...they aren't afraid to say, you know, that just wasn't good enough.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> That's what I like about Tara and Johnny...they aren't afraid to say, you know, that just wasn't good enough.


From what I watched of them, they do the same, "Oh isn't that lovely?" stuff for just about every skater. Maybe they are a bit more critical. I've long ago turned them off.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I can't watch them anymore. It seems that it's about each of them trying to top each other outfit wise. I simply don't care. Neither of them are any better than the two who do it during primetime and I'm not sure I get why NBC needed two crews to do the SAME EVENT. Actually I kind of do. Having Johnny Weir on gives NBC some buzz because people are talking about his crazy outfits. Otherwise the use of two crews makes little sense.


I've been running this through my head all day, trying to get it to make sense.

Why do you care about the outfits that the announcers wear? They are rarely on camera.

I guess you should be glad that you weren't a tennis fan when Bud Collins was actively announcing.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> I've been running this through my head all day, trying to get it to make sense.
> 
> Why do you care about the outfits that the announcers wear? They are rarely on camera.
> 
> I guess you should be glad that you weren't a tennis fan when Bud Collins was actively announcing.


I don't care about the outfits, but NBC does. That's my point. NBC gets buzz because a lot of people are talking about the outfits. And NBC, I'm sure knew that going in. There is a segment of people who tune in just to see what they are wearing today. Otherwise, I'll say again, what's the point of having two different crews announcing the same event?

As far as tennis, I have never been a tennis fan. I'm sure I've seen Bud Collins on TV, but I don't remember him wearing anything flamboyant. But, I can give you a hockey parallel. Don Cherry. Cherry does an in between periods segment on Hockey Night in Canada. People tune in for:

A) His outrageous suits:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...n-cherrys-25-most-obnoxious-suits-of-all-time

B) His "old school" hockey talk - the guy still thinks hockey should be played as it was when he was coaching in the 70s.

But mostly the suits. And he's become a legend in Canada. Don't think CBC doesn't know that people tune in for the suits either.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I don't care about the outfits, but NBC does. That's my point. NBC gets buzz because a lot of people are talking about the outfits. And NBC, I'm sure knew that going in. There is a segment of people who tune in just to see what they are wearing today. Otherwise, I'll say again, what's the point of having two different crews announcing the same event?
> 
> As far as tennis, I have never been a tennis fan. I'm sure I've seen Bud Collins on TV, but I don't remember him wearing anything flamboyant. But, I can give you a hockey parallel. Don Cherry. Cherry does an in between periods segment on Hockey Night in Canada. People tune in for:
> 
> ...


I think that they are using two crews to give Tara and Johnny a try without risking them bombing in primetime. It's a way to see if they've got what it takes, without risking that the evening broadcasts will be a nightmare.

Johnny and Tara are both very fashion forward people, and I do look forward to seeing what they'll wear. I think it's fun.

But if they were never shown on camera, ever, at all--if they were both announcing in jeans and plain white t-shirts--their coverage would still be much better than the primetime coverage. They are more critical, *much* less hysterical and they have really nice chemistry, both with each other and with Terry.

If I had to pick a crew, I'd totally pick the daytime crew.

Also, you should have clicked on my Bud Collins link above. But, I warn you...you can't unsee it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> I think that they are using two crews to give Tara and Johnny a try without risking them bombing in primetime. It's a way to see if they've got what it takes, without risking that the evening broadcasts will be a nightmare.
> 
> Johnny and Tara are both very fashion forward people, and I do look forward to seeing what they'll wear. I think it's fun.
> 
> ...


The Olympics is a pretty darn expensive testing ground!! They'd be much better off testing them on a Sunday afternoon skating meet or some such. Luckily for them the buzz for their suits and the fact that those who are fans, like yourself think they are doing a great job, so the test was successful.

I'm not critical of NBC, obviously they knew what they were doing. They know who their daytime audience is and why Johnny and Tara would attract them, and it worked. But I do wonder, if, as you say, they wore the typical NBC clothing, if it would have been as successful, or, if NBC would have bothered with two crews.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Let me start with "it would have absolutely have been as successful" because the viewers who like Johnny and Tara care more about the content than the presentation.

Part of the test, though, might have been to see how Johnny "I'd be wearing a swan costume right now if they'd have let me" Weir would play in Peoria. I think he's _fierce_, and I love the way he plays with fashion and gender stereotypes. But maybe Grandmother June in Iowa would call the TV station and complain.

But I think that what they are seeing is that his commentary is excellent, and--for the most part--folks don't seem to care what he's wearing. I would be surprised if he isn't doing prime time broadcasts next time around.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Azlen said:


> TBS, one of your junk channels, is number 1 in the 18-49 dem primarily because they show Big Bang Theory reruns.


Hmmm, interesting. I've never understood the re-run thing... I watch new episodes on TiVo, and I keep my torrented collection more or less up to date with several shows, including Big Bang Theory...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

If you've never understood the re-run thing why do you maintain a torrent collection?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I just think he has a great voice for sports broadcasting, in whatever he does. I'm no expert in figure skating, but I don't think he is either. I think he does what he's supposed to do, tell us who's skating and get out of the way so that the experts can talk about the actual skating. I think he does that fine.


I always liked Tom Hammond and Ato Boldon covering track and field for the summer games. Tom DOES have a good voice and is a good "play by play" person. He gets pretty excited.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Here's a good article on how the Costas pieces are done:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/s...-olympic-screen-time.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


That was entertaining, but it mostly answers that the things are pre-taped, and not in order.. But is he still 'around' for hours and hours each day? I guess so. I'm not meaning to imply he's slacking around, but for someone who has only a relatively short period of time on air each night (according to that article), and they're pre-taped, seems like those segments could be done in an hour or two at most, including writing them.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I agree with Lori about Johnny and Tara.

Here is a good piece from the New York Times. It addresses their work, plus the controversy over the scoring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/sports/olympics/from-johnny-weirs-team-a-fresh-voice-for-nbc.html


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> I agree with Lori about Johnny and Tara.
> 
> Here is a good piece from the New York Times. It addresses their work, plus the controversy over the scoring.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/sports/olympics/from-johnny-weirs-team-a-fresh-voice-for-nbc.html


Thanks for that article. It reinforces what I was saying to Steve about how Johnny and Tara have not been afraid to be critical.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> Thanks for that article. It reinforces what I was saying to Steve about how Johnny and Tara have not been afraid to be critical.


They were both on with Costas last night, and tried to explain why they agreed with the Russian girl winning. I have to admit they made a convincing argument and were critical of the Korean for basically being too conservative.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> I agree with Lori about Johnny and Tara.
> 
> Here is a good piece from the New York Times. It addresses their work, plus the controversy over the scoring.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/sports/olympics/from-johnny-weirs-team-a-fresh-voice-for-nbc.html


The Times has had good coverage of that side of the mic for these games, but I missed that column. Thanks for the pointer.

There are a couple of reasons besides their personal chemistry that Lipinski and Weir make a good analyst team. One, both of them are of the sport recently enough that they know first-hand what it takes to be a modern skater. And two, their results give each of them valuable personal perspective. Lipinski is a gold-medalist. Obviously very few people win those. And Weir never medaled at all, arguably because he skated more like he wanted the attention than he wanted to be the best skater. He never got as much as he might have out of his ability, preferring to be a peacock on the ice. So he understands well the duality of the sport, artistic vs. technical, and how you have to balance those to really excel.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

As far as I know, NBC Sports Network didn't air the figure skating exhibition as planned (it aired the men's biathlon relay instead). I have a feeling it's because they got Weir and Lipinski to do the commentary for the NBC broadcast. (Also, the whole thing is available online, and it's about 3 1/2 hours long, including some routines NBC probably isn't interested in; for example, the first routine was by Adian Pitkeev, a Russian skater who didn't even compete in Sochi, but was second in the Junior Grand Prix series.)


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I preferred Tara and Johnny myself. The outfits were just a bonus. Even if they were never on camera, they would've been my preference. They had a great mix of chemistry and knowledge. I may be biased since I've never cared for Hammond on skating events.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

That Don Guy said:


> As far as I know, NBC Sports Network didn't air the figure skating exhibition as planned (it aired the men's biathlon relay instead). I have a feeling it's because they got Weir and Lipinski to do the commentary for the NBC broadcast. (Also, the whole thing is available online, and it's about 3 1/2 hours long, including some routines NBC probably isn't interested in; for example, the first routine was by Adian Pitkeev, a Russian skater who didn't even compete in Sochi, but was second in the Junior Grand Prix series.)


Well, crap, wonder why they didn't show the gala as previously planned? The version available online doesn't have Tara and Johnny.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Well, crap, wonder why they didn't show the gala as previously planned? The version available online doesn't have Tara and Johnny.


Because they got promoted to Prime Time

I guess the original plan was for Johhny and Tara to do it for NBC Sports Network during the day and then have the regular Prime Time crew (Tom Hammond, Scott Hammilton, etc.) do it in Prime Time.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> Because they got promoted to Prime Time
> 
> I guess the original plan was for Johhny and Tara to do it for NBC Sports Network during the day and then have the regular Prime Time crew (Tom Hammond, Scott Hammilton, etc.) do it in Prime Time.


Yes that explains why they didn't have Tara and Johnny on NBC Sports, but doesn't explain why they cut the gala from NBC Sports altogether.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Yes that explains why they didn't have Tara and Johnny on NBC Sports, but doesn't explain why they cut the gala from NBC Sports altogether.


You mean have a different team do it on NBC Sports Network with Johnny and Tara doing it on main NBC for prime time?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> You mean have a different team do it on NBC Sports Network with Johnny and Tara doing it on main NBC for prime time?


Yes. They have a team other than T&J for the web version. Why not for the NBC Sports version? Instead, they cut the NBC Sports version.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Why you hate NBC's Olympic coverage.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...e_sochi_games_is_reality_tv_masquerading.html


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I don't hate NBC's coverage, but I'm starting to. Granted that the competition is winding down, but starting tonight's broadcast with a 25-minute (and counting) profile of an athlete who isn't even in these Games is, ah, a curious choice.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

It's an interesting point though how the coverage is more like a "reality" show than an actual sports competition.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Yes. They have a team other than T&J for the web version. Why not for the NBC Sports version? Instead, they cut the NBC Sports version.


Well, Johnny and Tara was the team for NBC Sports Network. When they got promoted to prime time, maybe they decided to not "demote" the NBC crew (Hammond, Hammilton and the other lady) to the NBC Sports Network coverage.

I think the on-line streaming might not even be NBC. Rather, it's a "generic" pool feed for networks/stations from countries that can't have their own crew.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> It's an interesting point though how the coverage is more like a "reality" show than an actual sports competition.


For Prime Time network NBC, yes. They can't show anything live in that time slot.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> For Prime Time network NBC, yes. They can't show anything live in that time slot.


It's not just that they can't show live. It's that they have pre-decided what the stories were (Bode Miller, the Russian skater), and then play them up, regardless of what actually happened in competition.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> As far as I know, NBC Sports Network didn't air the figure skating exhibition as planned (it aired the men's biathlon relay instead). I have a feeling it's because they got Weir and Lipinski to do the commentary for the NBC broadcast. (Also, the whole thing is available online, and it's about 3 1/2 hours long, including some routines NBC probably isn't interested in; for example, the first routine was by Adian Pitkeev, a Russian skater who didn't even compete in Sochi, but was second in the Junior Grand Prix series.)





hummingbird_206 said:


> Well, crap, wonder why they didn't show the gala as previously planned? The version available online doesn't have Tara and Johnny.





hummingbird_206 said:


> Yes that explains why they didn't have Tara and Johnny on NBC Sports, but doesn't explain why they cut the gala from NBC Sports altogether.





jsmeeker said:


> You mean have a different team do it on NBC Sports Network with Johnny and Tara doing it on main NBC for prime time?





hummingbird_206 said:


> Yes. They have a team other than T&J for the web version. Why not for the NBC Sports version? Instead, they cut the NBC Sports version.





jsmeeker said:


> Because they got promoted to Prime Time
> 
> I guess the original plan was for Johhny and Tara to do it for NBC Sports Network during the day and then have the regular Prime Time crew (Tom Hammond, Scott Hammilton, etc.) do it in Prime Time.





jsmeeker said:


> Well, Johnny and Tara was the team for NBC Sports Network. When they got promoted to prime time, maybe they decided to not "demote" the NBC crew (Hammond, Hammilton and the other lady) to the NBC Sports Network coverage.
> 
> I think the on-line streaming might not even be NBC. Rather, it's a "generic" pool feed for networks/stations from countries that can't have their own crew.



I read in an article online that some events on the mountain venues got rescheduled because of fog. I suspect that is why we saw other events today instead of the gala on MSNBC.
I watched some of the gala this morning while it was streaming live. That video was not NBC; I suspect it was an international pool feed (the broadcasters sounded like they were from the BBC/ITV but I didn't recognize them.
Since it is still too early for me to see the Primetime / Latenight broadcasts, I can't say whether Tara and Johnny got 'promoted' or not, or whether the Late Night show will just be an edited-down Primetime. For all I know, they could bump the gala from Latenight or Primetime and show other sports that may have been weather delayed. 
I did notice this morning that the streaming video offered had the Women's Free Skate two different ways -- one from the Pool Feed (starting with the third warm-up group) and one the MSNBC feed with Tara and Johnny. I gather the streams aren't always clearly labelled as to which one you will get.

It would be fun if we got a 'skating meet of the week' every week (like Hockey Night in Canada), but I don't see that happening any time soon. I like to watch sectionals and regionals, but not everyone shares my enthusiasm. On the other hand, one of the cable channels out here runs high school football, so there is precedent for showing sports which are not the tippy top levels.

One thing that rarely gets broadcast: artistic roller skating. It's interesting to see the differences in choreography -- the one year I stumbled across the competition, I saw a lot of the roller skaters doing three-jump-sequences. The ice skaters started doing them a couple of seasons later. What ends up on the floor / ice is highly influenced by what the rulebook rewards, so it would be interesting to compare the changes in all the rules over the years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> If you've never understood the re-run thing why do you maintain a torrent collection?


That's exactly why I don't understand it. There are a zillion ways to access the back catalog, whether it's streaming or torrents, or whatever, no need to re-run them on cable.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Bigg said:


> That's exactly why I don't understand it. There are a zillion ways to access the back catalog, whether it's streaming or torrents, or whatever, no need to re-run them on cable.


You don't understand why the cable networks won't stop airing syndicated shows since you prefer to steal them?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> You don't understand why the cable networks won't stop airing syndicated shows since you prefer to steal them?


Yeah, pretty much. Even though it's technically illegal, there's nothing wrong with torrenting stuff as long as you get that channel. You're paying them anyways, so you may as well get it off of torrent.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Sunday 2/23
> 
> 7:00 PM - "Sochi Review Show" (hopefully without spending the first hour talking about some human interest story that has little to do with the Olympics this time)


The schedule doesn't even call it "Sochi Review Show" any more - now it's "Nancy & Tonya". At least it's listed as a separate show, so you don't have to record it if you want to record the closing ceremony.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

The full gala had the top six men and ladies, and the top five pairs and ice dancing couples, plus some younger Russian skaters.

Here's who was in the the gala that NBC didn't show:

Adian Pitkeev (Junior Grand Prix Final second place)
Lina Fedorova & Maxim Miroshkin (2013 Junior World Championships pairs bronze)
Elena Radionova (2013 Junior World Championships ladies gold)
Daisuke Takahashi (sixth, men)
Bobrova & Soloviev (fifth, ice dancing)
Tatsuki Machida (fifth, men)
Moore-Towers & Moscovitch (fifth, pairs) - more of a comedy routine
Javier Fernandez (fourth, men) - another comedy routine
Ilinykh & Katsalapov (bronze, ice dancing)
Denis Ten (bronze, men)
Savchenko & Szolkovy (bronze, pairs)
Stolbova & Klimov (silver, pairs)


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, pretty much. Even though it's technically illegal, there's nothing wrong with torrenting stuff as long as you get that channel. You're paying them anyways, so you may as well get it off of torrent.


 We're being trolled.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> The schedule doesn't even call it "Sochi Review Show" any more - now it's "Nancy & Tonya". At least it's listed as a separate show, so you don't have to record it if you want to record the closing ceremony.


It was listed at "Sochi Gold" out here, but it was the Nancy and Tonya piece.



lambertman said:


> We're being trolled.


No. I'm just saying it like it is.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

They can waste an hour and a half raking up the whole Tonya and Nancy debacle, but they can't be bothered to show the entire gala.  

Nancy has grown up and moved on, so why can't NBC?


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> They can waste an hour and a half raking up the whole Tonya and Nancy debacle, but they can't be bothered to show the entire gala.
> 
> Nancy has grown up and moved on, so why can't NBC?


You can tell that Nancy and Tonya are about done with this. They've moved on. Just another way to dream up unneeded drama from the past.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> They can waste an hour and a half raking up the whole Tonya and Nancy debacle, but they can't be bothered to show the entire gala.
> 
> Nancy has grown up and moved on, so why can't NBC?


Because the selfish bastards that were skating in the gala did not want to cooperate by creating some controversy that NBC could exploit.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I don't hate NBC's coverage, but I'm starting to. Granted that the competition is winding down, but starting tonight's broadcast with a 25-minute (and counting) profile of an athlete who isn't even in these Games is, ah, a curious choice.


Yeah, this annoyed me, and they showed it TWICE!! Sheesh. To me, the connection to the Olympics was a stretch at best.

As for their coverage, it is what it is. I think people here and others think it's better in other countries, but earlier I posted an article which says it really isn't. I agree with the author that the Olympics is less about sports as much as it's about the show. And I'm fine with that. As he states, I have no idea who most of the athletes are and outside of hockey, I never watch these sports other than the Olympics. If I cared about these sports, I'd watch them other times. I care about Americans winning, and I care about interesting competition and good stories.

And if you JUST want to watch the competition, NBC gives you that opportunity.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> It would be fun if we got a 'skating meet of the week' every week (like Hockey Night in Canada), but I don't see that happening any time soon. I like to watch sectionals and regionals, but not everyone shares my enthusiasm. On the other hand, one of the cable channels out here runs high school football, so there is precedent for showing sports which are not the tippy top levels.
> 
> One thing that rarely gets broadcast: artistic roller skating. It's interesting to see the differences in choreography -- the one year I stumbled across the competition, I saw a lot of the roller skaters doing three-jump-sequences. The ice skaters started doing them a couple of seasons later. What ends up on the floor / ice is highly influenced by what the rulebook rewards, so it would be interesting to compare the changes in all the rules over the years.


I do happen to notice that during the NFL season, when flipping around there are always women's oriented sports on opposite the football games. I have seen figure skating on MANY times on one of the other networks or on the sports networks. Back in the WWOS days, they used to have figure skating quite often. I think it's there if you look for it. But I don't think the audience, on a week to week basis would be large enough to be anything but what it is now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> They can waste an hour and a half raking up the whole Tonya and Nancy debacle, but they can't be bothered to show the entire gala.
> 
> Nancy has grown up and moved on, so why can't NBC?


I enjoyed the Nancy and Tonya thing. The gala to me is boring. What is the point of the gala anyway? It's not a competition, it's Ice Capades. I'd rather see more cross-country skiing or more boblsedders. We sit here and argue that they don't show enough of the competitions but it's ok to show the gala?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DLL66 said:


> You can tell that Nancy and Tonya are about done with this. They've moved on. Just another way to dream up unneeded drama from the past.


I think Nancy has moved on, Tonya? Not so much. She did a 30 for 30 as well (without Nancy's involvement). I think Tonya wants to keep her name in the spotlight as much as possible.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I don't hate NBC's coverage, but I'm starting to. Granted that the competition is winding down, but starting tonight's broadcast with a 25-minute (and counting) profile of an athlete who isn't even in these Games is, ah, a curious choice.


It was meant to shill NBC's Paralympics coverage. At least NBC got its act together on that. (I remember when NBC's commitment to the Paralympics consisted of a 2-hour "highlights" show about a month after the fact. Now, in addition to the highlights show (which is only a week after the closing ceremony), NBC will cover the opening ceremony and the sled ice hockey final, and NBCSN will have daily coverage.)

I also remember that, right before the closing ceremony in 1998 (Nagano), NBC aired a lengthy story about Louis Zamperini, a WWII pilot who had to ditch his plane in the middle of the Pacific and, with two crewmates (one of whom died), floated in the Pacific for almost seven weeks before being captured by the Japanese. (The Olympic link, besides the fact that the Japanese were involved, was, Zamperini competed in the 1936 Olympics.) I was reminded of this because this is also the story of the upcoming Angelina Jolie-directed movie _Unbroken_, which had its trailer shown during NBC's Olympics coverage.

Two other things I noticed from the closing ceremony coverage: first, they skipped a few parts, including the raising of the Greek flag (it just suddenly appeared) and the lowering of the Olympic flag (although I think they did show it being carried out); second, I don't remember NBC mentioning the final medal counts. Since Russia led in both total and gold medals, I thought that would get a mention in relation to how well the Russians thought the games went (although I think Putin for one would have traded all of the other golds back for one in men's hockey).


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> I also remember that, right before the closing ceremony in 1998 (Nagano), NBC aired a lengthy story about Louis Zamperini, a WWII pilot who had to ditch his plane in the middle of the Pacific and, with two crewmates (one of whom died), floated in the Pacific for almost seven weeks before being captured by the Japanese. (The Olympic link, besides the fact that the Japanese were involved, was, Zamperini competed in the 1936 Olympics.) I was reminded of this because this is also the story of the upcoming Angelina Jolie-directed movie _Unbroken_, which had its trailer shown during NBC's Olympics coverage.


...and is based on the book of the same name by Laura Hillenbrand, author of _Seabiscuit_. Harrowing story, but incredible. The book is worth reading.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I do happen to notice that during the NFL season, when flipping around there are always women's oriented sports on opposite the football games. I have seen figure skating on MANY times on one of the other networks or on the sports networks. Back in the WWOS days, they used to have figure skating quite often. I think it's there if you look for it. But I don't think the audience, on a week to week basis would be large enough to be anything but what it is now.


Obviously you have not considered murgatroyd's Law of Sports TV, namely, that the viewer's perception of how much a sport is broadcast is in inverse proportion to the viewer's desire to watch it. 

Thus you see skating 'quite often' when you channel-surf, while I seek it out and can't find enough.

The golden days of ABC/ESPN/WWOS coverage are gone. NBC likes to counter-program football with themed professional skating+music events where everyone skates on a theme (e.g. Valentine's Day, or to the music of The Beatles), or with a live musical performer. The shows where people skate to a live musical act are actually a lot of fun when you are in the area, but the TV coverage of them is wretched. The directors often intercut the skating with shots of the musicians on stage, so you don't get any sense of the flow of the skating across the ice. (If you don't see how annoying that is, imagine that you are trying to listen to a song, only the person who is watching the show is muting the music whenever the skater is on screen.) IMHO broadcasts which don't show entire performances by skaters don't count as having real figure skating on TV. It is annoying as crap to see hours of these half-assed broadcasts when NBC doesn't broadcast all four events in the real competitions OTA (often only singles show up on TV, and you have to pay extra to see pairs and dance over the internet).



Steveknj said:


> I enjoyed the Nancy and Tonya thing. The gala to me is boring. What is the point of the gala anyway? It's not a competition, it's Ice Capades. I'd rather see more cross-country skiing or more boblsedders. We sit here and argue that they don't show enough of the competitions but it's ok to show the gala?


They had planned to show the gala in its entirely on MSNBC but it got bumped for other sports. I don't have a problem with them showing the gala in the oh-dark-hundred timeslot, even if they don't show it for a couple of weeks, but I would like to see it, especially since they had told me it would air.

The Gala is the Closing Ceremony. (There are Opening Ceremonies for figure skating competitions, too, but no one ever shows them.) Like the pre-game formalities and the halftime show at a football game, they are not part of the competition itself, but are still part of the whole event. It may seem weird to you, but it's no different than showing a coin toss, or the first pitch (and the seventh-inning stretch), in baseball.

The main difference between football and skating here is that a figure skating competition is made up of many parts; spectators who might not have been able to attend all four parts of the main competition can attend the gala and see some of the skaters from all four events. And for Sochi, the gala was led off by some of the junior skaters, so it gives us a look at some of the future stars of the sport.

Given that I lived through the era when the Tonya and Nancy debacle took place, and I already know that Nancy has married and has kids and is enjoying being a mom, none of the material in the film was news to me. I would much rather have been able to see the newer skaters coming up, for a sneak preview of who might be competing in the next couple of Olympic cycles.

It seems perverse to run the Tonya and Nancy movie on the last day of the Olympics, when the Closing Ceremony looks forward to handing off the torch to the next city. On the last day of an Olympic Games, it's more appropriate to air a retrospective about the Games just past, not things that happened twenty years ago. Retrospectives from Olympics that long ago should be aired before the Games begin.

Oh, and by the way, you said that I could find more figure skating if I just looked for it.

If I had unlimited funds, then yes, I could find more: I would have enough bandwidth and could sign up for the subscriptions to see the stuff that NBC doesn't bother to broadcast. And if I were willing to do illegal stuff, I could find more skating by other means.

I do have an auto-recording wish list for figure skating and it picks up whatever is on -- both the crappy pro shows and the pittance of competitive skating that NBC doles out. It's a bit silly to assume on a TiVo forum that I wasn't already looking for everything that was available.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

The first pitch and the seventh inning stretch are almost never televised.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

aindik said:


> The first pitch and the seventh inning stretch are almost never televised.


But when they are, it is usually a high-level event, like the World Series.

IIRC, ABC regularly broadcast the Gala for US Nationals and Worlds.

For the Olympics, I have the commercial videos for 1994, 1998, and 2002, all of which have a tape or disc for the exhibition. I'm missing parts of 2006 and 2010 so I don't know what was included.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I actually enjoyed the Nancy and Tonya retrospective, not as much for the where are they now parts but for the recap stuff. When all this was going on I was a senior in high school, in the middle of my basketball season, doing stuff high school kids did, etc. so while I remember the whole incident, there was a lot going on around it in the aftermath and just their general upbringing parts that I wasn't really knowledgeable about.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

laria said:


> I actually enjoyed the Nancy and Tonya retrospective, not as much for the where are they now parts but for the recap stuff. When all this was going on I was a senior in high school, in the middle of my basketball season, doing stuff high school kids did, etc. so while I remember the whole incident, there was a lot going on around it in the aftermath and just their general upbringing parts that I wasn't really knowledgeable about.


It was the start of a very bizarre season for the paparazzi. Four months later was OJ!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

NBC cut 38% of the closing ceremony to "save time."

http://deadspin.com/nbc-edited-out-...ource=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The more puffed up the coverage gets, the more TiVo shines.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> NBC cut 38% of the closing ceremony to "save time."
> 
> http://deadspin.com/nbc-edited-out-...ource=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


They had a new sit com to promote

I liked the Tonya and Nancy thing. I had watched the ESPN 30 for 30 show recently and it was good to see this version of the story because Nancy actually participated. Of course, it made me feel old.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

murgatroyd said:


> They can waste an hour and a half raking up the whole Tonya and Nancy debacle, but they can't be bothered to show the entire gala.
> 
> Nancy has grown up and moved on, so why can't NBC?


Yeah, I agree, not happy that NBC didn't show all of the gala. They didn't show it at all on NBC Sports, showed only a very small portion in Prime Time, and showed a little bit more in late night. Stupid NBC.

And I watched the Nancy & Tonya show. I feel so sorry for Tonya. She had a tough life. She so wasn't an Ice Princess. I was a huge Figure Skating fan back in those days. Kristi, Nancy, Tonya, and Oksana were all so much fun to watch.

I really felt sorry for Tonya when she said she thought she and Nancy were friends, but Nancy said they weren't friends that they'd just roomed together for some competitions.

I like to believe that Tonya didn't have anything to do with the attack on Nancy. And I think it sucks that the FBI told Nancy that Tonya was the mastermind...but they couldn't prove it. Either prove it or STFU (FBI, not Nancy.) Nancy said it best, at this point, it just doesn't matter.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I like to believe that Tonya didn't have anything to do with the attack on Nancy. And I think it sucks that the FBI told Nancy that Tonya was the mastermind...but they couldn't prove it. Either prove it or STFU (FBI, not Nancy.) Nancy said it best, at this point, it just doesn't matter.


I have no problem believing she knew about it (although not necessarily the mastermind). Even now, in that special, she came across as always trying to blame others for her problems.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I have no problem believing she knew about it (although not necessarily the mastermind). Even now, in that special, she came across as always trying to blame others for her problems.


In the 30 for 30, she's even worse. The show went into more detail about the whole plan against Kerrigan. I thought it was interesting that they show a scene where Tonya introudces the big dude as her bodyguard, and in the interview 20 years later, she says, no he wasn't her body guard, why did I need a body guard? I don't think she was in on the "hit" but I think she knew about it all along. I don't think it was her idea though. I do wonder, considering the on again off again relationship she had with Gilooly if this was his play to get back in her good graces, to make sure she wins the Gold Medal and he had a hand in it (of course a gold medal means lots of money, so that could be part of it though). But boy, were they the dumbest bunch of criminals ever?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I thought it was interesting that they show a scene where Tonya introudces the big dude as her bodyguard, and in the interview 20 years later, she says, no he wasn't her body guard, why did I need a body guard?


She must have forgotten about those supposed death threats she received in the early nineties that scared her into withdrawing from some competitions and that eventually lead to her having a bodyguard while at competitions.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> In the 30 for 30, she's even worse. The show went into more detail about the whole plan against Kerrigan. I thought it was interesting that they show a scene where Tonya introudces the big dude as her bodyguard, and in the interview 20 years later, she says, no he wasn't her body guard, why did I need a body guard? I don't think she was in on the "hit" but I think she knew about it all along. I don't think it was her idea though. I do wonder, considering the on again off again relationship she had with Gilooly if this was his play to get back in her good graces, to make sure she wins the Gold Medal and he had a hand in it (of course a gold medal means lots of money, so that could be part of it though). But boy, were they the dumbest bunch of criminals ever?


The way I understood Tonya was that her ex hubby forced her to keep the big guy around and act like he was her body guard. That way it looked like she was worried about being attacked even though she and her ex knew that she wasn't in danger of being attacked. That's why she said he wasn't her body guard. He was just a cover story concocted after the fact by her ex-husband to make her appear innocent.

I think Tonya went from one abusive relationship (with her mother) to another (Jeff) and just didn't know what to do. She had divorced Jeff by the time the attack happened. I think it was his idea to attack Nancy so that Tonya would have a better chance of winning and she'd be so happy she'd take him back. Tonya said she found out about the attack after it had happened. I believe that. And she said she told the FBI she would cooperate with them if they would protect her from Jeff and his buddies. I believe that, too.

Tonya is not the brightest bulb in the pack. She had a tough life. But I think she really thought of Nancy as a friend. And I think she believed she could beat Nancy. She had already beaten Nancy. I don't think she would have risked being involved in the attack. OK, I'm going to STFU about this, because again, as Nancy said, at this point, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Yeah, I agree, not happy that NBC didn't show all of the gala. They didn't show it at all on NBC Sports, showed only a very small portion in Prime Time, and showed a little bit more in late night. Stupid NBC.


I wish I had a thousand dollars for every time Bob Costas or one of his substitutes said "Tonight -- figure skating -- but first ..."

I've hardly seen any of the Primetime coverage because it was on so late in the timeslot, I had to go to bed. Then it was the next day and I was watching MSNBC.

And I just checked my late-night recording, and NBC ran over the timeslot. So I didn't even get a chance to record all of the skaters they showed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I wish I had a thousand dollars for every time Bob Costas or one of his substitutes said "Tonight -- figure skating -- but first ..."
> 
> I've hardly seen any of the Primetime coverage because it was on so late in the timeslot, I had to go to bed. Then it was the next day and I was watching MSNBC.
> 
> And I just checked my late-night recording, and NBC ran over the timeslot. So I didn't even get a chance to record all of the skaters they showed.


Yeah, they did say that a lot. But it wasn't just figure skating, it was whatever the marquee event was that night. The idea, obviously is to keep you hanging around until it was shown. Most nights you could count on it around 9:30 Eastern until about 11:15. There's nothing wrong with this. It's just TV.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

I was watching the closing ceremony in the volunteer village canteen - room packed with Russian and international volunteers. Of course this was Russian-language broadcast, and two things stand out. First, they didn't cut anything, and second, their Russian commentator was doing same play-by-play that Costas does for opening/closing ceremony. The main difference was the commentator spent a lot of time relieving 1980 Olympics.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, they did say that a lot. But it wasn't just figure skating, it was whatever the marquee event was that night. The idea, obviously is to keep you hanging around until it was shown. Most nights you could count on it around 9:30 Eastern until about 11:15. There's nothing wrong with this. It's just TV.


Thank god for TiVo. TV would be horrible without it...


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

secondclaw said:


> The main difference was the commentator spent a lot of time relieving 1980 Olympics.


Part of the closing ceremony itself (especially when they extinguished the torch) did a good job of that on its own. I guess they wanted to remind the USA that there actually was a Summer Olympics in 1980 (well, besides in the movie _Goldengirl_).

Ironically, NBC had the broadcast rights to that Olympics; as a result of the boycott, NBC did not air any Olympics between Winter 1972 and Summer 1988. Forget about Nancy and Tonya; NBC should have done a story on the 1980 women's gymnastics all-around - now _there_ was a controversy!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Part of the closing ceremony itself (especially when they extinguished the torch) did a good job of that on its own. I guess they wanted to remind the USA that there actually was a Summer Olympics in 1980 (well, besides in the movie _Goldengirl_).
> 
> Ironically, NBC had the broadcast rights to that Olympics; as a result of the boycott, NBC did not air any Olympics between Winter 1972 and Summer 1988. Forget about Nancy and Tonya; NBC should have done a story on the 1980 women's gymnastics all-around - now _there_ was a controversy!


NBC had broken a long string of ABC aired Olympics, and ABC aired 1984 Summer and Winter, and 1988 Summer, before NBC got the rights to the rest (I think CBS air the Winter Olympics in Calgary IRC). As a kid, I always thought of ABC as the network of the Olympics, and Wide World of Sports, used to show LOTS of Olympic sports to help promote their coverage. It was a different time, but I knew a lot more of the athletes those days than I do now, because WWOS had track and field and swimming and gymnastics and skating and skiing among other events on quite often. A lot is on now, but it's buried beneath dozens of college and pro mainstream sports that are all over the dial.


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> NBC had broken a long string of ABC aired Olympics, and ABC aired 1984 Summer and Winter, and 1988 Summer, before NBC got the rights to the rest (I think CBS air the Winter Olympics in Calgary IRC). As a kid, I always thought of ABC as the network of the Olympics, and Wide World of Sports, used to show LOTS of Olympic sports to help promote their coverage. It was a different time, but I knew a lot more of the athletes those days than I do now, because WWOS had track and field and swimming and gymnastics and skating and skiing among other events on quite often. A lot is on now, but it's buried beneath dozens of college and pro mainstream sports that are all over the dial.


I still remember one of the World Wide of Sports lines "the agony of defeat" with that ski jumper crashing at the end of the ramp.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

DLL66 said:


> I still remember one of the World Wide of Sports lines "the agony of defeat" with that ski jumper crashing at the end of the ramp.


Yep, that is definitely ingrained in my brain from childhood.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DLL66 said:


> I still remember one of the World Wide of Sports lines "the agony of defeat" with that ski jumper crashing at the end of the ramp.


That was from something called the "Ski Flying" championships, where the hill is much larger than what they usually used - then again, the "large hill" back then was only 90m. (Apparently, ski flying still exists, with 180m hills.)

There were some "Winter Olympic" events that appeared regularly on WWoS:
Alpine Skiing - the men's downhill at the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbuhl, and I think they aired the world ski jumping championships (they also aired a lot of professional skiing events - mainly head-to-head slalom racing)
Figure Skating - US Nationals and World Championships
Skeleton (well, Toboggan) - they always aired an event from the St. Moritz Cresta run each year


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> That was from something called the "Ski Flying" championships, where the hill is much larger than what they usually used - then again, the "large hill" back then was only 90m. (Apparently, ski flying still exists, with 180m hills.)
> 
> There were some "Winter Olympic" events that appeared regularly on WWoS:
> Alpine Skiing - the men's downhill at the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbuhl, and I think they aired the world ski jumping championships (they also aired a lot of professional skiing events - mainly head-to-head slalom racing)
> ...


Vinko Bogataj (or something like that) was the fellow who fell off the ski-jump. He was uninjured. I remember them having a WWoS retrospective on ABC and they invited him to appear on the show.

I think they had some speed skating on WWoS as well, especially in Olympic years. They regularly showed T&F (NCAA championships I believe) and gymnastics for summer games. They also used to show the EPL final game regularly from Wembley. And of course some real obscure stuff. Wrist Wrestling from Petaluma, CA, Demo Derby, Barrel jumping, quite a few Eval Kneival jumps. And LOTS of boxing.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Has anyone seen a good schedule for the Paralympics?

There's one at the bottom of this Press release from 19 February, but the formatting is butt-ugly.



> STAMFORD, Conn. - Feb. 19, 2014 - NBC Olympics and the United States Olympic Committee will present an unprecedented 52 hours of coverage of the upcoming Sochi 2014 Paralympic Winter Games across NBC and NBCSN including 27 hours of live coverage, beginning with the Opening Ceremony on Friday, March 7 at 11 a.m. ET on NBCSN. TeamUSA.org will live stream all events from the Paralympic Winter Games.
> 
> NBC Olympics' coverage will include all five Paralympic winter sports - alpine skiing (which includes snowboarding), cross-country skiing, biathlon, wheelchair curling and sled hockey - spread across 11 days of coverage on NBC and NBCSN.
> 
> NBCSN will provide 48 of 52 total hours of coverage, as well as live coverage nearly every day of the Paralympic Winter Games. NBC's coverage is highlighted by the sled hockey gold medal game on Saturday, March 15 at 1 p.m. ET.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Has anyone seen a good schedule for the Paralympics?
> 
> There's one at the bottom of this Press release from 19 February, but the formatting is butt-ugly.


Here's a better one


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> Here's a better one


Thanks! Yes, that's much more readable.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I don't want to cancel any of the athletes' dreams, but it seems kind of wrong to be honoring Putin and Russia right now.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Well, the US delegation isn't going now, right? Just the team?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Well, the US delegation isn't going now, right? Just the team?


That's what I have heard as well.



Steveknj said:


> Vinko Bogataj (or something like that) was the fellow who fell off the ski-jump. He was uninjured. I remember them having a WWoS retrospective on ABC and they invited him to appear on the show.
> 
> I think they had some speed skating on WWoS as well, especially in Olympic years. They regularly showed T&F (NCAA championships I believe) and gymnastics for summer games. They also used to show the EPL final game regularly from Wembley. And of course some real obscure stuff. Wrist Wrestling from Petaluma, CA, Demo Derby, Barrel jumping, quite a few Eval Kneival jumps. And LOTS of boxing.


Bogotaj has appeared at least twice - they interviewed him remotely decades ago, and he made an appearance at either the 20th or 25th Anniversary specials. (At one of those, they aired a couple of minor events (I think one of them was a 10K in Butte, Montana) for no other reason that they were in the two states where they had never aired events up to that point.)

While WWoS aired the Rugby League Cup Final (usually from Wembley, but if it ended in a tie, they replayed the entire match in northern England a week later, and ABC aired that game instead) every year (usually with an NFL player along for a comparative analysis with football), I think they aired the F.A. Cup final only once, in the 1960s (and it was not limited to what would now be the EPL; any team, no matter how minor, could enter, although only once has a team that was not in what is now the EPL or England's "Championship" league even made it to the final).

WWoS aired NCAA championships in track & field, swimming, wrestling, and volleyball every year. Note that, back then, the NCAA only conducted championships in men's sports; by the time they started having women's championships (1981-82, IIRC), they had moved to ESPN.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Just FYI, MSNBC is re-running coverage that was on Primetime, divided up by individual sports, under the title "Return to Sochi".

So if there was a particular sport you wanted to see, or revisit, check your Guide Data for details.


----------

