# London Olympics TV Coverage Thread



## Marco

To start the thread off, here's a detailed breakdown of the TV schedule.


----------



## TheMerk

This will be our first Olympics since ditching cable. Hoping we don't miss too much by having to rely solely on NBC's coverage.


----------



## Amnesia

I just set up 3 season passes for NBC and um...two other channels. From last time, I know I have to go through them pretty quickly or else both my DVRs will fill up...


----------



## Allanon

You can get all the Olympic events from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/olympic

Might help you from running out of space on the Tivo. Also Tivo has their Olympic Games Guide in the "Music, Photos, Showcases" menu on the series 3, not sure where it would be on the Premiere.


----------



## That Don Guy

That NBC TV schedule is "subject to change" - for example, the women's 78kg judo gold medal bout scheduled for 8/2 at 4:30 won't air if USA's entry in that event doesn't make it to the final.

Judo and Sailing seem to be the "odd sports out" of the broadcasts. Nothing particularly new about that. (I wonder how NBC would handle it if the IOC were to replace judo with karate.)

Speaking of the Olympics, something you might want to note if you're going to watch the basketball: they have replaced the trapezoidal free throw lanes with NBA-sized rectangular lanes. (To think the NCAA came this close to making all of the colleges switch to trapezoid lanes a few years ago.)


----------



## aindik

NBC is not sending all of their announcers to London. Some of them will be calling the action from NBC in New York. For example, they're only sending 4 people to cover basketball. One play by play guy (Bob Fitzgerald of the Golden State Warriors), one analyst (Doug Collins), one sideline reporter (Craig Sager), and one studio analyst (Doc Rivers), I guess for guest spots with Costas, or whoever is hosting. All games not called by this team will be called by people who are physically in New York.

On a happier note for you hockey fans, look forward to Doc Emirick calling Water Polo. 

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics_on_NBC_commentators


----------



## LoadStar

aindik said:


> NBC is not sending all of their announcers to London. Some of them will be calling the action from NBC in New York. For example, they're only sending 4 people to cover basketball. One play by play guy (Bob Fitzgerald of the Golden State Warriors), one analyst (Doug Collins), one sideline reporter (Craig Sager), and one studio analyst (Doc Rivers), I guess for guest spots with Costas, or whoever is hosting. All games not called by this team will be called by people who are physically in New York.
> 
> On a happier note for you hockey fans, look forward to Doc Emirick calling Water Polo.
> 
> More here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics_on_NBC_commentators


Wow. That's surprisingly stingy on the part of Comcast!

I mean, I'm no big fan of unnecessary commentary/PxP... but if they're going to have PxP, they should actually be there. The whole point of PxP is to have people there who can see the action live, relaying what people at home might not be able to see very well (or at all).


----------



## aindik

LoadStar said:


> Wow. That's surprisingly stingy on the part of Comcast!
> 
> I mean, I'm no big fan of unnecessary commentary/PxP... but if they're going to have PxP, they should actually be there. The whole point of PxP is to have people there who can see the action live, relaying what people at home might not be able to see very well (or at all).


I would also think a lot more would be made of it, but I couldn't find anything about it other than that wikipedia page. Maybe it's not true?


----------



## lambertman

BTN sometimes doesn't send announcers from Chicago to Lafayette, IN. I wouldn't be surprised if NBC didn't send judo experts to Britain.


----------



## TheMerk

A lot of MLS teams don't send their local crew to away games: they call the game from their home studio. 

But that's MLS. This is the Olympics!


----------



## LoadStar

aindik said:


> I would also think a lot more would be made of it, but I couldn't find anything about it other than that wikipedia page. Maybe it's not true?


I haven't been able to find another source that specifically says they'll be in NY.

However, NBC's press release announcing their broadcasting lineup lists specific people that will be in London, which seems to imply that at least some of those NOT listed as being in London will be elsewhere:
http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/...s/2012/06/28/nbcannouncestal1340907544308.xml


----------



## mattack

That Don Guy said:


> That NBC TV schedule is "subject to change" - for example, the women's 78kg judo gold medal bout scheduled for 8/2 at 4:30 won't air if USA's entry in that event doesn't make it to the final.


That's why I tend to try to record EVERYTHING (at least when they start to get into the finals of events), and FF through tons and tons of stuff... for when things are rescheduled.


----------



## Hcour

Allanon said:


> You can get all the Olympic events from YouTube:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/olympic


Very cool. I had no idea. Thanks much!


----------



## getreal

TheMerk said:


> This will be our first Olympics since ditching cable. Hoping we don't miss too much by having to rely solely on NBC's coverage.


If you've relied solely on NBC's coverage in the past, then you've already missed too much. If an American doesn't place in an otherwise exciting competition, NBC cuts away to the next commercial or US athlete bio or the preparations for the next US athlete to compete in another sport ... completely missing out on the final competition where the American was eliminated.

Canadian or European broadcasts continue to broadcast the sport until the winner is determined -- regardless of country of origin.


----------



## ewolfr

Allanon said:


> You can get all the Olympic events from YouTube:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/olympic
> 
> Might help you from running out of space on the Tivo. Also Tivo has their Olympic Games Guide in the "Music, Photos, Showcases" menu on the series 3, not sure where it would be on the Premiere.


I see a banner in the middle of that Youtube page that says "To watch the Olympics LIVE in the US, click here" I then get redirected to nbc's site that requires a cable/sat subscription to view.

Will we be able to get replays via Youtube's site? I don't really care much about the live viewing since I will be at work when most of the action is going on in London anyway.


----------



## Allanon

You can also watch videos at http://www.nbcolympics.com/index.html. You will need to sign in with a cable provider. The women's soccer matches are already posted.

Also, I tired a few of the videos on the Olympic YouTube channel I posted above and they said they couldn't be viewed in my country. But you can use this YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/user/2012nbcolympics

But I think it will redirect back to nbcolympics.com when playing videos.


----------



## Steveknj

aindik said:


> I would also think a lot more would be made of it, but I couldn't find anything about it other than that wikipedia page. Maybe it's not true?


I know they did this for some of the Winter Olympic hockey, and I'm sure some other sports. I thought ESPN did this with some of the World Cup Soccer as well. While it's really not a big deal, you can definitely feel a different vibe watching the games when the announcers are not there.


----------



## That Don Guy

LoadStar said:


> I mean, I'm no big fan of unnecessary commentary/PxP... but if they're going to have PxP, they should actually be there. The whole point of PxP is to have people there who can see the action live, relaying what people at home might not be able to see very well (or at all).


At least NBC is providing its own commentators. Back in 2000, they used the Australian commentary for the two field hockey finals.

Does anybody know if the online coverage has audio commentators? In 2008, it did not; instead, commentary was provided chat-style.


----------



## TheMerk

Anyone hoping to piggyback off of a friend's cable subscription to stream Olympics from NBC.com to their TV will be pretty disappointed. As far as I can tell, there's no way to fullscreen the video as it always has the ad above, and the Youtube control bar below:


----------



## ewolfr

That Don Guy said:


> At least NBC is providing its own commentators. Back in 2000, they used the Australian commentary for the two field hockey finals.
> 
> Does anybody know if the online coverage has audio commentators? In 2008, it did not; instead, commentary was provided chat-style.


From a post that I saw at nytimes.com today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/s...ignup-needed-to-stream-olympics.html?src=recg



> Whose voices will viewers hear on the live streaming? Some sports will be called by NBC announcers and some by announcers hired by the London host broadcaster. And about half the events will be silent. For some, that might be a blessing.


And linked from there was an article about how much time and effort its taking NBC to get setup over in London:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/s...-olympic-coverage.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all


----------



## LoadStar

ewolfr said:


> From a post that I saw at nytimes.com today:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/s...ignup-needed-to-stream-olympics.html?src=recg


That's much the same as it was in Beijing. Actually, for Beijing, the vast majority of their online streaming was strictly the Olympic Broadcasting pool feed - no PxP at all.


----------



## murgatroyd

LoadStar said:


> PxP


----------



## aindik

murgatroyd said:


>


Play by Play.


----------



## jsmeeker

Isn't it pretty common to do remote PxP for major international events? There just isn't enough physical space in these venues to accommodate everyone within the venue itself.


----------



## dswallow

TheMerk said:


> Anyone hoping to piggyback off of a friend's cable subscription to stream Olympics from NBC.com to their TV will be pretty disappointed. As far as I can tell, there's no way to fullscreen the video as it always has the ad above, and the Youtube control bar below:


What about viewing it via YouTube apps on TVs, Blu-ray players and other similar TV-centric devices?


----------



## Amnesia

You'd still have the same issue. That banner is part of the YouTube video itself.


----------



## tiams

I'm excited about the opening ceremonies tonight; it is my favorite part. I love a spectacle. I'm excited to see who will light the cauldron. Danny Boyle is directing the whole thing and he has said it will be like a live action film. There are rumors that there will be a fight between Voldemort and Harry Potter. David Beckham has a top-secret role to play and Paul McCartney performing is a sure bet.

London traffic is said to be a total nightmare. Citizens have been asked to stay home and not drive, and it took hours to drive U.S. dignitaries picked up at Heathrow to their destination. 

Surface to Air missiles are stationed on top of apartment buildings. There is a warship in the Thames and drones in the air.

It's all very thrilling.


----------



## Amnesia

BTW: The opening ceremony (as well as some strange sports) will be filmed and broadcast in 3D.


----------



## jsmeeker

I'll take the ad in the video itself if it means I can watch some trampoline.


----------



## tiams

Amnesia said:


> BTW: The opening ceremony (as well as some strange sports) will be filmed and broadcast in 3D.


That is pretty cool. Wish I had a way to watch in 3-D.


----------



## pdhenry

I think that one of the NBC channels added to my Comcast lineup for the Olympics is in 3D. But with limited basic I'll be watching whatever's on plain old NBC.



Allanon said:


> You can also watch videos at http://www.nbcolympics.com/index.html. You will need to sign in with a cable provider.


Worse than that - you have to have CNBC/MSNBC in your lineup (not just limited basic cable). Bastages. But I guess Disney's been doing that with ESPN for decades.


----------



## Steveknj

tiams said:


> I'm excited about the opening ceremonies tonight; it is my favorite part. I love a spectacle. I'm excited to see who will light the cauldron. Danny Boyle is directing the whole thing and he has said it will be like a live action film. There are rumors that there will be a fight between Voldemort and Harry Potter. David Beckham has a top-secret role to play and Paul McCartney performing is a sure bet.
> 
> London traffic is said to be a total nightmare. Citizens have been asked to stay home and not drive, and it took hours to drive U.S. dignitaries picked up at Heathrow to their destination.
> 
> Surface to Air missiles are stationed on top of apartment buildings. There is a warship in the Thames and drones in the air.
> 
> It's all very thrilling.


Things I heard through various sources, pure speculation:



Spoiler



McCartney to close with Hey Jude sing along. Roger Bannister is the odds on favorite to light the flame.


----------



## LordKronos

tiams said:


> I'm excited about the opening ceremonies tonight...Paul McCartney performing is a sure bet.


Hopefully nobody pulls the plug on him this time


----------



## Steveknj

LordKronos said:


> Hopefully nobody pulls the plug on him this time


Only if Bruce Springsteen is there


----------



## murgatroyd

aindik said:


> Play by Play.


Oh, thanks. I get it now.


----------



## MikeMar

Is there a directv list of what sports will be on when and what channel # itself?


----------



## murgatroyd

pdhenry said:


> I think that one of the NBC channels added to my Comcast lineup for the Olympics is in 3D. But with limited basic I'll be watching whatever's on plain old NBC.
> 
> Worse than that - you have to have CNBC/MSNBC in your lineup (not just limited basic cable). Bastages. But I guess Disney's been doing that with ESPN for decades.


Yeah, Comcast has it as part of the Digital Starter package, which is the next level up from limited basic.

Could you switch to a higher tier for a month and then switch back after the Games are over?


----------



## Marco

MikeMar said:


> Is there a directv list of what sports will be on when and what channel # itself?


Closest thing is my link in the OP.

MSNBC - 356
NBCSN - 603
Bravo - 237


----------



## TheMerk

dswallow said:


> What about viewing it via YouTube apps on TVs, Blu-ray players and other similar TV-centric devices?


I don't think you'll even be able to watch anything through those devices. Watching the Olympics on YouTube from a PC requires authentication of a cable sub including MSNBC and CNBC, and I don't see how a dumb YouTube enabled device could possibly handle that process.


----------



## pdhenry

murgatroyd said:


> Yeah, Comcast has it as part of the Digital Starter package, which is the next level up from limited basic.
> 
> Could you switch to a higher tier for a month and then switch back after the Games are over?


Maybe... The SAF is low for spending more money on cable, plus I'm not 100% sure I can get back what I have now after the games (DTA plus CableCards on Limited Basic - I had to insist on keeping them when I downgraded a couple of months ago).


----------



## DevdogAZ

pdhenry said:


> Maybe... The SAF is low for spending more money on cable, plus I'm not 100% sure I can get back what I have now after the games (DTA plus CableCards on Limited Basic - I had to insist on keeping them when I downgraded a couple of months ago).


Might be worth a call to the provider, and have them note it in your account. If you could upgrade for a couple weeks for $20-30, would it be worth it?


----------



## mwhip

MikeMar said:


> Is there a directv list of what sports will be on when and what channel # itself?


Also channel 205 will be turned into the Olympic Mix channel like they do for golf and tennis.


----------



## Marco

mwhip said:


> Also channel 205 will be turned into the Olympic Mix channel like they do for golf and tennis.


Ooh, thanks.


----------



## tiams

I'd like to know how much I will miss if I watch/record NBC OTA only. NBC will be airing Olympics from 10 am-5 pm, primetime, and 1:30 am -4:30 am. That seems pretty inclusive.


----------



## lambertman

tiams said:


> I'd like to know how much I will miss if I watch/record NBC OTA only. NBC will be airing Olympics from 10 am-5 pm, primetime, and 1:30 am -4:30 am. That seems pretty inclusive.


Again, the link in the OP is pretty useful.


----------



## tiams

tiams said:


> I'd like to know how much I will miss if I watch/record NBC OTA only. NBC will be airing Olympics from 10 am-5 pm, primetime, and 1:30 am -4:30 am. That seems pretty inclusive.





lambertman said:


> Again, the link in the OP is pretty useful.


That link tells me what *is* being broadcast, but it isn't easy to tell from that what *isn't* being broadcast.


----------



## pdhenry

But it does tell you what's being broadcast, but _on stations other than NBC _(which is the info I need for my decisionmaking).


----------



## Marco

On Directv, there is also an "Olympics Basketball Channel" (752 I think?).

If you press the red button while watching Olympics, you get other options, including a list of what's on when.


----------



## jsmeeker

tiams said:


> That link tells me what *is* being broadcast, but it isn't easy to tell from that what *isn't* being broadcast.


That will be an exercise for you.


----------



## Talon

Amnesia said:


> BTW: The opening ceremony (as well as some strange sports) will be filmed and broadcast in 3D.


Wow, thanks. It didn't even occur to me to check for that. I just bought a 3D tv about two months ago.

Looks like it will be on channel 1003 for Fios.


----------



## That Don Guy

tiams said:


> That link tells me what *is* being broadcast, but it isn't easy to tell from that what *isn't* being broadcast.


The official London 2012 site has a complete schedule of events. You can use that to determine what isn't being broadcast.

Besides - NBC will probably throw in some "unscheduled" events in its main network telecasts, especially if somebody from the USA is going to win a gold medal.


----------



## Marco

If you want to see the Opening Ceremony live (BBC), now: http://tvpc.com/Channel.php?ChannelID=3


----------



## jsmeeker

I'll wait and watch it on the big 55" tv in HD. And with Bob Costas. Cause I want to see me some 'Merican athletes.


----------



## robojerk

Some of the group match soccer games have been really entertaining to watch.

Japan vs Spain?? I thought Spain and Brazil would have been the top tiered teams in the tournament but now I'm rethinking that assessment.
Gabon VS New Zealand?? That game was fun to watch too. Gabon's first olympic appearance, and except for the PK in the first 5 minutes they actually looked pretty good.

I caught the Women's USA vs France game, and considering 5 goals were scored in the game I thought it was pretty boring. The female commentator (retired women's soccer player) seemed to try to make a lot of the talk about her.
"Hope Solo was talking to my husband at a dinner the other night.."
"I remember a young Abbey Wambach..."

Can't wait to eat breakfast Saturday morning and watch some Handball! 

Here's a look at what Handball is for the uninitiated.


Spoiler



beijing-top-8-plays-from-mens-medal-matches

It's like basketball and soccer merged.
However the foul line (or basketball's 3 point line) is actually a barrier that offensive players cannot step in with the ball. 
They can however jump past the line and shoot before touching the ground.
There is a dashed line that looks like a soccer foul line, it yields higher points when the ball is thrown from behind it.
All players can only take a couple of steps (2-3?) and then must pass or dribble the ball.


----------



## Marco

jsmeeker said:


> I'll wait and watch it on the big 55" tv in HD. And with Bob Costas. Cause I want to see me some 'Merican athletes.


Watching a bunch of 'Merican athletes parade into the stadium in costume is about the least interesting part of the opening ceremony.

Oh wait. Jacques Rogge will be speaking. I take that back.


----------



## Marco

robojerk said:


> Here's a look at what Handball is for the uninitiated.
> ...


You spoilerized _the rules of handball?_ Why?


----------



## jsmeeker

First rule of handball.....


----------



## robojerk

jsmeeker said:


> First rule of handball.....


True dat.


----------



## aindik

Marco said:


> You spoilerized _the rules of handball?_ Why?


Because it hasn't aired on TV yet. Duh!



USA Men's Basketball on Sunday morning at 9:30 is pretty cool, too.

2:40 p.m. on Sunday on NBC. USA water polo with Doc Emirick behind the mic. Or, as I'm calling it, hockey on melted ice.


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> USA Men's Basketball on Sunday morning at 9:30 is pretty cool, too.


Against France

I want to see LeBron dunk over some French dude.


----------



## aindik

jsmeeker said:


> Against France
> 
> I want to see LeBron dunk over some French dude.


Tony Parker is on Team France. Jaokim Noah would have been on Team France too, but he's injured.


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> Tony Parker?


That would be good.


----------



## pdhenry

Looks like Digital Starter is almost $50 more per month than what I'm paying.


----------



## Stephen Tu

Marco said:


> You spoilerized _the rules of handball?_ Why?


Plus, at least one of the rules he stated was incorrect, if anyone cares. (dashed line isn't an "extra points" line like a 3-pointer in basketball. It's the "free-throw" line, where teams get a free throw-in after minor violations.)

I've been a bit fascinated by handball ever since I first glimpsed it on the 1984 Olympics coverage, looks like it'd be fun to play. Wonder why it never caught on here. One of the 3 events the U.S. has never medalled in. Plus U.S. teams pretty much only get in the tournament under the "host nation" exception, so only played in L.A. and Atlanta. Before NBC expanded coverage to the many channels, they never showed it during the "we only care about American athletes" years.


----------



## Francesco

What? You guys still don't know to get a Canadian satellite system in time for the Olympics? Come on!


----------



## Snappa77

Wow. Probably the worst opening ceremony that I can remember. 

At least the Parade of Nations have started. No way this Danny Boyle moron can mess this part up.


----------



## nirisahn

I hate that the newscaster talk over stuff. It's bad enough when they talk over just music, but they were talking over the kids singing and over the announcers from the event.


----------



## lpwcomp

Anyone else seeing what I am seeing? Comcast added the three Olympics channels (NBCSOC, NBCBSK, and NBCOL3D) a couple of days. I decided to check them out today. As expected, the guide indicates soccer on NBCSOC and basketball on NBCBSK. When I actually tune to the channels, it's the opposite.


----------



## dswallow

1) The Guide data is horrendous for the Olympic channels; monstrous blocks of time listing all the events. Nothing useful. Probably just watch the OnDemand stuff after the fact. Though odds are I'll end up downloading torrents since they're professionally edited by someone who seems to care and not like the randomly clipped things being put out by NBC so far. Makes me wonder if there's even a human figuring out the starting and ending points for how some of the clips are cut.

2) Commercial breaks on the 3D channel are ridiculous. There must be five different commercials total; I was watching for maybe 30 minutes and saw the Jaws on Blu-ray trailer 3 times, two in the same break, and all the others twice. You want people to watch commercial breaks, then come on and stop being so completely stupid about it. I just hit record and I'll come back later and just skip the crap.

3) Use the damn digital audio capabilities and give us audio with none of your annoying announcers; people who want them could actually choose to listen to them. At the very least, educate your announcers to not be so repetitive and to shut up when there's nothing to say, not read from filler cue cards because they can't not hear themselves talk blah blah blah blah.


----------



## dtivouser

I just watched Archery on MSNBC... I think. Those arrow shooting devices hardly look like what we used in high school PE.


----------



## robojerk

It's 2012.
Technically it's possible that we could get any sport live or taped through VOD or streamed through a site like youtube. It's also technically possible for us to choose an audio source. Imagine choosing between NBC, BBC, Live (only sounds at the event, no commentator), etc... I kind of wish for the next Olympics that Google or Amazon buy the global streaming rights so we can do what I mentioned. _I left Apple out because Apple only streams to their own devices. Google and Amazon are more open._

I'm watching women's air rifle shooting right now.. The female commentator just keeps talking. I'm about to put it on mute.


----------



## jsmeeker

robojerk said:


> It's 2012.
> Technically it's possible that we could get any sport live or taped through VOD or streamed through a site like youtube. It's also technically possible for us to choose an audio source. Imagine choosing between NBC, BBC, Live (only sounds at the event, no commentator), etc... I kind of wish for the next Olympics that Google or Amazon buy the global streaming rights so we can do what I mentioned. _I left Apple out because Apple only streams to their own devices. Google and Amazon are more open._
> 
> I'm watching women's air rifle shooting right now.. The female commentator just keeps talking. I'm about to put it on mute.


you can stream everything and anything on-line from NBC's website. Every event. Every sport. Live. Or a replay. I am watching live badminton now. There is NO commentary at all. You can also stream the coverage on the NBC cable networks (but not NBC itself, it seems)


----------



## murgatroyd

dtivouser said:


> I just watched Archery on MSNBC... I think. Those arrow shooting devices hardly look like what we used in high school PE.


I doubt your high school's PE department had the budget for the gear they use in the Olympics. Mine certainly didn't.

My family didn't either.


----------



## RGM1138

Pretty spectacular opening.


Spoiler



I didn't think that Sir Paul would make it through Hey Jude, though. Not a very good sound mix.


----------



## mcb08

No need to use the spoiler tags for that.


----------



## LordKronos

The opening ceremony was a mix of good and bad. I hadn't set this to record ahead of time, and only caught the NBC broadcast just as it was entering the modern portion with all of the cell phone texting and social-network status popup. I thought that part was pertty terrible. I later downloaded the British broadcast version and watched the earlier part. Some of that was much better. I especially liked the whole conversion to the industrial age and forging of the olympic rings. 

One thing I absolutely disliked about the NBC broadcast was their disrespect for a few other countries. First, we may not be on good terms with North Korea, but that in no way justifies making a joke on the air about their former leader Kim Jong-il. Then they show Uruguay for a few seconds and then cut back to the United States. Was it really necessary to be that disrespectful just so we can see a few more US athletes taking cell phone videos of themselves?


----------



## pdhenry

jsmeeker said:


> you can stream everything and anything on-line from NBC's website. Every event. Every sport. Live. Or a replay. I am watching live badminton now. There is NO commentary at all. You can also stream the coverage on the NBC cable networks (but not NBC itself, it seems)


Not everyone can do this, even in the US. Not live, anyway. Only cable subscribers, and not limited basic.


----------



## Marco

I don't know about any of you, but I've already had enough Ryan Seacrest for one Olympic Games, and there're still 15 days to go.


----------



## morac

I hate the way NBC is handling things and I really hope their ratings suffer. Things that NBC did or is doing wrong:

1. Cutting away from opening ceremony to air commercials.
2. Inane and frequently clueless banter during opening ceremonies.
3. Cutting away from a tribute to victims of terrorism during the opening ceremonies to air a pre-taped Michael Phelps interview.
4. Delaying the airing of the Phelps v Lochte swim finals till evening, but announcing the results on the nightly news (prior to airing it).
5. The whole tape delay thing to begin with. This is 2012, not 1996.
6. Live streaming meltdown.

There's plenty of other examples, most on twitter tagged with the #nbcfail

Speaking of which:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olym...-ryan-locthe-michael-phelps-result/56565870/1
http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/07/nbc-fail.html

On a side note, the NBC Extra Live iOS app does allow you to watch live streams (assuming they work) of events assuming you know when they are happening live. It does require a subscription to cable, but it doesn't require logging in as it appears to detect when you access the app from a cable connection (at least it does for Xfinity). It remains logged in until you specifically log out, so if you have a friend that has cable, simply connect to their wireless router and launch the app and "log in". You can then go home and watch live (again assuming NBC's stream doesn't melt down again).


----------



## LoadStar

What live streaming meltdown? 

(BTW: the streams are on the whole *not* NBC's. They're the Olympic Broadcasting Service's, and being transmitted to you by YouTube.)


----------



## mike_k

morac said:


> On a side note, the NBC Extra Live iOS app does allow you to watch live streams (assuming they work) of events assuming you know when they are happening live. It does require a subscription to cable, but it doesn't require logging in as it appears to detect when you access the app from a cable connection (at least it does for Xfinity). It remains logged in until you specifically log out, so if you have a friend that has cable, simply connect to their wireless router and launch the app and "log in". You can then go home and watch live (again assuming NBC's stream doesn't melt down again).


I had to log in with my DirecTV id, but it remembers that login as well plus I was able to watch away from home.

I'm already annoyed at NBC's coverage. The only thing I watched today was the women's beach volleyball - the match with the top US team with May-Treanor/Walsh-Jennings. First game was close. And of course they interrupt the match with Costas welcoming John McEnroe to the team, then McEnroe interviewing Ryan Lochte. Not sure why they didn't show the interview during swimming coverage, but whatever. The part that bugs me even more is before and after the interview Costas and McEnroe are just chit-chatting about nothing. Then instead of returning to the match at the start of the second game, they return with the game almost over. It was very close as well. Let's ignore the sports so that we can listen to ourselves talk and show the world how clever our interviewers can be. Ugh.

I wish the NBC iPad app allowed me to connect to AppleTV (without having to mirror the iPad).


----------



## LoadStar

As for the tape delay thing: I don't have a problem with the way NBC is handling it this year. They are showing far more things live than they have for any other international Olympics to date. Yes, they are tape-delaying some stuff for prime-time, but that's so they are shown when the most people possible will be able to see them. For those who don't want to wait, NBC is pointing them to the online live streams. 

As far as I'm concerned, what they've come up with is really the best compromise possible. 

My biggest problem with this whole system is that they make available replays of events as soon as they complete - except for events they intend to show during prime-time. Those you have to watch live, or you have to wait until they come on TV during prime-time. That's kind of lame.


----------



## pdhenry

You have to be logged into your cable account to see live streaming. The NBC site checks my programming tier and blocks me. This is regardless of whether I'm connecting via my Xfinity ISP.

I'd be happy if I could find complete delayed coverage but all that I've found so far is highlights - e.g. a particular race/heat (featuring an American) rather than complete coverage of an event


----------



## Steveknj

Stephen Tu said:


> Plus, at least one of the rules he stated was incorrect, if anyone cares. (dashed line isn't an "extra points" line like a 3-pointer in basketball. It's the "free-throw" line, where teams get a free throw-in after minor violations.)
> 
> I've been a bit fascinated by handball ever since I first glimpsed it on the 1984 Olympics coverage, looks like it'd be fun to play. Wonder why it never caught on here. One of the 3 events the U.S. has never medalled in. Plus U.S. teams pretty much only get in the tournament under the "host nation" exception, so only played in L.A. and Atlanta. Before NBC expanded coverage to the many channels, they never showed it during the "we only care about American athletes" years.


I actually looked into playing handball some years ago as it looked like fun. But there were only 2 places in NJ that played and none were close. My daughter said they played it in gym class in school. That must have been way cool. That is one of my fav Olympics sports that I watch only during the Olympics


----------



## Steveknj

Marco said:


> I don't know about any of you, but I've already had enough Ryan Seacrest for one Olympic Games, and there're still 15 days to go.


Totally agree with this. He might be the worst interviewer in the history of interviewing, and that includes cavemen who's sole vocabulary was Ugga ugga.

He must be a free agent and not under contract by any network. He does AI for Fox, NYRE for ABC and not the Olympics for NBC. Ryan, not EVERYTHING is about pop culture..some of us just don't care.


----------



## Steveknj

I've decided there's only ONE sure thing about the Olympics. People complaining about NBCs coverage.

I really don't mind it. There's so much to watch I can always find something if there's an inane interview on. Yeah, some of the streaming was broken, but I bet that happens less and less as things go along.


----------



## Amnesia

I'm taping 3 different NBC channels and so far I've been able to keep up....things will probably change next week when I have to worry about work, though...


----------



## morac

LoadStar said:


> What live streaming meltdown?


http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/07/28/nbc-acknowledges-live-stream-problems-working-on-fix/



LoadStar said:


> (BTW: the streams are on the whole *not* NBC's. They're the Olympic Broadcasting Service's, and being transmitted to you by YouTube.)


As for not being NBC, I'm watching the Woman's Gymnastics prelims right now via the iPad app and there is commentary and ads, so it very much seems like it is NBC. I watched a replay of an event last night which did appear to be not from NBC since it was just video of the stands, but the main events appear to be coming from NBC.


----------



## LoadStar

morac said:


> As for not being NBC, I'm watching the Woman's Gymnastics prelims right now via the iPad app and there is commentary and ads, so it very much seems like it is NBC. I watched a replay of an event last night which did appear to be not from NBC since it was just video of the stands, but the main events appear to be coming from NBC.


I just checked out that specific stream, and I'm 99% certain that's the commentary from Olympic Broadcasting Service, not NBC. NBC has their normal team of Al Trautwig, Tim Daggett, and Elfi Schlegel, and I'm pretty sure that what we're hearing is none of those.

Some of the streams have "natural sound" only, while others give you a choice (in the lower left hand corner) of pool commentary in English, pool commentary in Spanish, and natural sound.

As for the ads, those are indeed sold by NBC, but auto-inserted into the pool feed by YouTube.


----------



## morac

pdhenry said:


> You have to be logged into your cable account to see live streaming. The NBC site checks my programming tier and blocks me. This is regardless of whether I'm connecting via my Xfinity ISP.
> 
> I'd be happy if I could find complete delayed coverage but all that I've found so far is highlights - e.g. a particular race/heat (featuring an American) rather than complete coverage of an event


http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Watch-olympics-streaming-free.html

Some of the above solutions are hokey and a bit unethical, but they work.


----------



## pdhenry

None of his solutions work without a VPN to a UK server. I guess that's what you mean about "hokey and a bit unethical."


----------



## cherry ghost

LoadStar said:


> Some of the streams have "natural sound" only, while others give you a choice (in the lower left hand corner) of pool commentary in English, pool commentary in Spanish, and natural sound.


Not seeing that option on the iPad app, just the NBC site


----------



## eaadams

It is driving me nuts that my CNBC tivo data on hd Comcast is not displaying any Olympic data.

Re handball, yes it isn't a sport in the USA. I sell a product used in the Olympics and the material for handball is for sale and I can't get any interest. I hope to have more luck with the volleyball material.


----------



## morac

I can't figure out NBC's rhyme or reason as to what they are showing. I turn on TV and I'm watching Gymanstics, 5 minutes later I'm watching volleyball and shortly afterwards Soccer. All that without having changed the channel. I guess that's why the guide data simply lists all the sports, instead of specific ones.

On a side note, it's times like these that I wish TiVo hadn't removed the filters from the guide. It makes it harder to see which channels are airing what as I have to page up and down.


----------



## jsmeeker

eaadams said:


> It is driving me nuts that my CNBC tivo data on hd Comcast is not displaying any Olympic data.
> 
> .


I;ll make it easy.

CNBC has the following sports

Boxing

That is all.


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> I;ll make it easy.
> 
> CNBC has the following sports
> 
> Boxing
> 
> That is all.


Yeah, that makes it really easy to avoid it.


----------



## jsmeeker

Bravo has the following sports


Tennis



That is all. 





Maria Sharapova is playing right now. LIVE.


----------



## dswallow

jsmeeker said:


> Maria Sharapova is playing right now. LIVE.


I'm certainly thankful they're not showing her playing dead.


----------



## morac

Apparently NBC has solved all the complaints/issues of tape delaying the Olympics. NBC nightly news will now put up a spoiler warning when announcing results that haven't aired on TV yet. 

http://www.apnews.com/ap/db_284370/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=sioMPTGw

I'll give him some credit, Jim Bell (NBC's Olympic Executive Producer) is responding to critics on Twitter.


----------



## DevdogAZ

For those complaining about the tape delay, you might as well give it up. The ratings for the first two nights have been spectacular. NBC paid 10x or more fire the US rights than what most of these other countries paid, and they have to get the most ad revenue they can. That means airing the marquee events in prime time.


----------



## jsmeeker

and yet, there is still plenty of stuff shown live live.


----------



## Amnesia

NBC is certainly getting a good way to show off their fall shows...


----------



## morac

DevdogAZ said:


> For those complaining about the tape delay, you might as well give it up. The ratings for the first two nights have been spectacular. NBC paid 10x or more fire the US rights than what most of these other countries paid, and they have to get the most ad revenue they can. That means airing the marquee events in prime time.


I wonder if that's why they are messing with the live streams. The two biggest complaints about them is they randomly cut to ads mid-event (i.e. NBC appears to be injecting ads into the YouTube streams) and that streams frequently fail.

http://consumerist.com/2012/07/less...-and-nbc-has-already-ticked-everyone-off.html

Also I'm curious as to who the people who are watching are the Prime time airings are, shut-ins? Considering the results were plastered all over the web and news prior to the airings, the only people who could possibly be watching are those without Internet access and who don't watch the news or people who read the end of books first.

I think this is another good example of why the outdated Nielsen rating model should be abolished. Maybe the U.S. should switch to the TV tax method used by the U.K. considering how much better coverage is on their BBC channels.


----------



## jsmeeker

I still watch stuff on TV in prime time because I like watching it on my TV. I'm not really actively looking for results too much

I DID watch the men's 400 IM race live, streaming on my laptop. So, I knew the results before watching it again on prime time on a real TV in HD.


----------



## TomK

I'm ok with watching the Olympics on NBC on delay as long as (1) John McEnroe (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have any of those cute 'up close and personal' stories or (2) I don't have to see any Ryan Seacrest fluff. I noticed there was about 5 minutes of Seacrest last night talking about twitter/social media crap.


----------



## vertigo235

NBC never learns, they make the spoiler mistake every 2 years when the broadcast the games, then they apologize and add the spoiler warning.


----------



## aindik

If you have TV through Comcast and Internet through Verizon, will the streaming work and if so which provider credentials would you use?


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> If you have TV through Comcast and Internet through Verizon, will the streaming work and if so which provider credentials would you use?


I guess I would try Comcast first. IF that did't work for some reason, I would use the Verizon credentials.


----------



## pdhenry

You have to sign in with your cable TV credentials so they can verify you have the appropriate TV channels in your subscription. The ISP you connect through doesn't matter.


----------



## Allanon

Seems the commentators for boxing don't want you to watch. The first 2 fights all they talked about was how the scoring was rigged and how they are now hiding the scores so they can tamper with them. They aired a boxing match from last Olympics showing how someone was robbed of a chance for a gold medal because of scoring. They then went on about how they only score punches from the outside boxers and inside boxers are at a disadvantage because they don't score their punches.

Also, one of the commentators, who sounds like a meat-head, wouldn't shut up about geometry and using angles. He made a stupid analogy at the start of the broadcast and keep referring to it. Also when the other commentator would ask him a question he would ignore him and go on about something completely different.

Needless to say I had to mute and watch without sound.


----------



## jsmeeker

controversy over the scoring systems used in Olympic boxing have been going on for a long long time. The guys may be meatheads, but they are basically right.


----------



## Allanon

jsmeeker said:


> controversy over the scoring systems used in Olympic boxing have been going on for a long long time. The guys may be meatheads, but they are basically right.


I understand the scoring system sucks but did they have to talk through 2 fights about it? They should have shown their clip from last Olympics and talked about the scoring before fighting started and then stuck to commentating during the fights. This is the fighters time to be in the spotlight and not have commentators talk over their fight about how the sport is rigged.


----------



## murgatroyd

Allanon said:


> I understand the scoring system sucks but did they have to talk through 2 fights about it? They should have shown their clip from last Olympics and talked about the scoring before fighting started and then stuck to commentating during the fights. This is the fighters time to be in the spotlight and not have commentators talk over their fight about how the sport is rigged.


In other words, the boxing commentary sucks just as badly as all the other sports.

I agree with you. When I am watching the Olympics, I want to see the event which is going on now. NBC spends so much time talking about the Olympics or other events which so-and-so did in the past, I wonder how we are supposed to acquire the memories of London they'll torture us with next time.


----------



## Cainebj

morac said:


> Also I'm curious as to who the people who are watching are the Prime time airings are, shut-ins?


uh - that would be me and no, i'm not a shut in.

not everyone is SOOOO wrapped up in The Olympics that they have to watch it streaming live in multiple sources.
I was quite happy to watch live last night - even though I hate spoilers I still found the Lochte Phelps race exciting - including that fact that even though I knew Phelps lost halfway through the race I was trying to figure out how he was going to place 4th.

Men's gymnastics - why would I bother going online to seek out who did what? Wouldn't even occur to me.

as far as the coverage - 
I am enjoying but miffed NBC cut out one segment of the opening ceremonies to air an interview. It reminds me of the airing of the Queen's Jubilee Concert where they cut all the interesting acts out and just showed the headliners.

the fluff pieces - well hello - that's how they get you invested in athletes - I could have cared less about the american gymnast from the Bronx until I watched his piece last night and now i'm rooting for him. I also thought the Phelps interview with his Mom and sisters was endearing.


----------



## murgatroyd

If you go to this page on NBC Olympics.com

Get local listings

There is a handy "Watch on TV" box on the right hand side of the page which allows you to scroll through all the networks. For instance, right now I see this:


> On KNTV Now: Men's Water Polo: USA vs. MNE
> Men: USA versus Montenegro
> 
> On NBCSN Now :Men's Basketball: ARG vs. LTU
> Men: Argentina versus Lithuania
> 
> Coming up on MSNBC: 6:00a PT (7/30)
> Multiple Sports
> A qualifying-round women's Basketball game, plus finals in Weightlifting, and more.
> 
> Coming up on CNBC: 12:00a PT (7/30)
> Boxing
> Featured bouts from July 29 action.
> 
> Coming up on BRAVO: 4:00a PT (7/30)
> Tennis
> Opening rounds continue from the All England Club, including men's and women's second-round singles play.
> 
> On Specialty Soccer Now
> Men's Group D: JPN vs. MAR
> Japan versus Morocco.
> 
> On Specialty Basketball Now
> Men's Group A: ARG vs. LTU
> Argentina versus Lithuania.
> 
> Coming up on TELEMUNDO: 12:00a PT (7/30)
> Review
> A look back at highlights from action on July 29


Not bad, huh? So what's the problem?

Immediately ABOVE this box is a similar-sized box with TOP HEADLINES, so if you don't want spoilers, you have to hide that box with your hand while you set your local preferences or until you can scroll down and only have the "Watch TV now" box on screen.

CLUELESS!


----------



## murgatroyd

morac said:


> Also I'm curious as to who the people who are watching are the Prime time airings are, shut-ins? Considering the results were plastered all over the web and news prior to the airings, *the only people who could possibly be watching are those without Internet access and who don't watch the news or people who read the end of books first. *


Oh, really?

I wasn't watching the events which are being held for the prime time show because I am channel-flipping between three channels during the day trying to watch other sports which are not going to show up on prime time. When I go to watch streaming anything, I'm streaming something like archery that I missed because I screwed up my recording.

There are eight different channels running stuff, and few of us have that many tuners or enough hard disk space to record everything everywhere just in case.

In short, your comments are just as clueless as NBC is.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> In other words, the boxing commentary sucks just as badly as all the other sports.
> 
> I agree with you. When I am watching the Olympics, I want to see the event which is going on now. NBC spends so much time talking about the Olympics or other events which so-and-so did in the past, I wonder how we are supposed to acquire the memories of London they'll torture us with next time.


I have watched some of the stuff that is streaming and includes commentary. It's NOT NBC people. They are British, but I am not sure if they are BBC or if it's some pool coverage.

They yammer on as much as the 'Mercians.


----------



## vertigo235

Why the sense of entitlement that everyone should be able to watch the Olympics free and clear? If you're a cord cutter, then own it and watch only what is available on NBC with OTA antenna, or watch it through other means (there are ways) without complaining.

I don't get it.


----------



## jsmeeker

Cainebj said:


> the fluff pieces - well hello - that's how they get you invested in athletes - I could have cared less about the american gymnast from the Bronx until I watched his piece last night and now i'm rooting for him. I also thought the Phelps interview with his Mom and sisters was endearing.


A fluff piece i liked was about the 1948 Olympics. They were held in London. They talked about the challenges the city had putting on the games. How teams had to bring their own towels. How various countries contributed by brining fruit or eggs or wine. They interviewed members from 1948 Team USA. I thought it was cool. One of the basketball players from that team will be at the Olympics as part of the official delegation. Invited by Coach K. IMHO, that will be something nice for Lebron and Kobe and Mello and the rest. I bet they will relish his perspective on things.


----------



## vertigo235

Cainebj said:


> uh - that would be me and no, i'm not a shut in.
> 
> not everyone is SOOOO wrapped up in The Olympics that they have to watch it streaming live in multiple sources.
> I was quite happy to watch live last night - even though I hate spoilers I still found the Lochte Phelps race exciting - including that fact that even though I knew Phelps lost halfway through the race I was trying to figure out how he was going to place 4th.
> 
> Men's gymnastics - why would I bother going online to seek out who did what? Wouldn't even occur to me.
> 
> as far as the coverage -
> I am enjoying but miffed NBC cut out one segment of the opening ceremonies to air an interview. It reminds me of the airing of the Queen's Jubilee Concert where they cut all the interesting acts out and just showed the headliners.
> 
> the fluff pieces - well hello - that's how they get you invested in athletes - I could have cared less about the american gymnast from the Bronx until I watched his piece last night and now i'm rooting for him. I also thought the Phelps interview with his Mom and sisters was endearing.


I agree, while I reserve the right to roll my eyes, I actually enjoy most of the pieces. It lets me know more about the athletes. I can always fast forward if I find it boring.

Also, while it's nice to watch the live stuff, I actually enjoy the summarized format that they are showing in prime time too.


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> Not BBC. They are commentators for the Olympic Broadcasting Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of the IOC.


I suppose this is what countries that don't have the resources to do their own coverage use?


----------



## LoadStar

Not BBC. They are commentators for the Olympic Broadcasting Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of the IOC.


----------



## LoadStar

jsmeeker said:


> I suppose this is what countries that don't have the resources to do their own coverage use?


Well, everyone, even those with resources, uses the OBS world feed for their coverage. Those with resources will add in additional cameras, hosts, etc., but it will be integrated with the world feed.

But yes, I imagine you may be right about the OBS commentary.


----------



## Allanon

vertigo235 said:


> Why the sense of entitlement that everyone should be able to watch the Olympics free and clear? If you're a cord cutter, then own it and watch only what is available on NBC with OTA antenna, or watch it through other means (there are ways) without complaining.
> 
> I don't get it.


Because the Olympics are streaming all the events free of charge on YouTube to countries that don't have a TV contract with the Olympics such as some African and Asia countries. Why can't the rest of the world get the same treatment?


----------



## TriBruin

So now Smeek can quote posts before they happen?


----------



## LoadStar

TriBruin said:


> So now Smeek can quote posts before they happen?


 He caught me in a ninja edit, so I ended up just re-posting it as he quoted.


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> Well, everyone, even those with resources, uses the OBS world feed for their coverage. Those with resources will add in additional cameras, hosts, etc., but it will be integrated with the world feed.
> 
> But yes, I imagine you may be right about the OBS commentary.


yeah. I was talking primarily about the commentators.

But some countries will have some number of their own camera. After all, NBC would't be able to do interview poolside or court side or whatever without them. They can also focus in on Americans when they are marching into the stadium, getting ready for a race, etc. etc. Obviously, not EVERYONE sees the exact same video feed 100% of the time.


----------



## jsmeeker

TriBruin said:


> So now Smeek can quote posts before they happen?





LoadStar said:


> He caught me in a ninja edit, so I ended up just re-posting it as he quoted.


LOL

I came >>>.<<< close to posting my replay a second time.. Just to keep up appearances.


----------



## pdhenry

vertigo235 said:


> Why the sense of entitlement that everyone should be able to watch the Olympics free and clear? If you're a cord cutter, then own it and watch only what is available on NBC with OTA antenna, or watch it through other means (there are ways) without complaining.
> 
> I don't get it.


NBC saying that the would be "streaming every event live" is disingenuous without the asterisk, I guess. I didn't know I would be excluded from the streaming until I tried to connect on Friday.

It's not about entitlement as much a feeling that I've been bait-and-switched a bit.

Almost all of the weeknight coverage is only on NBC, so I won't be eating my heart out too badly.


----------



## vertigo235

Well obviously the real reason is that NBC paid a bunch of money for the rights to provide the Olympics to the USA, they are trying to recover that expense.

Really sucks living in a capitalist county huh?


----------



## vertigo235

Allanon said:


> Because the Olympics are streaming all the events free of charge on YouTube to countries that don't have a TV contract with the Olympics such as some African and Asia countries. Why can't the rest of the world get the same treatment?


You answered your own question, because NBC paid a bunch of money for a TV contract with the IOC. That's why we don't get the same treatment.


----------



## Allanon

vertigo235 said:


> You answered your own question, because NBC paid a bunch of money for a TV contract with the IOC. That's why we don't get the same treatment.


I know why it's the way it is but the reason people feel entitle is because others are getting their streaming for free. And just because a major network purchased the rights in the USA we don't get the stream for free, we have to watch the Olympic the was NBC decides.

Also, here is the opening ceremony tribute to terrorism victims NBC didn't want you to see:

http://deadspin.com/5929778/


----------



## vertigo235

Allanon said:


> I know why it's the way it is but the reason people feel entitle is because others are getting their streaming for free. And just because a major network purchased the rights in the USA we don't get the stream for free, we have to watch the Olympic the was NBC decides.
> 
> Also, here is the opening ceremony tribute to terrorism victims NBC didn't want you to see:
> 
> http://deadspin.com/5929778/


 What on earth do you think they paid for? Only the right to show it on TV?

That would be pretty bad faith for the IOC to sell something for that kind of money and then stream the whole thing for free, don't you think?


----------



## S3-2501

vertigo235 said:


> Why the sense of entitlement that everyone should be able to watch the Olympics free and clear?


 Because at least in theory the Olympics are an event for everyone in the spirit of global community and healthy and fair competition. They're not (at least in spirit) purely a for profit event like professional sports leagues.

The US team represents all Americans regardless of how they receive their TV content, and it just seems wrong that only those who can afford cable or satellite rates get to view every event and have access to the full Olympic experience that modern technology can provide.

Obviously there's too much content for a single broadcast network to air everything, but there's no reason NBC couldn't allow everyone in the US access to all the non-boradcast content online. I don't care if they pad the online content with lots of ads to ensure revenue, but the whole experience should at least be available to everyone in the spirit of the games IMHO.


----------



## vertigo235

NBC apparently paid 4.8 billion dollars to broadcast the Olympics at the next 4 events. 

That's what gives them the right to determine how they want to show it.


----------



## vertigo235

S3-2501 said:


> Because at least in theory the Olympics are an event for everyone in the spirit of global community and healthy and fair competition. They're not (at least in spirit) purely a for profit event like professional sports leagues.
> 
> The US team represents all Americans regardless of how they receive their TV content, and it just seems wrong that only those who can afford cable or satellite rates get to view every event and have access to the full Olympic experience that modern technology can provide.
> 
> Obviously there's too much content for a single broadcast network to air everything, but there's no reason NBC couldn't allow everyone in the US access to all the non-boradcast content online. I don't care if they pad the online content with lots ads to ensure revenue, but the whole experience should at least be available to everyone in the spirit of the games IMHO.


Then your beef should be with the IOC, not NBC.


----------



## vertigo235

The funny thing about it is, the IOC probably took that 4.8 billion dollars and used it to create the broadcast pool that all the countries use, even the ones without a contract


----------



## murgatroyd

I don't mind the ads on the streaming content, but it would be nicer if the audio in the ads was at the same volume as the rest of the stream. 

I can't hear the venue sound very well, so I tried to turn up the volume. When the ads come on, they are at full volume. If you're listening with headphones or earbuds it is deafening. 

And as others have said, it's annoying to have the ads dropped in randomly with no regard to what's happening in the stream. For archery, it's not so bad, but I'd hate to be watching swimming or track and have the ad show up in the middle of a race.


----------



## S3-2501

vertigo235 said:


> Then your beef should be with the IOC, not NBC.


 You're probably right, though I blame both. I find it hard to believe that NBC couldn't have struck a deal to allow everyone in the US access to streaming content if they wanted to do so. Since they're now owned by a cable company, preserving the spirit of the games by giving everyone in the US access to streaming content is not likely to be a priority for NBC.

Both the IOC and NBC should realize that restricting access can only diminish the impact and relevance of the Olympics in the modern world, hurting both the IOC and NBC in the long term.


----------



## morac

murgatroyd said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> I wasn't watching the events which are being held for the prime time show because I am channel-flipping between three channels during the day trying to watch other sports which are not going to show up on prime time. When I go to watch streaming anything, I'm streaming something like archery that I missed because I screwed up my recording.
> 
> There are eight different channels running stuff, and few of us have that many tuners or enough hard disk space to record everything everywhere just in case.
> 
> In short, your comments are just as clueless as NBC is.


My point was that it's nearly impossible to avoid spoilers before NBC airs the events in Primetime. Very few people can avoid spoilers, unless you don't hang out with people, never look on Twitter or Facebook or don't watch TV any other time during the day. It would be like posting the final score of the Superbowl, right before airing it.

If you enjoy watching sporting events, already knowing the outcome that's your prerogative. I would assume most people don't.


----------



## LoadStar

murgatroyd said:


> I don't mind the ads on the streaming content, but it would be nicer if the audio in the ads was at the same volume as the rest of the stream.
> 
> I can't hear the venue sound very well, so I tried to turn up the volume. When the ads come on, they are at full volume. If you're listening with headphones or earbuds it is deafening.
> 
> And as others have said, it's annoying to have the ads dropped in randomly with no regard to what's happening in the stream. For archery, it's not so bad, but I'd hate to be watching swimming or track and have the ad show up in the middle of a race.


FWIW, I have Chrome and have AdBlock installed, and in the handful of streams I've watched, I have not seen any ads. AdBlock must be blocking the ad insertion. I hadn't even realized they had ads inserted until I watched it on another computer.


----------



## LoadStar

morac said:


> My point was that it's nearly impossible to avoid spoilers before NBC airs the events in Primetime. Very few people can avoid spoilers, unless you don't hang out with people, never look on Twitter or Facebook or don't watch TV any other time during the day. It would be like posting the final score of the Superbowl, right before airing it.
> 
> If you enjoy watching sporting events, already knowing the outcome that's your prerogative. I would assume most people don't.


I haven't found it hard at all to avoid spoilers. I just don't watch the news and avoid news sites (and NBCOlympics.com) online.


----------



## DavidTigerFan

This year is just useless. I won't even bother to watch the crap because any news site I go to has the results of the day proudly posted across the screen. Loadstar do you really expect everyone to not go to any news site throughout the entire day?


----------



## LoadStar

DavidTigerFan said:


> This year is just useless. I won't even bother to watch the crap because any news site I go to has the results of the day proudly posted across the screen. Loadstar do you really expect everyone to not go to any news site throughout the entire day?


*shrug* Doesn't seem that onerous to me, but perhaps that's just me. I have plenty of other sites I can go to that don't have any Olympic news.


----------



## jsmeeker

If you are serious about avoiding spoilers until NBC actually airs it on an NBC TV network/station, you CAN avoid it. But you have to pretty much commit to ONLY watching on NBC TV networks. Want to watch something via streaming? There is a good chance you'll get spoiled just getting to the streaming content. The later in the day, the easier it is to have happen.

Also, you can't realistically expect CNN, EPSN, etc. to NOT talk about what has already happened and is in the record books.


----------



## LoadStar

jsmeeker said:


> If you are serious about avoiding spoilers until NBC actually airs it on an NBC TV network/station, you CAN avoid it. But you have to pretty much commit to ONLY watching on NBC TV networks.


I don't think even this is true. I've been watching various TV channels all day, and I still have no idea how the prime-time events tonight went.


> Want to watch something via streaming? There is a good chance you'll get spoiled just getting to the streaming content. The later in the day, the easier it is to have happen.


I agree, the fact that you can't go through NBCOlympics to get to the streaming without seeing plenty of results plastered on the front page is incredibly stupid. While I understand that NBCOlympics.com is also supposed to be a results news page, it'd be nice then if they had a separate portal for streaming. (I could swear that they did for previous Olympics.)


> Also, you can't realistically expect CNN, EPSN, etc. to NOT talk about what has already happened and is in the record books.


I would agree, but again, I don't think it's hard at all to avoid these channels/websites.


----------



## murgatroyd

morac said:


> My point was that it's nearly impossible to avoid spoilers before NBC airs the events in Primetime. Very few people can avoid spoilers, unless you don't hang out with people, never look on Twitter or Facebook or don't watch TV any other time during the day. It would be like posting the final score of the Superbowl, right before airing it.
> 
> If you enjoy watching sporting events, already knowing the outcome that's your prerogative. I would assume most people don't.


No, I hate spoilers, and I go out of my way to avoid them. I don't get on Facebook or Twitter or other sites.

My point is, my local TV stations at least try to put up spoiler warnings. For late-night basketball games that were due to air after the newscast was over, the CBS station here used to put music on and put the results on the screen for thirty seconds or so, advising you to look away from the TV until the music was over.

The NBC station just now told me to mute the TV if I didn't want to hear the outcome, and gave a running time for how long to not listen, but then the graphics people put stuff on the screen that was a spoiler. Of the two approaches, I think the former method makes the most sense. Not everyone is going to have a watch or clock nearby so they can tell how long to look away.

But at least the local station tried to put up a spoiler warning. NBC national news not doing any warning is completely lame, and it's ridiculous to have to go past a block of headlines to get to a gadget that shows you what's on air right now.

It's also annoying to be switching back and forth between two of the cable channels at once and have NBC spoiling the events that are happening on the other channels. Even if they want to pretend we don't have DVRs, don't they get it that we might want to watch the stream later? Apparently not.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> NBC national news not doing any warning is completely lame.


They did tonight. They displayed the spoilers as graphics, without any one reading them. Brian Williams gave ample warning for people to look away.

The local NBC affiliate in Dallas gave a warning, big then had audio spoilers to go along with the video.


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> I don't think even this is true. I've been watching various TV channels all day, and I still have no idea how the prime-time events tonight went.
> .


Sorry. I mean specifically about Olympics themselves.

Yes, I suspect you could watch FoodTV or Spike or AMC and have an expectation not to get spoiled.


----------



## LoadStar

jsmeeker said:


> Sorry. I mean specifically about Olympics themselves.
> 
> Yes, I suspect you could watch FoodTV or Spike or AMC and have an expectation not to get spoiled.


Oh, ok, that's fair.

I guess I honestly don't understand why the tape delay is such a big issue this year. I mean, I could understand the debate coming up if the Olympics were in one of the time zones shared by the continental US, and they still delayed. They've done that in the past, and that's worth complaining about.

But come on... you honestly can't expect them NOT to show Olympics in prime time. If that's what you expect, you're deluding yourself. And since prime time US occurs in the middle of the night London time, that means tape delay.

Plus - the other part I don't get. This is a TiVo board, and I'd guess that the vast majority of people have DVRs of some sort. This should be the audience of people MOST used to finding ways to avoid spoilers. I don't get how suddenly it's so onerous to do so with the Olympics. (Again, assuming you avoid watching the streams online, or find a way to get to the streams without going through NBCOlympics' front page.)


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> ]
> 
> But come on... you honestly can't expect them NOT to show Olympics in prime time. If that's what you expect, you're deluding yourself. And since prime time US occurs in the middle of the night London time, that means tape delay.


I suspect some people expect just that. That NBC should never air anything via 'tape' delay. Ever. They like to mention how much better other countries do it.

Does Canada seriously not air any olympic coverage during the hours of 6 or 7 pm to about 10:00 or 11:00 PM?


----------



## morac

LoadStar said:


> I guess I honestly don't understand why the tape delay is such a big issue this year. I mean, I could understand the debate coming up if the Olympics were in one of the time zones shared by the continental US, and they still delayed. They've done that in the past, and that's worth complaining about.
> 
> But come on... you honestly can't expect them NOT to show Olympics in prime time. If that's what you expect, you're deluding yourself. And since prime time US occurs in the middle of the night London time, that means tape delay.


This year is more of an issue because of the proliferation of mobile technology. Even if you yourself don't have a smartphone or don't use Facebook/Twitter/etc, it's extremely likely someone in your relevant vicinity will have these and may be talking about the results. It very much reminds me of the time when few people had DVRs (or even knew what they were) and I had to try very hard to avoid people at my workplace spoiling shows for me the next day if I didn't watch a program the same night. Now many people have DVRs so it's not unexpected that someone hasn't watched a program yet. That's called progression. NBC is living in the past expecting people to avoid all news sites, Twitter, Facebook and friends until NBC deems it the proper time to air events (hence my previous shut-in comment). I'd go as far to say "prime time" itself is irrelevant these days.

I don't think anyone's asking NBC not to air special events during prime time. What people are asking is to air special events, that air during the day, live. NBC can then feel free to repeat then in prime time for people who didn't want to or couldn't watch live. Of course this could possibly hurt NBC's rating (which affect ad revenue) so they won't do that.


----------



## LoadStar

morac said:


> I don't think anyone's asking NBC not to air special events during prime time. What people are asking is to air special events, that air during the day, live. NBC can then feel free to repeat then in prime time for people who didn't want to or couldn't watch live. Of course this could possibly hurt NBC's rating (which affect ad revenue) so they won't do that.


They air them online, for those who want to watch them live. They then repeat them in prime time for those who want to watch them then. As I said before, this seems like a reasonable compromise.

With as many events as there are, I doubt NBC would have *time* to show them live on TV, and again during prime time. They would be forced to bump something else. I mean, they had so many events to show, they had to create two dedicated channels for basketball and soccer. They're pretty much showing Olympic events from the beginning to the end of the day.


----------



## tiams

Fellow cord cutters, I was reading the comments on a page linked above and found this very interesting:

This won't get you live coverage, but it will get you legal NBC coverage on your home TV...
The broadcast industry does not want Americans to know this, but they are legally obligated to provide the free "over the air" stations on cable (coax) even if you do not pay for cable service. In other words, do what I have done:
1. You need a modern cable-ready TV
2. Plug the coax into the wall (assumes your residence had cable installation at one point).
3. Plug other end of coax into your TV.
4. Scan for channels.
5. Voila: CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, and more.

Yes, it's that simple. And this is NOT using the coax as an RF antenna. This is the cable company providing me with what I am legally entitled to: over the air stations in a digital age.

The cable companies are trying to fight this, but as of now, it exists. It's legal. And it works. My son's watching PBS Kids as I type. And we watched many Olympic events through-out the day today - OK, not live, but still I DO NOT PAY FOR TV.

Broadcast TV is free, as in the over-the-air TV that was the only option when I was a kid. The FCC has stated that cable operators can not encrypt the QAM signal of broadcast TV channels on their systems. And so, if you're connected to their system, and your equipment (TV) is compatible, you'll get the broadcast TV channel line-up.

http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Watch-olympics-streaming-free.html


----------



## vertigo235

tiams said:


> Fellow cord cutters, I was reading the comments on a page linked above and found this very interesting:
> 
> This won't get you live coverage, but it will get you legal NBC coverage on your home TV...
> The broadcast industry does not want Americans to know this, but they are legally obligated to provide the free "over the air" stations on cable (coax) even if you do not pay for cable service. In other words, do what I have done:
> 1. You need a modern cable-ready TV
> 2. Plug the coax into the wall (assumes your residence had cable installation at one point).
> 3. Plug other end of coax into your TV.
> 4. Scan for channels.
> 5. Voila: CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, and more.
> 
> Yes, it's that simple. And this is NOT using the coax as an RF antenna. This is the cable company providing me with what I am legally entitled to: over the air stations in a digital age.
> 
> The cable companies are trying to fight this, but as of now, it exists. It's legal. And it works. My son's watching PBS Kids as I type. And we watched many Olympic events through-out the day today - OK, not live, but still I DO NOT PAY FOR TV.
> 
> Broadcast TV is free, as in the over-the-air TV that was the only option when I was a kid. The FCC has stated that cable operators can not encrypt the QAM signal of broadcast TV channels on their systems. And so, if you're connected to their system, and your equipment (TV) is compatible, you'll get the broadcast TV channel line-up.
> 
> http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Watch-olympics-streaming-free.html


That's true, but only if you have cable to your house, like if you have a cable modem or what not. And even then, you'll have to run it to your TV yourself because they tend to only run it to your modem when they install it.


----------



## cherry ghost

LoadStar said:


> I agree, the fact that you can't go through NBCOlympics to get to the streaming without seeing plenty of results plastered on the front page is incredibly stupid. While I understand that NBCOlympics.com is also supposed to be a results news page, it'd be nice then if they had a separate portal for streaming. (I could swear that they did for previous Olympics.)


Just go straight to Live Extra


----------



## lpwcomp

tiams said:


> Yes, it's that simple. And this is NOT using the coax as an RF antenna. This is the cable company providing me with what I am legally entitled to: over the air stations in a digital age.


You are not legally entitled to anything free from the cable co. If you have cable internet or phone, they could legally put a filter on your line to prevent reception of TV signals. If you were to remove it, you would be guilty of theft of service.

If you have no cable services at all, they could legally remove the attachment to your house. If you were to reattach it, you would be guilty of theft of service.

OTA TV is free. Cable is not. What the current FCC regulations require is they not encrypt local broadcast channels delivered to _* subscribers*_. You are correct in that they are seeking to get this rule rescinded. Their excuse? - prevention of theft of service. I happen to think it is a bogus excuse but people like you who think they are entitled to "free" TV delivered via cable definitely bolster their case.


----------



## cmontyburns

It's just petty of NBC not to stream to viewers who do not pay for TV reception, pure and simple. That said, they do have a "guest pass" feature that allows you to watch for four-hours at a time (I think) without authentication, so even us cord-cutters are not completely shut out.

As for NBC's tape delay, I can't argue with them for doing it. I certainly enjoy hitting the couch in the evening for a few hours of Olympic coverage, and judging by the ratings, I am not alone. I take issue more with other news organizations, actually, for not doing a better job of separating their Olympic reporting from other news. Of course they need to report what happens as it occurs, but does the NY Times, for example, really need to put the stuff on its home page, and at the top? Why not link to all Olympic reporting on a secondary page, linked prominently from the home page? All that the Times, ESPN, and other news sites do by not doing this is ensure they get no traffic at all from me from about noon onwards everyday. Bad for them and annoying for me.


----------



## tiams

lpwcomp said:


> but people like you who think they are entitled to "free" TV delivered via cable definitely bolster their case.


As I said, this was what someone posted in the comments, not my words. Personally, I have an antenna to pick up free tv. I never had cable; I had satellite.

Let's say someone had cable TV at one time but no longer does. What difference does it make to the cable company if they leave the coax attached to their TV as opposed to leaving it laying loose on the floor?


----------



## lpwcomp

tiams said:


> As I said, this was what someone posted in the comments, not my words. Personally, I have an antenna to pick up free tv. I never had cable; I had satellite.


My apologies. I'm a bit tired and didn't notice you were quoting something since you failed to mark it as a quote. Not an excuse for writing what I did, just an explanation.



tiams said:


> Let's say someone had cable TV at one time but no longer does. What difference does it make to the cable company if they leave the coax attached to their TV as opposed to leaving it laying loose on the floor?


None, and I have no argument with anyone who does so and, IMHO, they wouldn't be guilty of anything and the cable co could not force them to disconnect it. My problem was that the passage you quoted more or less stated that the cable cos are _*required*_ to provide some level of free service.


----------



## morac

cmontyburns said:


> As for NBC's tape delay, I can't argue with them for doing it. I certainly enjoy hitting the couch in the evening for a few hours of Olympic coverage, and judging by the ratings, I am not alone. I take issue more with other news organizations, actually, for not doing a better job of separating their Olympic reporting from other news. Of course they need to report what happens as it occurs, but does the NY Times, for example, really need to put the stuff on its home page, and at the top? Why not link to all Olympic reporting on a secondary page, linked prominently from the home page? All that the Times, ESPN, and other news sites do by not doing this is ensure they get no traffic at all from me from about noon onwards everyday. Bad for them and annoying for me.


I can't really fault other news organization for reporting on "news" as it has already happened. The world isn't placed on hold, just because NBC believes it should be. I can fault NBC for reporting on events they haven't aired yet, but it sounds like they are now at least giving spoiler warnings.


----------



## morac

lpwcomp said:


> None, and I have no argument with anyone who does so and, IMHO, they wouldn't be guilty of anything and the cable co could not force them to disconnect it. My problem was that the passage you quoted more or less stated that the cable cos are required to provide some level of free service.


While that passage wasn't technically correct, from a logistics standpoint it kind of is. Most cable companies add a surcharge to their Internet service (or take away a discount depending on your perspective) for people who don't subscribe to TV. The extra amount usually equals the cost of limited basic with the presumption that people will watch it anyway.


----------



## Boot

LoadStar said:


> I haven't been able to find another source that specifically says they'll be in NY.
> 
> However, NBC's press release announcing their broadcasting lineup lists specific people that will be in London, which seems to imply that at least some of those NOT listed as being in London will be elsewhere:
> http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/...s/2012/06/28/nbcannouncestal1340907544308.xml


You'd think somebody would have proofread this:


> · Bela Karolyi, arguably the most successful coach in gymnastics history, is one of his sports most-recognized personalities. He has coached and trained world-renowned gymnasts for the Olympic Games from 1976-2004, and returns to NBC as an Olympic correspondent, the same roll he filled during the Beijing Olympics.


----------



## Steveknj

I have managed to avoid spoilers over the weekend, but I think it will be harder during the week with coworkers and others perhaps spilling the beans. I will avoid my yahoo agrigator, I will listen to my iPod in the car. It's not really impossible, just difficult. And if I'm spoiled? Life will go on. I'll still watch to see how it all went down. When I lived in AZ during the winter of 1980, I had already KNOWN the outcome of the famous USA-USSR hockey game before I watched it. It was no less thrilling to see how it happened. 

Last night, while watching the NBC coverage, I flipped to ESPN to watch the Yankees-Red Sox from time to time, and I had to put up the DirecTV mini guide to avoid the scroll on the bottom of the screen and get spoiled. It was doable (BTW---ESPN, why do you have to have a constant scroll on the bottom of the screen. Once every 15 minutes would enough. I find it horrible distracting from whatever I'm watching. One more reason to hate ESPN)


----------



## pdhenry

If you have cable internet without TV the monthly price of the Internet service is increased by an amount more or less equal to the price of Limited Basic cable. With equipment discounts I actually pay less to have Limited Basic than to have no TV service in my subscription.

So in actuality, Internet-only subscribers *are* paying for the TV signals that are delivered in the clear over their coax.

(Or what *morac *said.)

But to say that anyone is entitled to something free from the cable comapny is just crazy talk.


----------



## vertigo235

pdhenry said:


> If you have cable internet without TV the monthly price of the Internet service is increased by an amount more or less equal to the price of Limited Basic cable. With equipment discounts I actually pay less to have Limited Basic than to have no TV service in my subscription.
> 
> So in actuality, Internet-only subscribers are paying for the TV signals that are delivered in the clear over their coax.
> 
> (Or what morac said.)
> 
> But to say that anyone is entitled to something free from the cable comapny is just crazy talk.


Not true here.


----------



## Boot

Steveknj said:


> (BTW---ESPN, why do you have to have a constant scroll on the bottom of the screen. Once every 15 minutes would enough. I find it horrible distracting from whatever I'm watching. One more reason to hate ESPN)


At this point it's basically part of their branding. It makes their channel instantly recognizable.


----------



## Steveknj

Boot said:


> At this point it's basically part of their branding. It makes their channel instantly recognizable.


As opposed to the 3 or 4 other places that have the ESPN logo splashed across the screen.


----------



## cmontyburns

morac said:


> I can't really fault other news organization for reporting on "news" as it has already happened. The world isn't placed on hold, just because NBC believes it should be.


Yes, and I said as much. They have to report the news. But they know what the US broadcast strategy is, and so they could at least report the news in a way that acknowledges that a huge number of people want to wait for the broadcast to see the results. That is, don't splash results in a completely unavoidable fashion all over your homepage.


----------



## pdhenry

vertigo235 said:


> Not true here.


What provider? I verified this with my local Comcast office within the last couple of months when i downgraded cable rather than dumping it entirely.


----------



## Marco

cmontyburns said:


> Yes, and I said as much. They have to report the news. But they know what the US broadcast strategy is, and so they could at least report the news in a way that acknowledges that a huge number of people want to wait for the broadcast to see the results. That is, don't splash results in a completely unavoidable fashion all over your homepage.


It's not the "US" broadcast strategy. It's NBC's broadcast strategy. NBC is a *competitor *of the other journalism organizations. First rule of competition is, of course, eff your competitors.

Furthermore, to everybody else, Olympic results are actually news. To NBC, they are more like reality TV.


----------



## vertigo235

pdhenry said:


> What provider? I verified this with my local Comcast office within the last couple of months when i downgraded cable rather than dumping it entirely.


TWC


----------



## aindik

The streaming is weird. There's an event that's on NBCSN live. Yesterday it was the USA basketball game. If I go to the streaming app on my iPad, and tell it I want to watch the basketball game, I get the un-altered Olympic feed with no announcers. However, if I scroll down to "channels" and choose the NBCSN simulcast, then I get the "NBC-ized" event with their announcers, sideline reports, etc. I guess choice is good, but it's kind of weird that they would put the unvarnished coverage up at all and not make the NBC version the exclusive version when it exists. It's also a bit cumbersome to find the version with announcers if that's what you want. You kind of have to know what channel the event is on.

Also, I don't see a 24/7 live stream simulcast for the soccer channel or the basketball channel. Which means if I want to watch those events online, I can't have announcers unless the event is also on one of their "regular" channels (NBCSN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, etc.).


----------



## robojerk

DelsCoode said:


> npyxlwwqh
> p21 io/13p1 ??? ??
> kuya me/zkfht coach
> ****o ph/43 ??? coach
> rabautz de/4l ??? coach
> rwj me/ds ??? ???
> 
> zmoqkcnni
> ?????????
> ??? ??
> ??????
> coach
> ???


Really?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Reported to a mod.


----------



## NYHeel

You can avoid the spoilers if you try. I like to watch stuff on my time and without spoilers. Even if stuff was on live I'd be watching it during primetime because I have a Tivo and I work during the day.

I watch a lot of sports delayed as well like NFL games and college basketball games. Sure you have to avoid the internet and certain people but it's worth it because when I watch it later it's live to me.

I have absolutely no issue with NBC's coverage so far. If you want to watch the even it's available somewhere.

Quick questions, what's the deal with the 3D channel. THey have about 9 hours of coverage starting at like 9:00 AM. Is that a repeat of the night before from Primetime? If so, primetime is only about 4 hours. What's the other 5 hours covering?


----------



## lpwcomp

morac said:


> While that passage wasn't technically correct, from a logistics standpoint it kind of is. Most cable companies add a surcharge to their Internet service (or take away a discount depending on your perspective) for people who don't subscribe to TV. The extra amount usually equals the cost of limited basic with the presumption that people will watch it anyway.


I was specifically talking about the reference to a non-existent FCC _*requirement*_ that Cable cos make local broadcast channels available for free to anyone who has a cable running to their house whether or not they subscribe to any cable service at all.

The fact that they are available due to logistics is one of the excuses they are using for seeking authorization to encrypt everything.

To those who say that the cost of your internet cable includes limited basic cable, do you expect Comcast to reduce the price or provide a free HD cable box if they do begin total encryption?


----------



## robojerk

My FIOS has an OLYSOC (Olympic Soccer) channel. They're still in group matches meaning no over time. Two 45 minute halves, half time, plus stoppage time (~10 minutes max?). Yet the recording start late (10 minutes of the NBC Olympic logo and Olympic theme track), and a lot of the games get clipped at the end. What makes it worse is that I believe the games are tape delayed.
I could understand the games being clipped at the end if we were in the elimination stage and them needing to play with additional time but this is beyond unacceptable.


----------



## pdhenry

lpwcomp said:


> To those who say that the cost of your internet cable includes limited basic cable, do you expect Comcast to reduce the price or provide a free HD cable box if they do begin total encryption?


I didn't say it included limited basic, I'm just saying the two options seem to price out too close to each other to be coincidence. It almost seems that they're expecting you to split the coax upstream of the modem.

It occurred to me that if they encrypted all TV programming it would remove their _rationale_ for upcharging for unbundled internet. But it would make too much sense if they actually did it.


----------



## morac

lpwcomp said:


> To those who say that the cost of your internet cable includes limited basic cable, do you expect Comcast to reduce the price or provide a free HD cable box if they do begin total encryption?


Neither.


----------



## mcb08

jsmeeker said:


> I suspect some people expect just that. That NBC should never air anything via 'tape' delay. Ever. They like to mention how much better other countries do it.
> 
> Does Canada seriously not air any olympic coverage during the hours of 6 or 7 pm to about 10:00 or 11:00 PM?


We show highlights/personal interest stories during prime time.


----------



## LoadStar

mcb08 said:


> We show highlights/personal interest stories during prime time.


Yeah... that sounds dreadful.


----------



## robojerk

mcb08 said:


> We show highlights/personal interest stories during prime time.


Highlights are Canadian centric? Like in the states, they only show swim races if they have a US contender in them, and the commentators only talk about what that US person needs to do to win. A f$%# could be given about any of the foreigners, unless they're the top favorite to win.


----------



## mcb08

robojerk said:


> Highlights are Canadian centric? Like in the states, they only show swim races if they have a US contender in them, and the commentators only talk about what that US person needs to do to win. A f$%# could be given about any of the foreigners, unless they're the top favorite to win.


If we only talked about Canadian contenders, there wouldn't be much content


----------



## DevdogAZ

LoadStar said:


> Yeah... that sounds dreadful.


Agreed. That's why TiVo is so great for the Olympics. You can record a 5-hour block and watch it in about an hour, because there's so much fluff that can be fast forwarded. Human interest stories are ridiculous, but I guess some people must like them.


----------



## mcb08

LoadStar said:


> Yeah... that sounds dreadful.


It's not so dreadful considering that we get to see the events live as they're happening throughout the day.


----------



## LoadStar

mcb08 said:


> It's not so dreadful considering that we get to see the events live as they're happening throughout the day.


As can we, online.

In any case, I was specifically speaking of the concept of an entire prime-time block that shows nothing but highlights and human interest stories. That sounds horrifying. It sounds like everything bad about NBC's coverage in years past, reduced to a thick sickly paste and served.

But beyond that: As it stands here in the states, "the networks of NBC" (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC Sports Network, Bravo) show live events pretty much non-stop from morning all the way through to the middle of the night. In fact, there are so many events to cover, NBC had to setup two new networks just for soccer and basketball. And that's *with* NBC "time shifting" some events into prime time and late night coverage.

Unless Canadian television has more than NBC's 7 networks dedicated to showing Olympic coverage, if they're showing the "marquee" events live during the day, I can only imagine that must mean that the are bumping some events to either another time slot (i.e. exactly what NBC does) or showing them online only.

Speaking for myself, I think I'd prefer them showing as much stuff on TV as possible, even if it means that some of the events have to be "time shifted" to prime-time.


----------



## mcb08

LoadStar said:


> As can we, online.
> 
> In any case, I was specifically speaking of the concept of an entire prime-time block that shows nothing but highlights and human interest stories. That sounds horrifying. It sounds like everything bad about NBC's coverage in years past, reduced to a thick sickly paste and served.
> 
> But beyond that: As it stands here in the states, "the networks of NBC" (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC Sports Network, Bravo) show live events pretty much non-stop from morning all the way through to the middle of the night. In fact, there are so many events to cover, NBC had to setup two new networks just for soccer and basketball. And that's *with* NBC "time shifting" some events into prime time and late night coverage.
> 
> Unless Canadian television has more than NBC's 7 networks dedicated to showing Olympic coverage, if they're showing the "marquee" events live during the day, I can only imagine that must mean that the are bumping some events to either another time slot (i.e. exactly what NBC does) or showing them online only.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I think I'd prefer them showing as much stuff on TV as possible, even if it means that some of the events have to be "time shifted" to prime-time.


What else do you want to see during primetime, considering there are no live events to see? Maybe "highlights" isn't the right term. All of the interesting events are re-played in their entirety during the primetime coverage. This along with the 6 channels that carry live coverage throughout the day (without having to go to the internet), makes for very comprehensive coverage, IMO.


----------



## TonyD79

LoadStar said:


> As can we, online.
> 
> In any case, I was specifically speaking of the concept of an entire prime-time block that shows nothing but highlights and human interest stories. That sounds horrifying. It sounds like everything bad about NBC's coverage in years past, reduced to a thick sickly paste and served.
> 
> But beyond that: As it stands here in the states, "the networks of NBC" (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC Sports Network, Bravo) show live events pretty much non-stop from morning all the way through to the middle of the night. In fact, there are so many events to cover, NBC had to setup two new networks just for soccer and basketball. And that's *with* NBC "time shifting" some events into prime time and late night coverage.
> 
> Unless Canadian television has more than NBC's 7 networks dedicated to showing Olympic coverage, if they're showing the "marquee" events live during the day, I can only imagine that must mean that the are bumping some events to either another time slot (i.e. exactly what NBC does) or showing them online only.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I think I'd prefer them showing as much stuff on TV as possible, even if it means that some of the events have to be "time shifted" to prime-time.


That's exactly what you get in NBC now. Highlights and interviews. Edited sporting events are highlights. They show none of it in real time except maybe a basketball game and show only what they think is interesting. Highlights. Padded with interviews.

Keep their prime time as is. Just don't hold things to show only as a highlight package. That is my issue. On line? A joke. It works very poorly. I know. I've tried. Blurry, jumpy, stopping. Horrible.


----------



## Legion

Kept my head down all day on results. Watching the swimming coverage now and got interested in the Missy Franklin story having to swim two event 15 minutes from each other. One for a medal.

Ill be damned if they don't run a commercial for the Today show spoiling the result.

idiots.


----------



## lambertman

TonyD79 said:


> They show none of it in real time except maybe a basketball game


Highly inaccurate. They show tons of live sports throughout the day. Complain all you want about what is delayed but don't distort.


----------



## DavidTigerFan

Here's one of my biggest problems...they just don't get it. Spoiler from men's swimming in pic:



Spoiler


----------



## TonyD79

lambertman said:


> Highly inaccurate. They show tons of live sports throughout the day. Complain all you want about what is delayed but don't distort.


I was talking about nighttime as i was answering a post about what to show in prime time and highlights They not only delay, they monkey with the timeline.


----------



## Gene S

Horrible coverage of the men's gymnastics tonight. NBC ONLY showed the US team during the first 3 rounds. Then since they performed so poorly, didn't show them again the rest of night. The most exciting men's apparatus, the high bar, was never shown, from any country.


----------



## murgatroyd

Really POed at NBC after this morning's coverage of eventing. When you see the ambulance on course, and you're told that someone has needed medical assistance, some of the audience like to know what the condition of the rider and horse are, regardless of what nation's team they were competing for. I suppose no one else here but Zevida would care besides me, but here's an update:

Speirs and Portersize 'fine' after horror fall



> Camilla Speirs and Portersize Just a Jiff might have secured a strong team placing but the pair took a crashing fall at the corner at 24, just three fences out.
> 
> When the screens went up around horse and rider, and both were removed by ambulance, there was grave concern. But both were reported to be 'fine' last night -- the horse in his stable and the rider back on her feet after several hours in the on-site Olympic clinic.


The ambulance was shown briefly, and Melanie Smith told us that Speirs was getting medical assistance, but NBC couldn't be bothered to give any kind of update during the day or in the Primetime Show. They had plenty of time to show part of Zara Philips' round and have a reaction shot to show the Royals who had attended the event, but they couldn't take five lousy seconds to say that Camilla Speirs and her horse who had fallen were okay.

But NBC had plenty of time to show one of the swimmers proposing to his girlfriend. Buttheads.


----------



## morac

Jon Stewart's take on NBC's U.S. centric coverage;

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...onsored-international-ring-based-sports-event


----------



## Jesda

#nbcfail


----------



## Steveknj

As I said, the only sure thing about the Olympics is people whining about NBC's coverage. Really, I know we want to see a lot of stuff live. And that's cool. Personally? I work all day, I don't have the time to stream stuff at work (nor would I eat up company resources doing so). I avoid whatever spoilers I could and I get home and I'm ready to watch the Olympic coverage. Yeah there are fluff pieces (some good, some not so good), but we get the same crap during any pre-game show for the major sports, and even stupid interviews that have nothing to do with the game on the field. It's no different. I really don't have a huge problem with American centric coverage either. We are good at a lot of events. Americans want to see Americans perform. You think in France they will show some other event if a French person has a chance at a medal? Doubt it. So while not perfect, I'm content with their coverage. It took me years to accept that NBC is the Olympic channel after so many years of it being ABC. I think they do a pretty good job really.

And for most of you, if you want to see the stuff live, it's there for you, right on your PC. That's the unfortunate part about the games being in a different timezone. Would I love to see events live during primetime? Of course, but I'm sure the British aren't going to have events at 3AM to satisfy us.


----------



## That Don Guy

aindik said:


> The streaming is weird. There's an event that's on NBCSN live. Yesterday it was the USA basketball game. If I go to the streaming app on my iPad, and tell it I want to watch the basketball game, I get the un-altered Olympic feed with no announcers. However, if I scroll down to "channels" and choose the NBCSN simulcast, then I get the "NBC-ized" event with their announcers, sideline reports, etc. I guess choice is good, but it's kind of weird that they would put the unvarnished coverage up at all and not make the NBC version the exclusive version when it exists.


I _think_ this is because the NBCSN stream is limited to people who have a cable or satellite service with NBCSN on it, whereas the feed without any commentary might be open to everyone in the USA.



robojerk said:


> My FIOS has an OLYSOC (Olympic Soccer) channel. They're still in group matches meaning no over time. Two 45 minute halves, half time, plus stoppage time (~10 minutes max?). Yet the recording start late (10 minutes of the NBC Olympic logo and Olympic theme track), and a lot of the games get clipped at the end. What makes it worse is that I believe the games are tape delayed.
> I could understand the games being clipped at the end if we were in the elimination stage and them needing to play with additional time but this is beyond unacceptable.


What time did the match start? I am under the impression that a number of matches on that channel are live. If this is a constant problem, then the obvious solution is to pad the recordings by 15 minutes at the end.

Meanwhile, on the live streaming, they always allocate something like 3 1/2 hours to the medal rounds in judo (I think they start with the semi-finals), but they tend to finish in about 2 1/2 hours, which means the last hour is a "live" camera shot of the empty arena...

Hold on a moment...this just in from the indoor shooting arena: *The Range Is Safe!* (If anybody missed the 10m air rifle finals, somebody announces this at the end of the competition. I suppose that would be a good thing to know.)


----------



## NYHeel

NYHeel said:


> Quick question, what's the deal with the 3D channel. THey have about 9 hours of coverage starting at like 9:00 AM. Is that a repeat of the night before from Primetime? If so, primetime is only about 4 hours. What's the other 5 hours covering?


Aybody know what's up with the 3D channel schedule?


----------



## bareyb

/subscribe.


----------



## pdhenry

That Don Guy said:


> I _think_ this is because the NBCSN stream is limited to people who have a cable or satellite service with NBCSN on it, whereas the feed without any commentary might be open to everyone in the USA.


I'm not aware of any stream that's legitimately available to a US viewer without an appropriate cable/satellite subscription. I can't even stream the delayed events in their entirety - only designated highlights.

If you can show me otherwise I'd appreciate it.


----------



## smak

Legion said:


> Kept my head down all day on results. Watching the swimming coverage now and got interested in the Missy Franklin story having to swim two event 15 minutes from each other. One for a medal.
> 
> Ill be damned if they don't run a commercial for the Today show spoiling the result.
> 
> idiots.


They did it on the NBC nightly news this weekend too.

*End of the daytime Olympic coverage:*

"Tune in tonight for the giant duel between swimmers X & Y"

*Nightly News:*

"X won"

*Primetime Olympics:*

"Later on we'll have the giant awaited duel between X & Y"

So stupid.

-smak-


----------



## pdhenry

Our local NBC channel warns us 2 or 3 times before showing results, then they display the results on screen without any verbal commentary, then they say "OK, you can look at the screen again." On the other hand, Brian Williams is totally incapable of showing the information without some comment that at least spoils the subject of what's being displayed. Last night I had to put my fingers in my ears and say "Ya ya ya ya I'm not hearing you! Ya ya ya ya!" to keep clean. The dog thought I was angry at him...


----------



## Marco

Gah! Ryan Seacrest during the prime time show! Kill it with fire!


----------



## mattack

At least Brian Williams is WARNING us when he spoils things.. he said approx "skip the next 2 minutes". I'm listening to the audio podcast, so obviously don't have to look away as the viewers do when they normally only spoil things visually.

I have now had 2 things spoiled by reading twitter. But I basically give up. Just like me keeping watching shows after they're cancelled (heck, I've sometimes gotten cancelled shows on netflix too), I'll still watch a match even after it's been spoiled -- at least the finals.

But this time, so far, I've been recording less than in the past, mostly due to disk space issues. I semi-seriously thought of getting an XL4 NOW because of the Olympics.. but most of the big stuff has been on NBC in primetime so far.


----------



## DevdogAZ

There's been some anecdotal evidence that Twitter and the tape delay may actually be helping NBC's ratings. People see someone tweeting about something, sometimes vaguely, and then they want to see what the person was tweeting about so they watch the tape-delayed broadcast.


----------



## morac

Here's an example of unintentional spoiling by NBC which shows that even if you don't watch the news, you can get spoilers. (warning for language of the page title as person was extremely annoyed).

For those skipping the link, basically NBC spoiled an upcoming prime-time event in a "Today" promo during the commercial break right before said event was to air.


----------



## murgatroyd

morac said:


> Here's an example of unintentional spoiling by NBC which shows that even if you don't watch the news, you can get spoilers.


In the middle of the comments in the link you posted, someone posted a link to the website of The New Yorker:

The Borowitz Report

Burn!


----------



## loubob57

One gripe I have with their gymnastics coverage - several times now I've seen them waiting for a last score to see how things will shake out or to confirm who gets what medal. Then they show the celebrations on the floor, but they never show us what that final score was. Come on!


----------



## MrCouchPotato

Steveknj said:


> As I said, the only sure thing about the Olympics is people whining about NBC's coverage. Really, I know we want to see a lot of stuff live. And that's cool. Personally? I work all day, I don't have the time to stream stuff at work (nor would I eat up company resources doing so). I avoid whatever spoilers I could and I get home and I'm ready to watch the Olympic coverage. Yeah there are fluff pieces (some good, some not so good), but we get the same crap during any pre-game show for the major sports, and even stupid interviews that have nothing to do with the game on the field. It's no different. I really don't have a huge problem with American centric coverage either. We are good at a lot of events. Americans want to see Americans perform. You think in France they will show some other event if a French person has a chance at a medal? Doubt it. So while not perfect, I'm content with their coverage. It took me years to accept that NBC is the Olympic channel after so many years of it being ABC. I think they do a pretty good job really.
> 
> And for most of you, if you want to see the stuff live, it's there for you, right on your PC. That's the unfortunate part about the games being in a different timezone. Would I love to see events live during primetime? Of course, but I'm sure the British aren't going to have events at 3AM to satisfy us.


+1


----------



## mwhip

Rio will be so much better with almost no time difference.


----------



## kaszeta

loubob57 said:


> One gripe I have with their gymnastics coverage - several times now I've seen them waiting for a last score to see how things will shake out or to confirm who gets what medal. Then they show the celebrations on the floor, but they never show us what that final score was. Come on!


I've seen this in several events. Show us the actual scores!


----------



## That Don Guy

kaszeta said:


> I've seen this in several events. Show us the actual scores!


The problem with this is, it's not NBC that is providing the scores; they are coming from the main English language feed ("English language" as in "the graphics are in English"). Still, I was also surprised that the score for the last USA floor exercise routine was never shown (although it's possible that it was shown, but NBC just happened to edit that shot out of its broadcast). It wasn't until they were leaving the arena when they finally got around to showing the final team scores.

Meanwhile, one of the two cable stations - I can't remember if it was MSNBC or NBC Sports Network - had to deviate from its listed schedule when it turned out a _second_ USA athlete managed to make it to the semi-finals in judo.


----------



## DevdogAZ

morac said:


> Here's an example of unintentional spoiling by NBC which shows that even if you don't watch the news, you can get spoilers. (warning for language of the page title as person was extremely annoyed).
> 
> For those skipping the link, basically NBC spoiled an upcoming prime-time event in a "Today" promo during the commercial break right before said event was to air.


NBC acknowledged that mistake and issued an official apology. It's not like they intended to spoil the event for their viewers.


----------



## gschrock

mwhip said:


> Rio will be so much better with almost no time difference.


I think you're deluding yourself if you really feel that way. A lot of these events happen during the day anyways, and I guarantee that NBC will do exactly the same thing they're doing now, holding everything for the prime time coverage. And they'll find a way to delay the stuff they show during the day, because that's just how NBC does things.


----------



## jsmeeker

gschrock said:


> I think you're deluding yourself if you really feel that way. A lot of these events happen during the day anyways, and I guarantee that NBC will do exactly the same thing they're doing now, holding everything for the prime time coverage. And they'll find a way to delay the stuff they show during the day, because that's just how NBC does things.


If the events are occuring during prime time in the USA, they will show as much live as they can. It worked when the games were in Atlanta. And Beijing.


----------



## aindik

jsmeeker said:


> If the events are occuring during prime time in the USA, they will show as much live as they can. It worked when the games were in Atlanta. And Beijing.


I'll bet they do one prime time show, and air it at 8 p.m. ET in the east and also at 8 p.m. PT in the west. So even if stuff is live for the east, it'll be taped for the west.

There won't be anything live during west coast prime time anyway. 8 p.m. PT is midnight in Rio.


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> I'll bet they do one prime time show, and air it at 8 p.m. ET in the east and also at 8 p.m. PT in the west. So even if stuff is live for the east, it'll be taped for the west.
> 
> There won't be anything live during west coast prime time anyway. 8 p.m. PT is midnight in Rio.


good thing you and I don't live on the west coast.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I'll bet they do one prime time show, and air it at 8 p.m. ET in the east and also at 8 p.m. PT in the west. So even if stuff is live for the east, it'll be taped for the west.
> 
> There won't be anything live during west coast prime time anyway. 8 p.m. PT is midnight in Rio.


Exactly what I was going to say. NBC isn't going to start the west coast feed of their evening prime-time coverage at 5 pm PT, end it at 8 pm PT, and then air reruns of old sitcoms for the rest of prime time. The stuff is going to be tape delayed to the west coast either way, because that's how NBC gets the biggest ratings and therefore how they make the most money. Unless/until someone can figure out a way around that fact, you really can't fault NBC for doing it this way.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly what I was going to say. NBC isn't going to start the west coast feed of their evening prime-time coverage at 5 pm PT, end it at 8 pm PT, and then air reruns of old sitcoms for the rest of prime time. The stuff is going to be tape delayed to the west coast either way, because that's how NBC gets the biggest ratings and therefore how they make the most money. Unless/until someone can figure out a way around that fact, you really can't fault NBC for doing it this way.


NBC does, however, start its "prime time" NFL coverage at 5 p.m. PT on 17 Sundays every year. In that case, the value of "live" exceeds the value of "prime time." For the Olympics, that's apparently not the case. Part of that is the difference between the NFL and the Olympics. Part of it is the difference between Sunday and weekdays (then again, ABC did the same for MNF for decades).


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> NBC does, however, start its "prime time" NFL coverage at 5 p.m. PT on 17 Sundays every year. In that case, the value of "live" exceeds the value of "prime time." For the Olympics, that's apparently not the case. Part of that is the difference between the NFL and the Olympics. Part of it is the difference between Sunday and weekdays (then again, ABC did the same for MNF for decades).


You're right that the Sunday thing makes a difference. And I think MNF games start at 9 pm ET so that when they start at 6 pm PT, they're not so far out of primetime.

It will be interesting to see what NBC does in 2016. Maybe they'll simulcast the east coast PT feed on the west coast from 5-8, and then re-air it again from 8-11. But based on what they're doing now, I don't thnk they'll be able to avoid showing 30 minutes of NBC Nightly News and 30 minutes of local news somewhere in that time period, so I'm not sure exactly how they'd make it work.


----------



## Amnesia

I've watched a bunch of matches and it seems like all the female fencers always seem to screech when they think they have made a touch and none of the men ever seem to do it.

Is this something that they're trained to do? Is it supposed to psych out their opponents or perhaps help persuade the ref that they have in fact made a touch?


----------



## jsmeeker

Amnesia said:


> I've watched a bunch of matches and it seems like all the female fencers always seem to screech when they think they have made a touch and none of the men ever seem to do it.
> 
> Is this something that they're trained to do? Is it supposed to psych out their opponents or perhaps help persuade the ref that they have in fact made a touch?


Maybe they are former tennis players.


----------



## lambertman

That Don Guy said:


> The problem with this is, it's not NBC that is providing the scores; they are coming from the main English language feed


Not the case. The whole "green/yellow/red score" thing is an NBC invention, so they are clearly able to insert scores in Olympic-style graphics as they choose.


----------



## morac

I haven't watched the prime time coverage until today. Have they always been airing 3 minutes of events mixed with 3 or 4 minutes of commercials? If so, no wonder they are tape delaying it as they can insert tons of commercials as there's no built-in commercials breaks as with American sports.


----------



## mike_k

morac said:


> II haven't watch the prime time coverage until today. Have they always been airing 3 minutes of events mixed with 3 or 4 minutes of commercials? If so, no wonder they are tape delaying it as they can insert tons of commercials as there's no built-in commercials breaks as with American sports.


Yep - this is how it's been. It really sucks.

The amazing thing is that during the day it is totally different. I was watching beach volleyball yesterday and they went 40 minutes without a commercial break. There were several time outs, a longer time out between the second and third sets, but they didn't break away. I think the only commercial break was between the first and second sets. It was great.


----------



## mostman

Anyone else having an issue with the HD feed right now? Not showing the Olympics for me. FIOS.


----------



## mrdbdigital

lambertman said:


> Not the case. The whole "green/yellow/red score" thing is an NBC invention, so they are clearly able to insert scores in Olympic-style graphics as they choose.


NBC is probably receiving a scoring data feed from the Omega timing folks and generating their own graphics with their (NBC's) graphics systems. They probably have custom written software to do this, as this is done a lot in sports coverage. The software will populate NBC's custom graphics with the appropriate scoring information from the incoming data.


----------



## LoadStar

mrdbdigital said:


> NBC is probably receiving a scoring data feed from the Omega timing folks and generating their own graphics with their (NBC's) graphics systems. They probably have custom written software to do this, as this is done a lot in sports coverage. The software will populate NBC's custom graphics with the appropriate scoring information from the incoming data.


Well, minor correction: it's not really NBC's custom graphics; the graphic templates are apparently supplied by Olympic Broadcasting Services, since you can see the same graphics on the international pool feed, along with other broadcasts internationally like the BBC _et. al._. But yeah, it does appear that NBC is at least in part generating the graphics based on those templates.


----------



## loubob57

The NBC commentators could *tell* us the score. But that would require a director knowing the score didn't show graphically and relaying that to the commentators. I guess the directing isn't so hot either.


----------



## Steveknj

loubob57 said:


> The NBC commentators could *tell* us the score. But that would require a director knowing the score didn't show graphically and relaying that to the commentators. I guess the directing isn't so hot either.


I don't know, I feel this is nitpicking. For most of us, the score is irrelevant. Since I don't follow the sport too closely the scoring seems a bit foreign to me anyway. All I care about is that USA won. The drama to me means a whole lot more than the score. This is not like a baseball game where the score might matter to me for other reasons.....and I understand the scoring.

BTW, when did they change the Gymnastics scoring away from a "perfect" 10 being the best score? Was that because there were just TOO many "perfect" 10s after awhile?


----------



## Steveknj

I was going to post another thread, but I thought we could just do it here. 

With so many people complaining about NBCs coverage, how would you improve it?

Factor in:

Time zone
Expenses
Covering Americans vs. Rest of the World
In Studio commentary vs. Live at the Event?

Consider you have a budget, so you cannot just spend unlimited funds to make it better. You also have to consider what will bring in the best ratings, since NBC is obviously trying to recoup the expense of it all AND hope to promote their fall shows.

Really, outside of some minor things that they need to clean up, and possibly locking Ryan Seacrest in the Tower of London so we never have to hear from him again, I'm not sure there's much I'd change, based on the way I have been watching.


----------



## pdhenry

For starters, if you're tying up 5 networks during the day with live coverage you could spread the evening highlights over the same 5 networks and then provide adequate coverage to more sports. If you're watching gymnastics do you really need to cut to synchronized diving?

Put away the fiction that the prime time audience is seeing something live. By this I don't mean the outcome should be spoiled (certainly not more than they're already spoiling outcomes) but face the reality that what's airing occurred 5+ hours ago.


----------



## Steveknj

pdhenry said:


> For starters, if you're tying up 5 networks during the day with live coverage you could spread the evening highlights over the same 5 networks and then provide adequate coverage to more sports. If you're watching gymnastics do you really need to cut to synchronized diving?
> 
> Put away the fiction that the prime time audience is seeing something live. By this I don't mean the outcome should be spoiled (certainly not more than they're already spoiling outcomes) but face the reality that what's airing occurred 5+ hours ago.


On point one. Consider that the bulk of the money NBC is making from advertisers is for their primetime NBC coverage. By showing the other events on the other networks during Primetime, they'd be eating into that revenue. So I don't think that's feasible. On point two, if you watch Costas' setup of the night at the beginning of the broadcast, he does introduce everything in past tense, so I don't see there being a pretense that this is happening "live". During the very first night, Costas did mention that what you will be seeing would be on tape delay during the primetime broadcasts.

That said, one thing I WOULD do is show an event in it's entirety without cutting away to other events. So if they begin the night with diving...don't cut away to show a half hour of swimming then come back to finish the diving. And show the whole volleyball game not half and then come back to it later. To me, that's annoying. So that is one thing I would change for sure.


----------



## jsmeeker

Steveknj said:


> That said, one thing I WOULD do is show an event in it's entirety without cutting away to other events. So if they begin the night with diving...don't cut away to show a half hour of swimming then come back to finish the diving. And show the whole volleyball game not half and then come back to it later. To me, that's annoying. So that is one thing I would change for sure.


That would probably result in fewer viewers over the duration of the prime time schedule. Skipping back and forth and hopping around essentially forces viewers to watch the entire night's broadcast.


----------



## Steveknj

jsmeeker said:


> That would probably result in fewer viewers over the duration of the prime time schedule. Skipping back and forth and hopping around essentially forces viewers to watch the entire night's broadcast.


That could be, and yeah, I totally get that. On the other hand, if they made these events compelling enough, viewers wouldn't switch. Taking last night....you had an amazing streak on the line in volleyball...that should keep viewers interested....Americans with a chance in diving and gymnastics, which should keep viewers interested (spoiler of the result below):



Spoiler



(and in fact, based on what they showed of the gymnastics earlier, I almost didn't watch the last half hour figuring there was no chance of a medal. I only flipped it on during the commercial of something else I was watching and saw that there was still a chance at a medal


.

And of course in swimming, we ALWAYS have a chance.


----------



## cmontyburns

Steveknj said:


> That could be, and yeah, I totally get that. On the other hand, if they made these events compelling enough, viewers wouldn't switch. Taking last night....you had an amazing streak on the line in volleyball...that should keep viewers interested....Americans with a chance in diving and gymnastics, which should keep viewers interested (spoiler of the result below):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> (and in fact, based on what they showed of the gymnastics earlier, I almost didn't watch the last half hour figuring there was no chance of a medal. I only flipped it on during the commercial of something else I was watching and saw that there was still a chance at a medal
> 
> 
> .
> 
> And of course in swimming, we ALWAYS have a chance.


Regarding your spoiler, we've been discussing NBC's atrocious gymnastics broadcasting in the "watching party" thread in Happy Hour. (Actually, we've covered a lot of these topics in that thread. Kind of have duplicate threads going on.) Anyway, coverage of the men's final last night was just awful, awful, awful. Here's what I posted in that other thread. I'll spoiler it since this post discusses the result (although it's probably not necessary at this point):



Spoiler



So John Orozco botches his second rotation and falls out of contention, and NBC never shows or mentions him again. I mean, I get that they can't spend a lot of time on someone who isn't going to medal, but he's a US team member and overall that seemed pretty harsh.

Meanwhile, Danell Leyva medals, but damned if NBC showed how he did it. First off, they did not show all of his rotations. In the only time they showed where he stood in the medal race, he was sixth. Don't know how that evolved because we were not shown all of his rotations to that point, nor most of anyone else's from ahead of him. From there, they showed him doing the high bar, but then never showed or announced the score from that. They cut to someone else getting ready to do floor, say "Leyva is going to get a medal, just don't know what color", they show the other guy's floor exercise, don't show or say the score from _that_, and then announce that Leyva gets the bronze.

WTF? This is amateurish.


----------



## pdhenry

Steveknj said:


> On point one. Consider that the bulk of the money NBC is making from advertisers is for their primetime NBC coverage. By showing the other events on the other networks during Primetime, they'd be eating into that revenue. So I don't think that's feasible.


The question was about how to improve the broadcast. I'm sure that profit has everything to do with why NBC is broadcasting the Olympics the way they are. But there's no legal requirement that NBC has to put profits ahead of a better broadcast.

Another thought - it would be nice if there was a way to pay (e.g., pay less than the $50 Comcast wants for a month of the tier that would get me streaming) for the ability to stream (live or delayed, as streaming customers can do now) the events without upgrading my cable programming tier.


----------



## aindik

pdhenry said:


> The question was about how to improve the broadcast. I'm sure that profit has everything to do with why NBC is broadcasting the Olympics the way they are. But there's no legal requirement that NBC has to put profits ahead of a better broadcast.
> 
> Another thought - it would be nice if there was a way to pay (e.g., pay less than the $50 Comcast wants for a month of the tier that would get me streaming) for the ability to stream (live or delayed, as streaming customers can do now) the events without upgrading my cable programming tier.


IIRC, that was the model TBS used for the NCAA tournament this recent time around. You can get all the games either by logging in with cable company credentials, or by paying. Here's hoping they do the same thing for the MLB playoffs. That would put me one step closer to cord cutting.


----------



## robojerk

pdhenry said:


> But there's no legal requirement that NBC has to put profits ahead of a better broadcast.


I agree with you that they should be aiming for the best broadcast possible, however money > everything else. If they weren't aiming to maximize profits the people making that decision would probably be looking for a new job by now.


----------



## MauriAnne

An article from The New Yorker worth a read about NBC's coverage --

link


----------



## BrettStah

Here's what I would do - broadcast as many of the events live, across the various channels NBC controls. Then for primetime, basically show what they do now... a more curated/edited version of the more popular events, without spoilers - potentially with some voice-overs by the athletes themselves as they're watching their own performances as NBC re-airs them. So Michael Phelps could explain how he felt as the 200-meter butterfly was happening, ideally without any spoilers given until the end of the re-broadcast. Idiots on realty shows can give interviews and "what I was thinking" types of narration without giving away the endings of things on the shows, so the athletes could presumably do that as well.


----------



## mike_k

MauriAnne said:


> An article from The New Yorker worth a read about NBC's coverage --
> 
> link


Love it :up:



> At NBC were just not used to broadcasting things that people want to watch.


----------



## BrettStah

So, this thread is only for TV coverage, or is it also for the Internet live streams? Lots of excitement today!


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> I was going to post another thread, but I thought we could just do it here.
> 
> With so many people complaining about NBCs coverage, how would you improve it?
> 
> Factor in:
> 
> Time zone
> Expenses
> Covering Americans vs. Rest of the World
> In Studio commentary vs. Live at the Event?
> 
> Consider you have a budget, so you cannot just spend unlimited funds to make it better. You also have to consider what will bring in the best ratings, since NBC is obviously trying to recoup the expense of it all AND hope to promote their fall shows.
> 
> Really, outside of some minor things that they need to clean up, and possibly locking Ryan Seacrest in the Tower of London so we never have to hear from him again, I'm not sure there's much I'd change, based on the way I have been watching.


#0: Keep in mind that you are covering an international event. People besides us may be watching this coverage. Put on your 'company manners' and do not go on in the wild manner that you do at home. Be professional. That includes not making rude remarks about other countries during the Parade of Nations.

#1: Cover the performances which are happening now. Quit cutting away from what's going on in London to show us someone on the podium in Beijing, or in the start house in Beijing, or whatever. If you want to tell us that that's the gold medal winner from Beijing, that's sufficient. We don't need to see it, too.

#2: Cover the performances which are happening now. Don't cut away from the Opening Ceremony to show a canned interview with Michael Phelps. Especially when the part you cut out is a memorial to people who aren't present to take part in these Games. For a nation who experienced 9/11, this is hideously bad manners.

#3: If you must do a feature, talk about the athlete the feature is supposed to be about. Don't switch away from the swimmer you are featuring to show us video of Michael Phelps beating him in Beijing. If the feature is about someone, his face should be on the screen. Not Michael Phelps, unless Michael also happens to be in the same shot.

#4: Hire hosts who understand that each sport that happens at The Olympics is someone's favorite sport, and leave the snark at home.

#5: Hire hosts who understand that each sport that happens at The Olympics is someone's favorite sport, and leave the stupid at home. Don't hold up the dressage saddle that belongs to a three-day-eventer on the day before the cross-country event is supposed to take place and then say that you wonder how they are supposed to compete the next day without their saddle. 

#6: You have a producer who think it's a good idea to have the Today Show crew pedal a bar around London while drinking beer with a look-alike of Queen Elizabeth? Leave those producers at home, too. In fact, any feature where someone says, "it would be freakin' hi-lar-ious if we did X" -- that's probably a bad idea.

#7: Oh, yeah, those features? Make kick-ass-features, give them their own show, and make sure people know about that show. The Olympic Zone (7:30 pm my time zone, the lead-in to the Primetime show) has good stuff. It's a great little appetizer for the primetime that's about to come. But who knows about it? Because NBC is too busy hyping who will appear on The Today Show tomorrow morning. And by the way, those Today Show ads? How about some generic ads that say "watch The Today Show tomorrow to see the gold medal winner of the 100 m [swimmingstroke] final" that you can run before the final is shown, so you won't give away the ending of the race you've held away from OTA-only viewers all day long?

#8: Whoever you hire to be on camera, their performance should not make people say "aside from locking [name] in the Tower of London so we never have to hear from him again, I'm not sure there's much I'd change".

And oh, yeah, I almost forgot:

#9: No campaign ads or other political crap during the Olympics. This is supposed to be our time to all be Americans together.

We all know that Americans are rude, ignorant, and provincial. I don't see why our Olympics coverage has to celebrate that, or showcase that to the entire world.



Steveknj said:


> That could be, and yeah, I totally get that. On the other hand, if they made these events compelling enough, viewers
> wouldn't switch.


See, this is the problem, right here. The events ARE compelling. They don't need 'help' from NBC to make them compelling. NBC assumes that the audience won't give a crap, and they have to jazz things up to MAKE them compelling. So they get in the way of viewers being able to actually watch the events, or learn anything about the sports.

If viewers don't know about the sports, tell them what they need to know as things go along. But be low-key about it, not so much in-your-face that viewers can't see the event you're presenting.


----------



## DevdogAZ

pdhenry said:


> Put away the fiction that the prime time audience is seeing something live. By this I don't mean the outcome should be spoiled (certainly not more than they're already spoiling outcomes) but face the reality that what's airing occurred 5+ hours ago.


But the announcers are calling the event live. It's not like the announcers are dubbing their commentary in as the US audience watches it. They're narrating the event as it happens, so they're not going to speak in the past tense. So basically, all you're asking for is for the in-studio segments to acknowledge the time delay, and as someone else already mentioned, they are doing this.

Nobody is trying to pretend that the primetime NBC broadcast is live. What they're trying to do is make the primetime NBC broadcast be the most comprehensive coverage of the marquee sports for those that are too lazy to seek out other sports on other channels.


----------



## robojerk

murgatroyd said:


> #5: Hire hosts who understand that each sport that happens at The Olympics is someone's favorite sport, and leave the stupid at home. Don't hold up the dressage saddle that belongs to a three-day-eventer on the day before the cross-country event is supposed to take place and then say that you wonder how they are supposed to compete the next day without their saddle.


This could be fixed easily. Pay the BBC, or whoever has the Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand rights to the Olympic coverage use their commentary for sport X. Just let whoever is doing the commentary know that they're also providing coverage for the US audience, and we might not be knowledgeable in that sport and maybe have explanations every now and then, but not dumb it down too much for their own country.

I think World Cup soccer does this, I remember watching ESPN and the commentator was from the BBC.

EDIT: Also let whoever is doing the commentary know, those that speak the queens English often slur and chew their words like crazy.


----------



## murgatroyd

robojerk said:


> This could be fixed easily. Pay the BBC, or whoever has the Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand rights to the Olympic coverage use their commentary for sport X. Just let whoever is doing the commentary know that they're also providing coverage for the US audience, and we might not be knowledgeable in that sport and maybe have explanations every now and then, but not dumb it down too much for their own country.


The "how can they ride without their saddle" comment was an in-studio person during the primetime segment.

IMHO if you are not demonstrating the difference between the saddles that are used in the various equestrian events (which you could do if you really wanted to, by sending someone out to do a feature at a tack shop), it's a waste of bandwidth to show off someone's equipment on camera.

All that demonstration did is to send a message to the equestrian community all over the world that the reporter didn't give a crap about doing their homework.

Anyway, to address your point -- Paul Sherwin's commentary during road cycling is a good example of how things could be done.


----------



## murgatroyd

Oh, crap, I'll have to put up with Al Trautwig for Trampoline, too? Shoot me now.


----------



## cmontyburns

murgatroyd said:


> Oh, crap, I'll have to put up with Al Trautwig for Trampoline, too? Shoot me now.


You want John Tesh back? 

I agree that Trautwig is teeth-grating. (I used to like him better, but it seems like he has been completely ruined by the NBC "these gymnasts will tug at your heartstrings, dammit!" style of broadcasting.) Now on the other hand, I know that Tim Daggett has many detractors, but I like his role on the team. Of course he is way too prone to ripe speech ("That... was... DISASTROUS!") but his analysis is generally really good and he clearly prepares like crazy.


----------



## BrettStah

murgatroyd said:


> it's a waste of bandwidth to show off someone's equipment on camera.


that's exactly what I said during the men's diving events!


----------



## robojerk

murgatroyd said:


> it's a waste of bandwidth to show off someone's equipment on camera.





BrettStah said:


> that's exactly what I said during the men's diving events!


----------



## DevdogAZ

BrettStah said:


> that's exactly what I said during the men's diving events!


That's what the graphics are for:


----------



## murgatroyd

BrettStah said:


> that's exactly what I said during the men's diving events!


I think a lot of the audience might disagree with you.


----------



## murgatroyd

cmontyburns said:


> I agree that Trautwig is teeth-grating. (I used to like him better, but it seems like he has been completely ruined by the NBC "these gymnasts will tug at your heartstrings, dammit!" style of broadcasting.)


Trautwig is so bad, I bailed on the gymnastics entirely last night, so my husband wouldn't have to listen to him. He (my husband, not Al) doesn't really pay attention to sports, so when he said that he hadn't missed Al since he had been dropped from the Tour de France broadcasts, that's a pretty good sign that Al is doing a stinko job.



cmontyburns said:


> Now on the other hand, I know that Tim Daggett has many detractors, but I like his role on the team. Of course he is way too prone to ripe speech ("That... was... DISASTROUS!") but his analysis is generally really good and he clearly prepares like crazy.


I like Tim's analysis, except when he says that someone has been under-marked and then there's no followup, so we don't know why he thinks so. (As for the "that was disastrous" comment -- well, it was.) He's much better at explaining stuff to non-gymnasts that Elfi is.


----------



## LoadStar

I was amused during the women's team competition, when Tim declared of Maroney's vault "Give that a 10!!!" temporarily forgetting the new gymnastic scoring system.  (Moments later, he didn't correct himself, but he did start referring to it with the new scoring system terminology.)


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> I was amused during the women's team competition, when Tim declared of Maroney's vault "Give that a 10!!!" temporarily forgetting the new gymnastic scoring system.  (Moments later, he didn't correct himself, but he did start referring to it with the new scoring system terminology.)


I feel better that I am not the only that gets confused.


----------



## mattack

loubob57 said:


> One gripe I have with their gymnastics coverage - several times now I've seen them waiting for a last score to see how things will shake out or to confirm who gets what medal. Then they show the celebrations on the floor, but they never show us what that final score was. Come on!


Good, I thought I was missing that, because this year so far, I've been for the most part watching the actual competition (for things I'm interested in), and ffing through the rest of it, sometimes slowly to catch the various scores... and I too noted that it seemed like they'd sometimes miss out on showing a particular score.


----------



## murgatroyd

LoadStar said:


> I was amused during the women's team competition, when Tim declared of Maroney's vault "Give that a 10!!!" temporarily forgetting the new gymnastic scoring system.  (Moments later, he didn't correct himself, but he did start referring to it with the new scoring system terminology.)


Some of those vaults are definitely an E-ticket.


----------



## Steveknj

pdhenry said:


> The question was about how to improve the broadcast. I'm sure that profit has everything to do with why NBC is broadcasting the Olympics the way they are. But there's no legal requirement that NBC has to put profits ahead of a better broadcast.
> 
> Another thought - it would be nice if there was a way to pay (e.g., pay less than the $50 Comcast wants for a month of the tier that would get me streaming) for the ability to stream (live or delayed, as streaming customers can do now) the events without upgrading my cable programming tier.


The question did include that you had to factor in everything



> Factor in:
> 
> Time zone
> Expenses
> Covering Americans vs. Rest of the World
> In Studio commentary vs. Live at the Event?
> 
> Consider you have a budget, so you cannot just spend unlimited funds to make it better. You also have to consider what will bring in the best ratings, since NBC is obviously trying to recoup the expense of it all AND hope to promote their fall shows.


So it's not just how to make it a better broacast but how to make it a better broadcast within the current restraints they have and you HAVE to consider ratings and expenses in your improvements. If I could do anything, I'd want every event live and repeated 4x during the day so I could catch it anytime I want, and have 20 channels with full announcing teams in every venue, but that's not going to happen.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> Trautwig is so bad, I bailed on the gymnastics entirely last night, so my husband wouldn't have to listen to him. He (my husband, not Al) doesn't really pay attention to sports, so when he said that he hadn't missed Al since he had been dropped from the Tour de France broadcasts, that's a pretty good sign that Al is doing a stinko job.
> 
> I like Tim's analysis, except when he says that someone has been under-marked and then there's no followup, so we don't know why he thinks so. (As for the "that was disastrous" comment -- well, it was.) He's much better at explaining stuff to non-gymnasts that Elfi is.


I like Trautwig, but then again, he's a NY guy so I'm used to him and I get what he's trying to do. Much like people "get" Joe Buck, who I think is a terrible announcer, I don't think some people get Trautwig. That said, events with short spurts of action like gymnastics is not the type of broadcast he's that great at. He's better at things like a marathon, or road race, something where he cold tell a story, which he's very good at.


----------



## morac

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-2-2012/spoiler-alert


----------



## That Don Guy

robojerk said:


> This could be fixed easily. Pay the BBC, or whoever has the Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand rights to the Olympic coverage use their commentary for sport X. Just let whoever is doing the commentary know that they're also providing coverage for the US audience, and we might not be knowledgeable in that sport and maybe have explanations every now and then, but not dumb it down too much for their own country.


I am pretty sure NBC has aired at least one event this year with another broadcaster's commentary team. Nothing new about this; NBC used the Australian commentary for the 2000 men's and women's field hockey finals.


> Also let whoever is doing the commentary know, those that speak the queens English often slur and chew their words like crazy.


Perhaps this is one reason they _don't_ like using other commentators - the accents can be distracting. (IMO, there are some exceptions; for example, Phil Liggett.)

Speaking of Liggett, he thinks that BMX and mountain biking have no place in the Olympics. I think he's half-right; the way BMX is implemented, it sticks out like a sore thumb, but I don't see a problem with how the mountain biking is organized.



murgatroyd said:


> Keep in mind that you are covering an international event. People besides us may be watching this coverage. Put on your 'company manners' and do not go on in the wild manner that you do at home. Be professional. That includes not making rude remarks about other countries during the Parade of Nations.


Unfortunately, first and foremost, the Olympics are "entertainment" - if it was "news," there would be no commercials. (Name the last time a State of the Union address had a commercial break.) As far as NBC (and, for that matter, CBS and ABC, when they covered the Olympics) is concerned, they might as well title it "USA Against the World," as this is how the vast majority of primetime viewers see it. Be glad that they show every country; in 1996, not only did they just list the countries that were skipped when they came back from commercials (and, IIRC, they didn't even do this every time), but Hungary and Turkmenistan were skipped so they could have live interviews with Charles Barkley and Michael Johnson waiting for USA's turn to enter the stadium.


> Cover the performances which are happening now. Don't cut away from the Opening Ceremony to show a canned interview with Michael Phelps. Especially when the part you cut out is a memorial to people who aren't present to take part in these Games. For a nation who experienced 9/11, this is hideously bad manners.


I believe the excuse NBC gave was along the lines of, "it wasn't about the USA" - er, and the rest of the opening ceremony was? Speaking of which, I wonder how many references in the opening Thames river scene were lost to most American viewers (hands up, those of us who caught the _EastEnders_ reference).


> Hire hosts who understand that each sport that happens at The Olympics is someone's favorite sport, and leave the snark/the stupid at home.


I agree about the snark, but at the same time, understand that, in a number of sports, the Olympics are the only time a number of people watch them. Case in point: until NBC aired a judo match, I was not aware that they had done away with the lowest level of scoring ("koka"). I wonder how many people saw the water polo and wondered, "Why do they keep calling the 4m line the 5m line - and where's the 7m line now?", or still wonder just what the new boxing scoring system is ("they take the three scores that are closest together," not bothering to explain what that means - it's the set of three scores where the difference between the average and the number farthest from the average is the lowest).


> Oh, yeah, those features? Make kick-ass-features, give them their own show, and make sure people know about that show. The Olympic Zone (7:30 pm my time zone, the lead-in to the Primetime show) has good stuff. It's a great little appetizer for the primetime that's about to come. But who knows about it? Because NBC is too busy hyping who will appear on The Today Show tomorrow morning.


I don't know about other parts of the country, but the version of "The Olympic Zone" that airs in the San Francisco area is almost certainly a local show - either that, or it is a combination of "national" pieces and spots where they can stick in spots for local athletes.

As for the features, NBC still believes, "No features = no women viewers = no women watching the commercials = we have to give away commercial time on our best shows _The Voice_ to advertisers to whom we promised a particular rating."

Here's another one:

When you show a medal ceremony, _show the whole thing_. If an American won the gold, don't show just the winner receiving their medal, followed by the anthem. (NBC did this with the women's all-around ceremony.) If an American won a silver or bronze, don't show just the Americans receiving a medal - other countries have national anthems too.
Nothing slapped other countries in the face like the 1996 women's basketball medal ceremony, where they showed Team USA receiving its medals, and each player was introduced separately, but before they could get to the other two medalist countries, "We'll be back with the National Anthem after these commercials." They did show all three medalists for men's basketball, but almost certainly because the other two countries had "name" NBA players (Vlade Divac, Arvydas Sabonis, and Sirunis Marciulionis). I wouldn't be surprised if NBC "convinced" subsequent organizers to give out the gold medals last so they wouldn't have this "problem".



LoadStar said:


> I was amused during the women's team competition, when Tim declared of Maroney's vault "Give that a 10!!!" temporarily forgetting the new gymnastic scoring system.  (Moments later, he didn't correct himself, but he did start referring to it with the new scoring system terminology.)


Technically, as I think you pointed out, he was right - the judges still score out of 10, but then the difficulty is added.

I don't like the fact that they use five judges, so you get a lot of scores that end in .x33 and .x66. This leads to the possibility of "winning by roundoff error" - if Gymnast X has scores of 15.0, 15.0, 15.0, and 15.1, that is a total of 60.100, but if Gymnast Y has 15.0, 15.033, 15.033, and 15.033, that is a total of 60.099, and yes, they do consider X's score higher in this case. (This actually happened, with different scores, at the 2005 World Championships, where Chellsie Memmel beat Nastia Liukin by 0.001.)



loubob57 said:


> One gripe I have with their gymnastics coverage - several times now I've seen them waiting for a last score to see how things will shake out or to confirm who gets what medal. Then they show the celebrations on the floor, but they never show us what that final score was. Come on!


Not only did they do it again with the end of the women's all-around final, but I don't think they ever did explain _why_ Raisman finished fourth even though her score was the same as the bronze medalist. (In fact, I have heard contradictory versions of just what the tiebreaker was - apparently, it's "highest three apparatus scores", although some sites were claiming that it was "highest total of the four execution scores" (an execution score is 10 minus the difference between actual and maximum scores). They should have been able to figure this out in advance.)


----------



## LoadStar

That Don Guy said:


> Not only did they do it again with the end of the women's all-around final, but I don't think they ever did explain _why_ Raisman finished fourth even though her score was the same as the bronze medalist. (In fact, I have heard contradictory versions of just what the tiebreaker was - apparently, it's "highest three apparatus scores", although some sites were claiming that it was "highest total of the four execution scores" (an execution score is 10 minus the difference between actual and maximum scores). They should have been able to figure this out in advance.)


They (Tim, specifically, I believe) said on the telecast that the tiebreaker was to throw out each tied contestant's lowest score. For both, I believe they said it was the vault beam they threw out.

ETA: It's at 0:59:14 on the "NBC Replay: Women's All-Around Final" video on NBCOlympics.com:


> Al: Tim, how does this work now?
> Tim: Well, what they did was they took the three highest event scores, so they dropped Aly's beam score, and they also dropped Mustafina's beam score, and when you total that together, Mustafina comes out ahead.


So it was beam, not vault.


----------



## MauriAnne

I think part of the problem with gymnastics has to do with the editing. The commentators are describing many competitors that never make the prime time broadcast, so some things they say during those routines end up being edited out. That makes some of the things they say appear to be disjointed or without foundation.


----------



## mwhip

I know we are a week into this but is there really not an hour long "sportscenter" or wrap up show to just show highlights? 

Also the online stuff is great in quantity but the execution is crap. I don't want a 4 hour block of swimming, at least insert bookmarks to the actual events. I don't want to search the stream for what I am looking for.


----------



## dswallow

Dear NBC,

If you're going to delay 3D coverage for a day because you need to have time to edit it, is there some reason you can't edit it? After all, since it's all edited and delayed by a day, you probably could package it up by competition and actually present them in some logical order, perhaps even with guide data that isn't just one 4 hour block followed by one 10 hour block with incorrect information in the description.

And frankly as much as I hate bantering from announcers, what's up with that announcer? It's not loud enough to hear -- about half the volume of the background noises from the stadium. And generally it's not random banter but on topic announcement. I'd like to either be able to hear it or to not have it at all. Is it supposed to be on some subchannel I could control myself?

Remember that intro by Bob Costas? The left and right images are reversed compared to all the other content; it's a bit of an annoyance, though since it's Bob Costas, and he has nothing useful to say anyway, I just fast forward through it now.

You know how swimming occurs in lanes? I've seen coverage outside the Olympics where these fancy CGI overlays are done to indicate who is in which lane no matter the camera view; those things are cool in that they are rock-solid overlays that the camera actually appears to pan across. Sometimes they're even overlaid "under" the water as if they're in the pool, not overlaid on the video. Well, we really could use some help figuring out who we're seeing. The lane numbers were barely ever visible at all, usually obscured by a bad camera angle, and then once underway, we rarely had any idea what lane was what anymore, let alone who was in it.

Idiots.

Flaming stupid idiots.

Oh, and those bumpers you run overlaying the bottom of the screen? They're actually kinda cool in 3D, but again, if you're editing it, certainly you could time that overlay so it isn't covering on-screen statistics and scores MORE THAN HALF THE TIME.

Friggin' moronic idiots.

Oh, and after about 6 hours of it, including fast forwarding past the events I had no interest in but (a) was forced to record and (b) weren't even promoted in the description of the 4/10 hour block, I never want to own or rent or even see "The Lorax," and I had already pre-ordered it. Running the same bumper every 10 minutes for the entire time is, well, like hitting me over the head with a stick every 10 minutes. Trust me, it will not do what you expect.

Finally, while having the 3D coverage at all is great, maybe you could actually find more than 5 commercials to air during it. Maybe you could find a way to insert them so it doesn't look like someone randomly picks out times and just snips in the commercial breaks. Maybe you can at least not run the same commercial twice during a commercial break (Yes, I'm talking about you, Jaws -- another preorder I probably should cancel after this experience).

In summation, you'll be lucky if I bother watching anything on your stupid channels again, ever. Best $1.2 billion you ever spent, huh?

Idiots.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> I like Trautwig, but then again, he's a NY guy so I'm used to him and I get what he's trying to do. Much like people "get" Joe Buck, who I think is a terrible announcer, I don't think some people get Trautwig.


I will concede the point that there could be regional differences in sportscasting that would make people more popular with some audiences than others.

Trautwig at least has a melodious voice, and does talk about what is going on at the time, so in that respect he's far superior to Buck. Buck has a one-note voice and just yammers away with no feeling for what event he's covering.



Steveknj said:


> That said, events with short spurts of action like gymnastics is not the type of broadcast he's that great at. He's better at things like a marathon, or road race, something where he cold tell a story, which he's very good at.


Then I have to ask why a producer would put him in the booth for an event where he's not that great.


----------



## murgatroyd

That Don Guy said:


> Unfortunately, first and foremost, the Olympics are "entertainment" - if it was "news," there would be no commercials. (Name the last time a State of the Union address had a commercial break.) As far as NBC (and, for that matter, CBS and ABC, when they covered the Olympics) is concerned, they might as well title it "USA Against the World," as this is how the vast majority of primetime viewers see it. Be glad that they show every country; in 1996, not only did they just list the countries that were skipped when they came back from commercials (and, IIRC, they didn't even do this every time), but Hungary and Turkmenistan were skipped so they could have live interviews with Charles Barkley and Michael Johnson waiting for USA's turn to enter the stadium.


Here's the thing: I don't see why, simply because it's "entertainment" rather than "news", that means it has to be rude and stupid. Obviously if you put commercial breaks in the Parade of Nations, there are going to be some countries that don't get shown in real-time. But for the countries that do get shown, why bring the snark?



That Don Guy said:


> I agree about the snark, but at the same time, understand that, in a number of sports, the Olympics are the only time a number of people watch them. Case in point: until NBC aired a judo match, I was not aware that they had done away with the lowest level of scoring ("koka"). I wonder how many people saw the water polo and wondered, "Why do they keep calling the 4m line the 5m line - and where's the 7m line now?", or still wonder just what the new boxing scoring system is ("they take the three scores that are closest together," not bothering to explain what that means - it's the set of three scores where the difference between the average and the number farthest from the average is the lowest).


The flip side of "understand that, in a number of sports, the Olympics are the only time a number of people watch them" is that in a number of sports, the the Olympics are the only time a number of their fans CAN watch them -- they don't get air time any other time. So here we are trying to enjoy the teeny tiny amount of coverage our sport EVER gets on TV, and we have to put up with all this ignorant crap. Not to mention the endless whining about the waste of air-time from people whose favorite sports get shown MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK during their regular season, and whose sports have ENTIRE CHANNELS dedicated to them for the Olympics.

Jesus Christ, if you are a sailing fan, you can't watch anything AT ALL unless you have a cable sub and can stream it, so WTF is up with basketball fans *****ing that they didn't see such-and-such game, or have to watch it on tape delay.


----------



## aindik

murgatroyd said:


> Obviously if you put commercial breaks in the Parade of Nations, there are going to be some countries that don't get shown in real-time.


Only if you're airing it live. If you're airing it on a 5 hour tape delay, you don't have to miss any of it for commercials. Just have Matt Lauer throw it to commercial, and then 10 seconds later say "welcome back" and keep going. Edit in the actual commercials later.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> I will concede the point that there could be regional differences in sportscasting that would make people more popular with some audiences than others.
> 
> Trautwig at least has a melodious voice, and does talk about what is going on at the time, so in that respect he's far superior to Buck. Buck has a one-note voice and just yammers away with no feeling for what event he's covering.
> 
> Then I have to ask why a producer would put him in the booth for an event where he's not that great.


I have to agree. To me, Trautwig should have been doing the road races and the marathon. During the Winter Olympics he does sports like cross country skiing and the biathlon. He's great telling a story when he's the main voice or doing a studio show.


----------



## That Don Guy

Another one from me:

When you show an event, _show the event_. Don't, for example, base your entire coverage of the women's 10km open-water swim around the athlete with the "inspirational story" without bothering to show who won. You don't have to show the whole thing; _very_ few people mind that you show only the finish (plus highlights from earlier in the race) of the 50km walk.


----------



## Steveknj

That Don Guy said:


> I agree about the snark, but at the same time, understand that, in a number of sports, the Olympics are the only time a number of people watch them. Case in point: until NBC aired a judo match, I was not aware that they had done away with the lowest level of scoring ("koka"). I wonder how many people saw the water polo and wondered, "Why do they keep calling the 4m line the 5m line - and where's the 7m line now?", or still wonder just what the new boxing scoring system is ("they take the three scores that are closest together," not bothering to explain what that means - it's the set of three scores where the difference between the average and the number farthest from the average is the lowest).


The thing is, on a sport like Judo or water polo, I'd imagine 95% or more of the audience doesn't know the difference. Very few people care about rule changes like that. I certainly didn't. Unless you follow a sport like judo or water polo on a regular basis, explaining that stuff is pretty meaningless. People want to know the rules as they exist now and then explain what is happening. Filling the broadcast with rule changes that make no difference to the average viewer is just wasting time. And what we want more is action, not minutia. Sure there is going to be a small part of the audience that is going to be upset they didn't explain that, but they have to broadcast tot he majority.


----------



## Steveknj

That Don Guy said:


> Another one from me:
> 
> When you show an event, _show the event_. Don't, for example, base your entire coverage of the women's 10km open-water swim around the athlete with the "inspirational story" without bothering to show who won. You don't have to show the whole thing; _very_ few people mind that you show only the finish (plus highlights from earlier in the race) of the 50km walk.


Yeah, that is kind of crazy, unless they plan on showing the actual event later. Even so, I'm all for showing the event from start to finish (even if it's just parts of it) without jumping in and out of coverage.


----------



## murgatroyd

aindik said:


> Only if you're airing it live. If you're airing it on a 5 hour tape delay, you don't have to miss any of it for commercials. Just have Matt Lauer throw it to commercial, and then 10 seconds later say "welcome back" and keep going. Edit in the actual commercials later.


If that's the case, then you don't have to take out the memorial either. It's ridiculous to me that we could trot out the flag that hung at the WTC in our Opening Ceremony for Salt Lake, and NBC showed all that with reverence, and then NBC blew off the corresponding moment in this OC for a stupid f--ing interview. What the hell were they thinking?


----------



## tlrowley

dswallow said:


> Dear NBC,
> 
> <snip of very well written 3D ranting>
> 
> Idiots.
> 
> Flaming stupid idiots.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Friggin' moronic idiot.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Idiots.


Totally agree. I was so looking forward to the 3D coverage, I had even come to grips with the 24 hour delay, but, oh my, the coverage is just. so. fricken'. poor. I've given up


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, on a sport like Judo or water polo, I'd imagine 95% or more of the audience doesn't know the difference. Very few people care about rule changes like that. I certainly didn't. Unless you follow a sport like judo or water polo on a regular basis, explaining that stuff is pretty meaningless. People want to know the rules as they exist now and then explain what is happening. Filling the broadcast with rule changes that make no difference to the average viewer is just wasting time. And what we want more is action, not minutia. Sure there is going to be a small part of the audience that is going to be upset they didn't explain that, but they have to broadcast tot he majority.


I agree that the focus should be on the rules the way they are now. On the other hand, if an issue comes up, and the outcome of the current competition would be radically different under the old rules, giving a year that the rule changed, and briefly saying what the old rule was, can put things into historical perspective.


----------



## kaszeta

That Don Guy said:


> Another one from me:
> 
> When you show an event, _show the event_.


And the constituent sub-events. I'm a little annoyed that the prime time coverage of the Men's Gymnastics never showed the rings.


----------



## murgatroyd

kaszeta said:


> And the constituent sub-events. I'm a little annoyed that the prime time coverage of the Men's Gymnastics never showed the rings.


----------



## mwhip

I also think to trick the Olympics up is give the host country a choice on a sport to include. Pretty much anything they choose within reason, maybe GB would have chosen darts, cricket or rugby.


----------



## kaszeta

mwhip said:


> I also think to trick the Olympics up is give the host country a choice on a sport to include. Pretty much anything they choose within reason, maybe GB would have chosen darts, cricket or rugby.


Olympic Snooker!


----------



## jsmeeker

mwhip said:


> I also think to trick the Olympics up is give the host country a choice on a sport to include. Pretty much anything they choose within reason, maybe GB would have chosen darts, cricket or rugby.


darts sounds good.

If you can haver archery and shooting, you can have darts.


----------



## murgatroyd

I have no problem with rugby or cricket in the Olympics.

You guys are just showing your snark again by classing them with darts.


----------



## mike_k

If we're making changes, how about taking the NBA out of U.S. Olympic basketball? Do we really need to beat teams by more than 50 points to fill superior? It's a joke. Let's go back to college players.


----------



## Amnesia

mike_k said:


> Do we really need to beat teams by more than 50 points to fill superior?


What makes you think that the US team is winning in order to feel superior? IMO, they're winning by huge margins because they *are* superior---would you rather the US players not try to win? And how would that be any different from deliberately sending in an Olympic team that isn't comprised of our best?


----------



## aindik

mike_k said:


> If we're making changes, how about taking the NBA out of U.S. Olympic basketball? Do we really need to beat teams by more than 50 points to fill superior? It's a joke. Let's go back to college players.


Just out of U.S. Olympic basketball? So, American college players against NBA players from Europe?

IIRC, the San Antonio Spurs have 6 Olympians on their team. None of them are on Team USA.

Are we talking about unilateral disarmament or are we talking about a rule change? If the latter, what's the new rule? Total amateur status? I think they got rid of that because of enforcement issues in other countries. That's why the U.S. Olympic hockey team was such a miracle in 1980. Because the guys in red were the best players in their country, and our guys were not.

The U.S. isn't going to win by 50 pts throughout the tournament. Just in the early going when teams who have no business playing are still in.

On that note, here's a thought experiment. Who wins in a game between Team Nigeria and the 2012 Kentucky Wildcats?

I guess one rule you could make is no players older than 24 or 25.


----------



## jsmeeker

The NBA (Stern) want's them out and wants to go with a 23 and under rule.

It's not totally clear to me if it will be limited to NBA players playing for Team USA or NBA players playing for any national team in the Olympics.


----------



## jsmeeker

Remember, a Team USA team with NBA players didn't even advance to the gold medal game in Athens in 2004.

They got bronze.


----------



## TheMerk

The argument for not allowing NBA players in the Olympics doesn't hold up anymore - there are tons of foreign players in the league now.

Also, read Coach K's comments from after yesterday's blowout. He asserts, and I believe him, that they didn't do anything the run up the score.



> "We didn't play LeBron [James] and Kobe [Bryant] in the second half, and with Carmelo shooting like that, we benched him," Krzyzewski said. "We didn't take any fast breaks in the fourth quarter, and we played all zone. You have to take a shot every 24 seconds, and the shots we took happened to be hit.
> 
> "I take offense to this question because there's no way in the world that our program in the United States sets out to humiliate anyone."


----------



## TheMerk

jsmeeker said:


> The NBA (Stern) want's them out and wants to go with a 23 and under rule.
> 
> It's not totally clear to me if it will be limited to NBA players playing for Team USA or NBA players playing for any national team in the Olympics.


Stern wants this change so he can turn the FIBA championships into a World Cup like tournament.


----------



## aindik

In what other sport do they ban players because they're too good at it?


----------



## TheMerk

aindik said:


> In what other sport do they ban players because they're too good at it?


Olympic (men's) soccer. It's FIFA's way of making the World Cup the marque soccer event, and not share the limelight with the Olympics.

David Stern wants the same with the FIBA tournament.


----------



## jsmeeker

TheMerk said:


> The argument for not allowing NBA players in the Olympics doesn't hold up anymore - there are tons of foreign players in the league now.


There is a new argument.

The argument is the league and the owners are concerned about players playing what is effectively a longer season on a regular basis, increasing the risk of injury.

OF course, they are right.

But they are also wrong.

NBA players should stay in the Olympics. I still feel they are the pinnacle of international competition in the sport, and there is no reason to try to make another competition the pinnacle.


----------



## TheMerk

jsmeeker said:


> There is a new argument.
> 
> The argument is the league and the owners are concerned about players playing what is effectively a longer season on a regular basis, increasing the risk of injury.


The shortened season that the owners approved caused a ton of injuries.


----------



## cmontyburns

kaszeta said:


> And the constituent sub-events. I'm a little annoyed that the prime time coverage of the Men's Gymnastics never showed the rings.





murgatroyd said:


>


I was frustrated by this, too. I think that's the most impressive rotation on the men's side, and NBC acted like it didn't even exist.


----------



## cmontyburns

jsmeeker said:


> NBA players should stay in the Olympics. I still feel they are the pinnacle of international competition in the sport, and there is no reason to try to make another competition the pinnacle.


I think one of the reasons their presence is so glaring is that they are so familiar to us (at least, those of us who follow sports). But the Olympics are filled with professional athletes in all of the sports; just look at track & field, for example. But since those athletes are not on our TV screens and the front page of ESPN.com for six to eight months of every year, their presence doesn't seem so anomalous. But in the abstract, why should it be OK for professional sprinters to be in the Olympics but not professional basketball players? (Or to refine it, professional basketball players from other countries but not US pros?)


----------



## morac

cmontyburns said:


> I think one of the reasons their presence is so glaring is that they are so familiar to us (at least, those of us who follow sports). But the Olympics are filled with professional athletes in all of the sports; just look at track & field, for example. But since those athletes are not on our TV screens and the front page of ESPN.com for six to eight months of every year, their presence doesn't seem so anomalous. But in the abstract, why should it be OK for professional sprinters to be in the Olympics but not professional basketball players? (Or to refine it, professional basketball players from other countries but not US pros?)


Not all sports. Professional boxers (and wrestlers) aren't allowed. Soccer only allows three professional players over the age of 23 per team.

Also professional means to do for a living. I haven't heard of any professional track and field leagues, so technically there aren't any pro-track and field athletes.


----------



## murgatroyd

Shaun White and John McEnroe fencing? OMG.

And I loved Shaun's final take on the differences between his sport and trampoline: "they don't have boards strapped to them."


----------



## Amnesia

kaszeta said:


> I'm a little annoyed that the prime time coverage of the Men's Gymnastics never showed the rings.


That's the only men's event I like...


----------



## RGM1138

I just found out a couple of days ago that I'm getting a bunch of live streams through Cableone. I'm able to catch individual and team horse jumping right now, instead of the soccer and tennis available on the regular cable channels.

Whoo Hoo!

Kinda strange without the PxP, though.


----------



## cmontyburns

morac said:


> Also professional means to do for a living. I haven't heard of any professional track and field leagues, so technically there aren't any pro-track and field athletes.


It also means signing contracts with sponsors, agents, and so on. Plenty of track and field stars are professionals and make their living off racing for sponsorship money.


----------



## murgatroyd

RGM1138 said:


> I just found out a couple of days ago that I'm getting a bunch of live streams through Cableone. I'm able to catch individual and team horse jumping right now, instead of the soccer and tennis available on the regular cable channels.
> 
> Whoo Hoo!
> 
> Kinda strange without the PxP, though.


Think of it as karaoke. Now's your chance to do your own PxP.


----------



## Turtleboy

Cross-posting per Jan's suggestion from the other Olympics thread.

This is a great video - with no spoilers - of a local affiliate berating Bob Costas for going too long.

http://deadspin.com/5931815/bob-costas-is-even-pissing-off-his-local-affiliate-sports-guys


----------



## RGM1138

murgatroyd said:


> Think of it as karaoke. Now's your chance to do your own PxP.


I would but I can't remember all of the technical terms. All I got is "Jump, horsey, jump!"


----------



## murgatroyd

RGM1138 said:


> I would but I can't remember all of the technical terms. All I got is "Jump, horsey, jump!"


Too bad we can't watch it together. I don't know ALL the stuff that Melanie and Tim would say, but they talk too much anyhow. 

I know enough to answer most of the questions the newbie viewer would have.

A very LONG time ago, ESPN used to be the home of sports that you wouldn't usually see on TV. They ran Grand Prix show jumping on a regular basis, so I watched all the time.

I realized just how much I had learned from watching when I said "Oh, no!" as one horse was taking off.

He knocked the jump down. Pretty spectacularly, too I didn't know exactly why, but I could see that something was just 'wrong' as he was leaving the ground, and I knew it was going to be a Big Wreck without knowing how I knew.

These days, watching the same jump, I would be able to tell you that the rider had mis-judged the takeoff distance, and the horse had stood back WAY too far to jump an oxer (that's the boxy fence, with a vertical in front and a rail in back), and there was no way he would be able to make the spread.

It's not that difficult to spot these things. It just takes more practice and experience watching than people can get watching jumping every four years.


----------



## RGM1138

murgatroyd said:


> Too bad we can't watch it together. I don't know ALL the stuff that Melanie and Tim would say, but they talk too much anyhow.
> 
> I know enough to answer most of the questions the newbie viewer would have.
> 
> A very LONG time ago, ESPN used to be the home of sports that you wouldn't usually see on TV. They ran Grand Prix show jumping on a regular basis, so I watched all the time.
> 
> I realized just how much I had learned from watching when I said "Oh, no!" as one horse was taking off.
> 
> He knocked the jump down. Pretty spectacularly, too I didn't know exactly why, but I could see that something was just 'wrong' as he was leaving the ground, and I knew it was going to be a Big Wreck without knowing how I knew.
> 
> These days, watching the same jump, I would be able to tell you that the rider had mis-judged the takeoff distance, and the horse had stood back WAY too far to jump an oxer (that's the boxy fence, with a vertical in front and a rail in back), and there was no way he would be able to make the spread.
> 
> It's not that difficult to spot these things. It just takes more practice and experience watching than people can get watching jumping every four years.


You would definitely have the advantage here. When I was much younger, a neighbor had horses and they put me on one as soon as I was able to sit up. I rode pretty much up into my teen years, but that was western style. I'm way out of my depth on English style riding.

My niece, however, is a frequent visitor to the Winter Classic Horse Show we have every year down here and knows several of the participants. She's much more knowledgeable about the elegant side of riding than I am.


----------



## murgatroyd

RGM1138 said:


> You would definitely have the advantage here. When I was much younger, a neighbor had horses and they put me on one as soon as I was able to sit up. I rode pretty much up into my teen years, but that was western style. I'm way out of my depth on English style riding.


There's a lot of stuff you could watch for that a non-rider won't see -- which horses are keen, which are fussing with the bit, which are resisting and swishing their tails, etc.

One thing you could do to train your eye is to get a feel for how the course is riding. Count the strides in between the jumps and see if the lines are straight or bending. Or try to watch the distance from each jump as they take off, to get a feel for how that's different depending on what kind of jump it is.

They won't always show us the best angle to see these things, but watch for what you can see. The overhead shots on the replays can be quite helpful.

And since you've ridden, even though the style is different, you'll have a better idea than most viewers about the speed the riders are going around the course.

There's a lot going on at once, but if you break it down and watch one thing at a time, eventually it will start to make sense.

Edited to add: one thing to watch for when watching over the next few days is how the course will change to get more difficult over the show jumping competition. I'm watching the qualifying round right now, and there's no triple combination (there are three double combinations instead). Today's round sets the start order for the rest of the competition, but the scores don't carry over. The course will get trickier over the next couple of days.

If you have questions, give me a yell.


----------



## That Don Guy

morac said:


> Not all sports. Professional boxers (and wrestlers) aren't allowed.


What's your definition of "professional wrestler"?

If it's someone in WWE-style "wrestling," they are allowed -in fact, Kurt Angle had qualified for the Olympic Trials.


----------



## BrettStah

Why are most of these short distance track athletes so bulked up in their upper bodies? Seems like overkill for sprinters/hurdlers - just carrying more weight.


----------



## RGM1138

murgatroyd said:


> There's a lot of stuff you could watch for that a non-rider won't see -- which horses are keen, which are fussing with the bit, which are resisting and swishing their tails, etc.
> 
> One thing you could do to train your eye is to get a feel for how the course is riding. Count the strides in between the jumps and see if the lines are straight or bending. Or try to watch the distance from each jump as they take off, to get a feel for how that's different depending on what kind of jump it is.
> 
> They won't always show us the best angle to see these things, but watch for what you can see. The overhead shots on the replays can be quite helpful.
> 
> And since you've ridden, even though the style is different, you'll have a better idea than most viewers about the speed the riders are going around the course.
> 
> There's a lot going on at once, but if you break it down and watch one thing at a time, eventually it will start to make sense.
> 
> Edited to add: one thing to watch for when watching over the next few days is how the course will change to get more difficult over the show jumping competition. I'm watching the qualifying round right now, and there's no triple combination (there are three double combinations instead). Today's round sets the start order for the rest of the competition, but the scores don't carry over. The course will get trickier over the next couple of days.
> 
> If you have questions, give me a yell.


That's very kind. Thank you!


----------



## morac

That Don Guy said:


> What's your definition of "professional wrestler"?
> 
> If it's someone in WWE-style "wrestling," they are allowed -in fact, Kurt Angle had qualified for the Olympic Trials.


Technically Kurt Angle was an Olympic wrestler prior to joining the WWE. They made a big deal about that at the time.


----------



## jsmeeker

morac said:


> Technically Kurt Angle was an Olympic wrestler prior to joining the WWE. They made a big deal about that at the time.


It was his entire angle. It's how they tried to put him over as a face 

Did he really qualify for the 2012 Olympics?


----------



## LoadStar

jsmeeker said:


> It was his entire angle. It's how they tried to put him over as a face
> 
> Did he really qualify for the 2012 Olympics?


Not really. He was at the trials slated to go to the trials, but had to pull out with multiple injuries. He would have been a rather long shot to make the team regardless.


----------



## cherry ghost

That Don Guy said:


> What's your definition of "professional wrestler"?
> 
> If it's someone in WWE-style "wrestling," they are allowed -in fact, Kurt Angle had qualified for the Olympic Trials.


Not professional wrestlers, but there are a few ex-Olympians(freestyle wrestling, Greco-Roman wrestling, Judo) who are professional MMA fighters.


----------



## murgatroyd

RGM1138 said:


> That's very kind. Thank you!


You're welcome.

BTW, I found out this evening that John McEnroe's daughter rides, and he's been to see some of the equestrian events.

He confessed that he enjoyed it.

He's hooked now.


----------



## pteronaut

Good to hear the NBC commentators calling Newcastle United's ground "St. James Park", not "Sports Direct Arena" which the owner of the club renamed it to, to promote is chain of retail stores.


----------



## That Don Guy

LoadStar said:


> Not really. He was at the trials slated to go to the trials, but had to pull out with multiple injuries. He would have been a rather long shot to make the team regardless.


And even if he did, it's almost an entirely different sport now - it's "all of your matches in one day" like in judo and taekwondo. Who knows if he has the stamina to get through something like that.

My original point was, though, that professionals are allowed in Olympic wrestling. The only restrictions on professionals that I know of are, none allowed in boxing, and only three per team over the age of 22 in men's soccer.


----------



## TheMerk

pteronaut said:


> Good to hear the NBC commentators calling Newcastle United's ground "St. James Park", not "Sports Direct Arena" which the owner of the club renamed it to, to promote is chain of retail stores.


Any corporate sponsored venues get temporarily renamed during the Olympics.

In Salt Lake the Delta Center became the Olympic Ice Arena or something like that, with really lame looking tarps draped over the existing exterior Delta Center signage.


----------



## LoadStar

pteronaut said:


> Good to hear the NBC commentators calling Newcastle United's ground "St. James Park", not "Sports Direct Arena" which the owner of the club renamed it to, to promote is chain of retail stores.


All of the "branded" facilities had to go back to unbranded names for the duration of the Olympics. The O2 Arena is renamed to "North Greenwich Arena," and the Ricoh Arena is "City of Coventry Stadium."

It's not an NBC decision - all three have indeed temporarily changed their names, but will change back after the Olympics.


----------



## jsmeeker

LoadStar said:


> All of the "branded" facilities had to go back to unbranded names for the duration of the Olympics. The O2 Arena is renamed to "North Greenwich Arena," and the Ricoh Arena is "City of Coventry Stadium."
> 
> It's not an NBC decision - all three have indeed temporarily changed their names, but will change back after the Olympics.


If Chicago had won the 2016 olympics and baseball was still in it, what would they have renamed Wrigley Field to?


----------



## holee

I'm a moron. I can't figure out how to record these properly on the TiVo. I record what seems to be the right airing based on the show description, but I miss event. For example, the feed on NBC right now says Track and Field, Beach Volleyball, etc. but for the past hours it's been showing volleyball and some horse stuff. No Usain Bolt, even ough it just happened. What am I doing wrong? How do I make sure I, recording the right feed on the right channel?


----------



## robojerk

holee said:


> I'm a moron. I can't figure out how to record these properly on the TiVo. I record what seems to be the right airing based on the show description, but I miss event. For example, the feed on NBC right now says Track and Field, Beach Volleyball, etc. but for the past hours it's been showing volleyball and some horse stuff. No Usain Bolt, even ough it just happened. What am I doing wrong? How do I make sure I, recording the right feed on the right channel?


The descriptions are always off...


----------



## holee

robojerk said:


> The descriptions are always off...


What's the best way to find the right airing to record?


----------



## MauriAnne

They typically are showing the high profile events during prime time. Or you could record everything.


----------



## robojerk

holee said:


> What's the best way to find the right airing to record?


If you figure it out, tell me...

If there is a sport that you *really care* about, I think you'll need to head to NBCOlympics.com, print up the airing schedule of that sport, then make sure the Tivo is recording those. Unless that sport is one that NBC does a good job of covering (swimming, gymnastics, beach volleyball) you're still under the mercy of NBC deciding to show something else instead.
I'm into soccer, and luckily there's a dedicated channel for that and Basketball.

I'm actually surprised that they're not showing Track & Field since the US does okay in those events. But they don't show all of it during the qualifiers. They only show US atheletes, or those that are the favorites.

I was watching the Men's Shot Put the other day and the US guy threw a leading throw, but then they cut away and never went back. I had to look it up and find the results.


Spoiler



The U.S. guy I saw came in 3rd


Watching the olympics is frustrating.. They cut into handball,field hockey, water polo and volleyball games halfway, never show the end sometimes... Online streaming is the only magic bullet, I just wish it came in true HD.. Hook up a PC to your TV.


----------



## holee

It looks like NBC chose to not air the 100m live. So I guess streaming is the way to go.


----------



## jsmeeker

holee said:


> It looks like NBC chose to not air the 100m live. So I guess streaming is the way to go.


yup.. I watched it.

They gotta hold this back for the PRime Time


----------



## murgatroyd

It's really stupid that TiVo and NBC can't have a partnership. Pick your event, have the TiVo fetch the appropriate stream and record it, voila, problem solved.


----------



## jsmeeker

that would be cool.. But it won't ever happened.. They want it to be hard. They want to make you watch as much as possible, waiting for the event you care about.


----------



## mike_k

robojerk said:


> I was watching the Men's Shot Put the other day and the US guy threw a leading throw, but then they cut away and never went back. I had to look it up and find the results.


I don't remember which night it was, but they did show the end of the finals. They only showed 4 or 5 throws, but it was more than I've seen in years past.


----------



## robojerk

murgatroyd said:


> It's really stupid that TiVo and NBC can't have a partnership. Pick your event, have the TiVo fetch the appropriate stream and record it, voila, problem solved.


NBC Comcast would never do that. Comcast makes a ton of money off cable subscriptions, making it easier to cut the cord and stream TV would hurt their bottom line.


----------



## murgatroyd

robojerk said:


> NBC Comcast would never do that. Comcast makes a ton of money off cable subscriptions, making it easier to cut the cord and stream TV would hurt their bottom line.


In my scenario, you'd have to sign in with your provider, just like they're making people sign in on NBCOlympics.com right now.


----------



## murgatroyd

Heads-up for the West Coast: my TiVo has a 3-6 PM timeslot for NBC that says "TBA".

Right now they're showing the Women's Marathon.


----------



## jsmeeker

How far into tonight's coverage will they make us wait before showing the men's 100 M?

My bet is in the final hour


(I already know the results. Streamed it live)


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> Cross-posting per Jan's suggestion from the other Olympics thread.
> 
> This is a great video - with no spoilers - of a local affiliate berating Bob Costas for going too long.
> 
> http://deadspin.com/5931815/bob-costas-is-even-pissing-off-his-local-affiliate-sports-guys


I thought of this last night when I was watching the end of Primetime, and they ended at 12:07.


----------



## murgatroyd

RGM1138 said:


> I just found out a couple of days ago that I'm getting a bunch of live streams through Cableone. I'm able to catch individual and team horse jumping right now, instead of the soccer and tennis available on the regular cable channels.
> 
> Whoo Hoo!
> 
> Kinda strange without the PxP, though.


Factoid from Round 1 (I think) of the team show jumping (clarification: this is the show jumping, not the stadium jumping from the eventing competition).

This won't show up simply by watching the video, but for drainage purposes, the arena is not completely flat.

When the horses are going down the line of jumps that end in the red post boxes (the one with the stamp in the middle of the poles), they are going downhill.

It makes it a little trickier to keep the horses balanced.


----------



## andyw715

What I've been doing is manual recording in 2 hour chunks. 
That way I can review 2 hours and delete (or keep if my wife wants to see), instead of recording the entire guide based 11 hour "show"


----------



## That Don Guy

murgatroyd said:


> Heads-up for the West Coast: my TiVo has a 3-6 PM timeslot for NBC that says "TBA".
> Right now they're showing the Women's Marathon.


This is because the Women's Marathon was originally scheduled to air at 6 AM Pacific, but they moved the entire coverage back three hours so they could air the Murray-Federer tennis match live at 6 Pacific. I guess they are re-airing the marathon (a) for the people who tried to record it at 6 AM and got the tennis match instead, and (b) to fill the three hours.



holee said:


> What's the best way to find the right airing to record?


The way I do it - record them all. It looks like SD stations serve a purpose after all.

The coverage changes on the fly, in part based on how well Americans are doing. For example, they aired three or four judo matches involving USA's gold medalist at various times of the day, when they had only scheduled to air the final (which I doubt they would have aired had she not been in it).



robojerk said:


> I'm actually surprised that they're not showing Track & Field since the US does okay in those events. But they don't show all of it during the qualifiers. They only show US atheletes, or those that are the favorites.


They're not? One of the NBC stations spent about an hour airing something I figured they would never do, except maybe as part of a human interest story - the 100m heats for the countries that had no men put up any valid qualifying times for any events, so they were allowed to enter one man into one event (usually the 100m, but every now and them some joker country decides to put its runner into the marathon). If you saw the "first round" heats, two runners in each heat came out of those preliminaries.

If you mean, "They don't show all of the qualifying heats on TV," this is because there are far too many of them, and there just isn't the interest for a dedicated channel - a lesson NBC learned in its 1992 TripleCast experiment.

Track & field and swimming are the two sports that NBC tends to cover extensively (they'll show every final, even if it's just highlights - for example, the men's long jump) regardless of how well USA does. You just have to be watching at the right time.



> I was watching the Men's Shot Put the other day and the US guy threw a leading throw, but then they cut away and never went back. I had to look it up and find the results.


They did air the finals of the men's shot put; it might have been on NBC's late night (12:30 AM Eastern) show. Expect most of the track & field finals they don't air in the prime time broadcast (or live, like the marathons) to air in the late night one.


----------



## morac

That Don Guy said:


> They're not? One of the NBC stations spent about an hour airing something I figured they would never do, except maybe as part of a human interest story - the 100m heats for the countries that had no men put up any valid qualifying times for any events, so they were allowed to enter one man into one event (usually the 100m, but every now and them some joker country decides to put its runner into the marathon). If you saw the "first round" heats, two runners in each heat came out of those preliminaries.


They showed at least one track and field event, the first heat round with Oscar Pistorius (the double amputee runner) where he advanced to the semi-finals.


----------



## robojerk

robojerk said:


> I'm actually surprised that they're not showing Track & Field since the US does okay in those events. But they don't show all of it during the qualifiers. They only show US athletes, or those that are the favorites.





That Don Guy said:


> ...
> If you mean, "They don't show all of the qualifying heats on TV," this is because there are far too many of them, and there just isn't the interest for a dedicated channel - a lesson NBC learned in its 1992 TripleCast experiment.


Bingo


That Don Guy said:


> They did air the finals of the men's shot put; it might have been on NBC's late night (12:30 AM Eastern) show. Expect most of the track & field finals they don't air in the prime time broadcast (or live, like the marathons) to air in the late night one.


My complaint is that they showed shot put in the late AM (PST) yesterday, then cut away. They said this was for the final and for medals. They showed several throws, showed the USA guy's A-mom (Adoptive mother) then NBC cut away and showed something else. Why start showing me something then yank it from under my feet??

Also the prime time stuff on NBC seems like so much filler and commercials. I can pad up to an hour and a half before I start watching it then catch up to real time in what seems like 30 minutes. I FF thru the commercials and a lot of the puff pieces.

I hate the way the network treats a lot of competitions with a USA favorite like a story;
Play sad/sympathetic/encouraging track with a montage of the athlete, family, etc..
<insert commercials>
Show athlete warming up, show previous races/qualifiers etc..
<insert commercial>
Have athlete getting ready and if time...
<insert commercial>..
Show actual event.


----------



## murgatroyd

andyw715 said:


> What I've been doing is manual recording in 2 hour chunks.
> That way I can review 2 hours and delete (or keep if my wife wants to see), instead of recording the entire guide based 11 hour "show"


Yes, I used to do this regularly on Kentucky Derby day when I was short on hard disc space, on my S1 TiVo. I would do 1-hour manual recordings and dump them as I was done.

I should have been doing this all along.


----------



## murgatroyd

So on tonight's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams just introduced a feature on the media passes, and to show us what they were like, they used Kate (HRH The Duchess of Cambridge).

She's got an All-Access Pass. Those, Williams tells us, are hard to come by.

THANK YOU, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.


----------



## That Don Guy

robojerk said:


> My complaint is that they showed shot put in the late AM (PST) yesterday, then cut away. They said this was for the final and for medals. They showed several throws, showed the USA guy's A-mom (Adoptive mother) then NBC cut away and showed something else. Why start showing me something then yank it from under my feet??


When you say, "They said this was for the final and for medals," it sounds like they were airing the qualifying round to see who would get into the final and have a chance at the medals.



> Also the prime time stuff on NBC seems like so much filler and commercials. I can pad up to an hour and a half before I start watching it then catch up to real time in what seems like 30 minutes. I FF thru the commercials and a lot of the puff pieces.
> 
> I hate the way the network treats a lot of competitions with a USA favorite like a story;
> Play sad/sympathetic/encouraging track with a montage of the athlete, family, etc..
> <insert commercials>
> Show athlete warming up, show previous races/qualifiers etc..
> <insert commercial>
> Have athlete getting ready and if time...
> <insert commercial>..
> Show actual event.


Slight correction to that last one: "If the athlete does well, show the event; otherwise, show a five-second clip of the athlete competing."

Trust me - you are not the one thousandth, much less the first, person to complain about how NBC (and CBS and ABC in the past) handles Olympics coverage, especially in the western USA, where, even during the Salt Lake City and Vancouver Winter Olympics, they refused to make a live feed (as well as a 3-hour delay) available - and in 2010, the excuse NBC gave was that they were afraid somebody who was waiting for the delayed feed and didn't want the event spoiled might overhear a neighbor's TV with the live feed.

However, as long as Olympics TV coverage in the USA consists of:
(a) Each network (over)bids for exclusive rights, and the highest bid wins;
(b) In order to make back the money, the network charges incredibly high prices for commercial time, and promises outlandish ratings;
(c) In order to deliver on the ratings promises, they have to "dumb down" the primetime broadcast to puff pieces and "USA Against the World"
then expect more of the same in future years.


----------



## jsmeeker

USA! USA!!


We're gonna beat you, China!!!


----------



## holee

For every gold medal we win, China will just send in another swarm of 14-year olds who'll end up getting twice the gold medals next time.


----------



## cherry ghost

holee said:


> It looks like NBC chose to not air the 100m live. So I guess streaming is the way to go.


No track final under 10k will be shown live. They'll all be held for prime time.

http://www.usatf.org/calendars/TVSchedule.aspx


----------



## holee

cherry ghost said:


> No track final under 10k will be shown live. They'll all be held for prime time.
> 
> http://www.usatf.org/calendars/TVSchedule.aspx


Grrrrr!!!! NBCCCC!!!


----------



## murgatroyd

I'm sitting here wondering why TF I have to be awake at 11:30 to watch the men's gymnastics, when NBC squandered what, 45 minutes of primetime earlier in the evening, and now they're switching away from the gymnastics to talk to Ryan Seacrest about who is Tweeting what. 

If I gave a crap about these Tweets, I could have found them for myself hours ago. This is lame. 

I feel for all the people who work on the late-night news shows for their local NBC stations all over the country. Why should they have to work later than usual just to make more air time for interviews with Michael Phelps, a feature on James Bond (like we wouldn't know all this stuff already) and the stupid who-is-tweeting-what crapola.

WTF, NBC? I got up super early to watch the tennis. I want to go to sleep.


----------



## steverm2

murgatroyd said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why TF I have to be awake at 11:30 to watch the men's gymnastics, when NBC squandered what, 45 minutes of primetime earlier in the evening, and now they're switching away from the gymnastics to talk to Ryan Seacrest about who is Tweeting what.
> 
> If I gave a crap about these Tweets, I could have found them for myself hours ago. This is lame.
> 
> I feel for all the people who work on the late-night news shows for their local NBC stations all over the country. Why should they have to work later than usual just to make more air time for interviews with Michael Phelps, a feature on James Bond (like we wouldn't know all this stuff already) and the stupid who-is-tweeting-what crapola.
> 
> WTF, NBC? I got up super early to watch the tennis. I want to go to sleep.


This! And Bob Costas in all of them makes them obnoxius as well as a waste of our time.


----------



## Steveknj

So Tim Dagget's over exuberant potificating finally caught up with him last night as his "sure thing" or as he said, "maybe the surest thing in the whole gymnastics" competition, fell on her second vault attempt and finished second. Maybe they should just not hold the competition and given her the gold medal?

This was the first night I really didn't like NBC's coverage. Did we REALLY need a 1/2 hour retrospective of Michael Phelps? The networks SURE love clip shows!! And as much as I thought the James Bond thing was kind of cool, did it belong on the prime time broadcast where they could have showed something else? And then the gymnastics mess.


----------



## tiams

Steveknj said:


> So Tim Dagget's over exuberant potificating finally caught up with him last night as his "sure thing" or as he said, "maybe the surest thing in the whole gymnastics" competition, fell on her second vault attempt and finished second. Maybe they should just not hold the competition and given her the gold medal?


When i was watching it and they were saying what a sure thing she was, I knew she was going to choke. I even wondered if the commentary was added after the event to attempt to inflate the OMG moment. If so, it didn't work, it just gave the outcome away.


----------



## That Don Guy

tiams said:


> When i was watching it and they were saying what a sure thing she was, I knew she was going to choke. I even wondered if the commentary was added after the event to attempt to inflate the OMG moment. If so, it didn't work, it just gave the outcome away.


At least NBC bothered to show the final vault's score. Okay, it was something like a minute after they posted it inside the arena, and all we got at first was the reaction shot of McKayla (and note the way it was announced: "And...it's a silver...for McKayla"), but at least they bothered to show it.

Speaking of NBC and those graphics, there must be some separate version of them being supplied for the NBC broadcasts in some events but not others, since the track & field field event distances are shown in feet and inches, but the weightlifting weights appear strictly in kilograms. In addition to the "green/yellow/red" used in gymnastics, I think the "maximum score / total score" is an NBC-only thing; in the arena, they show the difficulty, execution, and total scores, and I assume that is what other countries' feeds show as well. (Maximum score = difficulty + 10)


----------



## cmontyburns

steverm2 said:


> This! And Bob Costas in all of them makes them obnoxius as well as a waste of our time.


I don't get the hate for Costas in some quarters. Actually, overall I think NBC has a top-flight stable of hosts: Costas, Dan Patrick, Al Michaels. (I'll listen to Mary Carillo call tennis any day, but I find her best in small doses as a host, so her late-night assignment is the right one.) Admittedly Michaels does sometimes look like he'd much rather be calling a football game, but he does a professional job. And Patrick and Costas are, to me, excellent.


----------



## Amnesia

One thing I don't understand is why when they are showing certain tape-delayed events, they show them in real-time, meaning that we lose coverage during commercial breaks.

For example, Misty and Kerri played their quarter-final beach volleyball game at 2PM eastern and the match lasted 33 minutes. When it was shown last night during prime time, I believe that the time between the first serve and the final kill was again 33 minutes---including commercials, which meant that we missed a good portion of the match. Why couldn't they show the entire match even if that meant that it was 45 minutes long?


----------



## aindik

Amnesia said:


> One thing I don't understand is why when they are showing certain tape-delayed events, they show them in real-time, meaning that we lose coverage during commercial breaks.
> 
> For example, Misty and Kerri played their quarter-final beach volleyball game at 2PM eastern and the match lasted 33 minutes. When it was shown last night during prime time, I believe that the time between the first serve and the final kill was again 33 minutes---including commercials, which meant that we missed a good portion of the match. Why couldn't they show the entire match even if that meant that it was 45 minutes long?


Because that would give away that it's not live?

Yeah, I don't get it either.


----------



## RGM1138

I guess I've never watched women's field hockey before. I can't believe how incredibly big the field is. It's like a football field.

Compared to this, ice hockey takes place in a bathtub.


----------



## murgatroyd

cmontyburns said:


> I don't get the hate for Costas in some quarters. Actually, overall I think NBC has a top-flight stable of hosts: Costas, Dan Patrick, Al Michaels. (I'll listen to Mary Carillo call tennis any day, but I find her best in small doses as a host, so her late-night assignment is the right one.) Admittedly Michaels does sometimes look like he'd much rather be calling a football game, but he does a professional job. And Patrick and Costas are, to me, excellent.


I like Bob Costas when he is doing baseball. Because he gets baseball.

Al Michaels is a professional. No matter what he is given to do, he shows up and does his job, and makes it seem effortless.

Also, I have to give a shout-out to Randy Moss, who was completely out of his element when doing the synchronized swimming yesterday, but still tried to understand what he was seeing and convey that to the rest of the audience that might be new to watching -- especially the athleticism involved in what's essentially sprinting upside down under water while holding your breath for 2 minutes and 20 seconds.

Now THAT is professionalism. Unlike Costas making snarky remarks about what he was watching during the Parade of Nations.


----------



## robojerk

I think the commentators feel the need that they must report the news, other than just letting it unfold. I watched the women's triathlon, it had a photo finish and we were waiting for an announcement on who won. I could hear the announcer who announced the winner over a PA system to the crowd at the finish line, however the commentator was yapping over it about what a great moment this was, and made me wait another 4 minutes before NBC finally announced the winner.
This isn't radio, I don't need a play by play because I have eye balls. Quit treating everything like a damn story that needs to be told. I'm sure all of these athletes have emotional stories, spent less time with kids/family, worked very hard to train, etc. but this is their payoff, to compete on the global stage, and maybe even win a medal.

Also I'm sick of Phelps. A lot of the commentators keep saying he's the "greatest Olympic athlete of all time". He's not. He's the most decorated. If he did and won gold in the 10K(6.1 mile) open water swim i might give you that he's the greatest swimmer of all time, but he's not going to do it. NBC just loves to talk about him because they can talk about him like a story.


----------



## Steveknj

Amnesia said:


> One thing I don't understand is why when they are showing certain tape-delayed events, they show them in real-time, meaning that we lose coverage during commercial breaks.
> 
> For example, Misty and Kerri played their quarter-final beach volleyball game at 2PM eastern and the match lasted 33 minutes. When it was shown last night during prime time, I believe that the time between the first serve and the final kill was again 33 minutes---including commercials, which meant that we missed a good portion of the match. Why couldn't they show the entire match even if that meant that it was 45 minutes long?


Agreed, and they could have cut out the James Bond piece and they would have been fine.


----------



## Steveknj

cmontyburns said:


> I don't get the hate for Costas in some quarters. Actually, overall I think NBC has a top-flight stable of hosts: Costas, Dan Patrick, Al Michaels. (I'll listen to Mary Carillo call tennis any day, but I find her best in small doses as a host, so her late-night assignment is the right one.) Admittedly Michaels does sometimes look like he'd much rather be calling a football game, but he does a professional job. And Patrick and Costas are, to me, excellent.


:up:


----------



## Steveknj

robojerk said:


> I think the commentators feel the need that they must report the news, other than just letting it unfold. I watched the women's triathlon, it had a photo finish and we were waiting for an announcement on who won. I could hear the announcer who announced the winner over a PA system to the crowd at the finish line, however the commentator was yapping over it about what a great moment this was, and made me wait another 4 minutes before NBC finally announced the winner.
> This isn't radio, I don't need a play by play because I have eye balls. Quit treating everything like a damn story that needs to be told. I'm sure all of these athletes have emotional stories, spent less time with kids/family, worked very hard to train, etc. but this is their payoff, to compete on the global stage, and maybe even win a medal.
> 
> Also I'm sick of Phelps. A lot of the commentators keep saying he's the "greatest Olympic athlete of all time". He's not. He's the most decorated. If he did and won gold in the 10K(6.1 mile) open water swim i might give you that he's the greatest swimmer of all time, but he's not going to do it. NBC just loves to talk about him because they can talk about him like a story.


Perhaps he's not the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. But if he's not, who is?

I agree, I'm sick of him too. There was no need to spend time recapping his career. That is better done on an hour special on NBCSN after the Olympics are over.


----------



## aindik

Athletes in other sports can't win 6 medals in a single Olympics. What if the greatest olympian of all time is a tennis player or a boxer?


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> Athletes in other sports can't win 6 medals in a single Olympics. What if the greatest olympian of all time is a tennis player or a boxer?


Serena Williams

Muhammad Ali


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> Perhaps he's not the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. But if he's not, who is?


Look, I like swimming, and I don't mean to disrespect Phelps, but let's get serious. How can you make claims about someone being the greatest athlete ever when the margin of victory over the competition is so tiny? I see these swimmers who all come in within a couple 100s of a second of each other, and they are all awesome. It seems like any one of them could beat each other on a given day. You couldn't have a race at your local pool and know who won because by human standards they'd all touch at the 'same time'.

I know this is likely to start another "if it has judges it's not a sport" argument, but to me, a better candidate for someone being a great Olympian is how far apart he was from the competitors of his day. Like Greg Louganis, whose diving was SO much better than the other guys competing at that time.

Or two-time Olympic Gold Medalist Dick Button, who competed in the European Championships in figure skating, and won, so that they changed the rules to ensure that no one from outside Europe could come in and win Europeans ever again.

I'll leave it to you guys who don't like judged sports to come up with better examples from your sports, because I'm sure you can. But if you're so good at stomping the ass of your competitors that they have to change the rules to re-level the playing field, that's true greatness and dominance of your sport. Not winning by the length of a fingernail, no matter how much or how often you do it.


----------



## aindik

Is there anywhere on NBCOlympics.com where you can see replays of events with the NBC announcers? Kind of weird trying to watch a basketball game with no announcers.


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> Is there anywhere on NBCOlympics.com where you can see replays of events with the NBC announcers? Kind of weird trying to watch a basketball game with no announcers.


I've seen them as "featured videos" or something like that. But it might not be the whole event, unless it was something short. I bet you can watch the 100m with NBCs call.

Actually, it would be cool to hear it with some one else's call. When I watched it streaming live, I had a stream that had NO COMMENTARY at all.


----------



## aindik

jsmeeker said:


> I've seen them as "featured videos" or something like that. But it might not be the whole event, unless it was something short. I bet you can watch the 100m with NBCs call.
> 
> Actually, it would be cool to hear it with some one else's call. When I watched it streaming live, I had a stream that had NO COMMENTARY at all.


That's what I get when I'm trying to watch USA-Lithuania men's basketball. Just arena noise.


----------



## That Don Guy

Which commentary, if any, you get changes from sport to sport, and even from event to event within a sport. In judo, while most of the coverage has no commentary, the final rounds of the men's and women's heaviest divisions had what I think is the BBC commentary - definitely not NBC's.


----------



## tivogurl

Amnesia said:


> One thing I don't understand is why when they are showing certain tape-delayed events, they show them in real-time, meaning that we lose coverage during commercial breaks.


That has always pissed me off during track events. Anything longer than 1500m gets at least one commercial break. About half of anything 3k and up gets cut. Get rid of the dead air time (interviews and bios) and we could see much more of an event notwithstanding the commercials.

As for Phelps, there's an obvious reason for showing that retrospective rather than actual sporting action, and it's the same reason they spend so much time on interviews and athlete bios rather than actual sporting action: the Olympics, like most television, is intended to attract female viewers, who as a rule don't care about the sporting aspect of sport.


----------



## murgatroyd

tivogurl said:


> As for Phelps, there's an obvious reason for showing that retrospective rather than actual sporting action, and it's the same reason they spend so much time on interviews and athlete bios rather than actual sporting action: the Olympics, like most television, is intended to attract female viewers, who as a rule don't care about the sporting aspect of sport.


I for one am sick of this bogus excuse for not showing sports during the broadcast of a sporting event. People used to assume that women didn't need opportunities to take part in sport because they weren't interested. Then Title IX came along and mandated that the money had to be made available. Voila, once women were actually given the opportunity to participate instead of being kept out because people expected them to not be interested, we had more women doing sports. And we can see the benefits in all the performances from the women athletes from the US team today (and more, too, if you count the athletes from other countries who trained at US colleges and universities).

Yes, I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of polls that prove your point, but let's not forget the problem of self-selection, and that surveys often lock responders into choosing an answer that may not reflect what they actually think.

Case in point: there is no way to report back to NBC that we skipped the Phelps interview and chose to watch instead an episode of _The Red Green Show_ from 1994 that was on our Now Playing List instead.

We don't know how many women athletes and female sports fans might actually watch a GOOD Primetime broadcast because we don't have the opportunity to choose. People either watch the crappy Primetime broadcast we are shown, or not, because that's all there is.

I would like to see a ratings system where NBC could run three different Primetime broadcasts on the three OTA subchannels, sell the advertising as a package (so it wouldn't matter, ratings-wise, which sub-channel viewers watched, as long as they were watching one of the three, it would count) and then let them do their feature-rich stuff on one, and run more sports on the other two. It would be interesting to have an all-women's sports sub-channel and see just how much that would draw.


----------



## billypritchard

Why did it take 5 minutes after the 100M men's final to actually show the results with times? Look, there is Bolt celebrating. Look, there are others running around. Look, here is Bolt giving an interview. WTF, just tell us the times of the finishers!

I find about one thing per night to seriously annoy me about the broadcast, other than the obvious one that I know all the results before they air.


----------



## tivogurl

murgatroyd said:


> I for one am sick of this bogus excuse for not showing sports during the broadcast of a sporting event.


Bogus excuse? NBC is in the business of advertising, not sports broadcasting. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that women make more desirable viewers, and that women want the fluffy stuff. This belief informs all their programming decisions, not just sports.


> People used to assume that women didn't need opportunities to take part in sport because they weren't interested.


Compared to men, they still aren't. That's why Title IX lawsuits have devastated men's collegiate sports. It wasn't good enough for the activists to satisfy female sports demand, they demanded "equality", by hatchet, axe, and saw if necessary.


----------



## jsmeeker

billypritchard said:


> Why did it take 5 minutes after the 100M men's final to actually show the results with times? Look, there is Bolt celebrating. Look, there are others running around. Look, here is Bolt giving an interview. WTF, just tell us the times of the finishers!


I watched the live stream and it took even longer.


----------



## aindik

murgatroyd said:


> I for one am sick of this bogus excuse for not showing sports during the broadcast of a sporting event. People used to assume that women didn't need opportunities to take part in sport because they weren't interested. Then Title IX came along and mandated that the money had to be made available. Voila, we had more women doing sports, and we can see the benefits in all the performances from the women athletes from the US team today (and more, too, if you count the athletes from other countries who trained at US colleges and universities).


Women taking part in sports doesn't necessarily translate to women watching sports on TV.

If women were as interested in (watching) sports as men are, it would be reflected in the ratings (not just of the Olympics, but of sports in general). If you're going to say that the reason women don't watch standard sports on TV is because the participants are men, then why don't women's sports get ratings compared to men's sports?


----------



## cmontyburns

Amnesia said:


> One thing I don't understand is why when they are showing certain tape-delayed events, they show them in real-time, meaning that we lose coverage during commercial breaks.
> 
> For example, Misty and Kerri played their quarter-final beach volleyball game at 2PM eastern and the match lasted 33 minutes. When it was shown last night during prime time, I believe that the time between the first serve and the final kill was again 33 minutes---including commercials, which meant that we missed a good portion of the match. Why couldn't they show the entire match even if that meant that it was 45 minutes long?


This annoys me. I mean, we all understand why NBC does it, of course. And in some instances it's not destructive to the watching experience, for example in the instance of a wire-to-wire rout. But probably just as often, NBC ruins why we watch sports to begin with by acting like the result is the most important thing.

For example, last week May and Walsh lost their first-ever set in the Olympics. NBC showed the back half of that set including the end, but robbed us of the chance to see how the match started and what sort of play had put Misty and Kerri in the hole. NBC then skipped the second set entirely, which the pair won in a rout. That to me was the part of the match most worth showing. The two of them had not played all that great in the tournament to that point, looking vulnerable and culminating in that first-set loss. How would this great team respond? By getting angry, digging deep, and elevating their game? Or were they too old, too comfortable, etc. and would they continue to struggle?

That sort of moment is why many of us enjoy sports so much. (See also: Usain Bolt's response to all the questions about how he would do.) Obviously we know the answer so far in Walsh's and May's case: they have won every set since that loss going away. But we didn't get to see the moment where they turned it around and said, "enough". Instead we got to see the last few points of the third set of that match, long after the moment had passed. If NBC were going to trim that match, they should have shown us the second set and skipped most or all of the third. Frustrating.


----------



## mrdbdigital

NBC is going to do whatever they think they have to do to maximize their advertising revenue. Might as well get used to all the commercials in prime time.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Athletes in other sports can't win 6 medals in a single Olympics. What if the greatest olympian of all time is a tennis player or a boxer?


Exactly. What if the Track and Field competition included the following events:

100 M Freestyle Running
100 M Backwards Running
100 M Skipping
100 M Sideways Shuffling
200 M Freestyle Running
200 M Backwards Running
200 M Skipping
200 M Sideways Shuffling
200 M Individual Medley (50 M of each style)
400 M Individual Medley (100 M of each style)
4x100 M Relay
4x200 M Relay

How many medals do you think Carl Lewis or Usain Bolt would win then?

Swimming simply has more events than any other discipline that allows a single athlete to train for all of them simultaneously and therefore compete in multiple events at the top level. Very few other sports have that kind of opportunity.


----------



## Amnesia

cmontyburns said:


> Obviously we know the answer so far in Walsh's and May's case: they have won every set since that loss going away.


Not only have they won---they've won so decisively that they brought one of their opponents to tears.


----------



## cmontyburns

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly. What if the Track and Field competition included the following events:
> 
> 100 M Freestyle Running
> 100 M Backwards Running
> 100 M Skipping
> 100 M Sideways Shuffling
> 200 M Freestyle Running
> 200 M Backwards Running
> 200 M Skipping
> 200 M Sideways Shuffling
> 200 M Individual Medley (50 M of each style)
> 400 M Individual Medley (100 M of each style)
> 4x100 M Relay
> 4x200 M Relay
> 
> How many medals do you think Carl Lewis or Usain Bolt would win then?
> 
> Swimming simply has more events than any other discipline that allows a single athlete to train for all of them simultaneously and therefore compete in multiple events at the top level. Very few other sports have that kind of opportunity.


I think you are diminishing a bit the effort required to not only train for many events, but to actually be good at them all and then actually medal. If it is so easy, why don't all swimmers come away with 6-8 medals? Usain Bolt gets a couple of days in between the 200 and 400 finals. Missy Franklin swam two finals within 15 minutes of each other and won gold in the second.

I'm not trying to diminish one side nor overinflate the other -- rather, I'd submit that perhaps things are about as hard for each sport as each sport can tolerate.


----------



## That Don Guy

billypritchard said:


> Why did it take 5 minutes after the 100M men's final to actually show the results with times? Look, there is Bolt celebrating. Look, there are others running around. Look, here is Bolt giving an interview. WTF, just tell us the times of the finishers!


Unlike with swimming, where they can determine the times immediately because of the touchpads, in track & field, the times have to be determined "manually" by "some guys" looking at the photo-finish camera results and lining up their torsos to the time indicators along the top/bottom. It takes longer if two or more runners finish close together, even if it is for seventh place. They can't list "official" results until they determine all of the places and times, and then wait to see if any official called for a disqualification (a lesson you would think the officials in track cycling would have learned).


----------



## murgatroyd

Note to Dan Patrick. If you find yourself saying "I just couldn't resist," that's a sure sign that the joke is dumb and you should have resisted.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> Look, I like swimming, and I don't mean to disrespect Phelps, but let's get serious. How can you make claims about someone being the greatest athlete ever when the margin of victory over the competition is so tiny? I see these swimmers who all come in within a couple 100s of a second of each other, and they are all awesome. It seems like any one of them could beat each other on a given day. You couldn't have a race at your local pool and know who won because by human standards they'd all touch at the 'same time'.
> 
> I know this is likely to start another "if it has judges it's not a sport" argument, but to me, a better candidate for someone being a great Olympian is how far apart he was from the competitors of his day. Like Greg Louganis, whose diving was SO much better than the other guys competing at that time.
> 
> Or two-time Olympic Gold Medalist Dick Button, who competed in the European Championships in figure skating, and won, so that they changed the rules to ensure that no one from outside Europe could come in and win Europeans ever again.
> 
> I'll leave it to you guys who don't like judged sports to come up with better examples from your sports, because I'm sure you can. But if you're so good at stomping the ass of your competitors that they have to change the rules to re-level the playing field, that's true greatness and dominance of your sport. Not winning by the length of a fingernail, no matter how much or how often you do it.


I have no argument about Phelps, I'm just putting it out there, if he's not who is? Here's the argument for Phelps that I see. It's not that he got all those medals, it's that he's been the dominant swimmer for 3 straight Olympics.

I would add Carl Lewis Al Orter to the list of greatest. Louganis is there as well. Teofolo Stephenson, the Cuban boxer, and IRC isn't there a Cross Country skiier who's one multiple medals over more than one Olympics?


----------



## whitson77

Kevin Durant has the best shot on the planet. Good lord!!


----------



## aindik

Is anyone's cable company carrying the NBC Basketball or Soccer channels in SD? My BIL doesn't have an HDTV or an HD cable box and would like to watch Team USA replays. I suppose I could direct him to On Demand, but let's be charitable and say he might not be able to figure it out.


----------



## DevdogAZ

cmontyburns said:


> I think you are diminishing a bit the effort required to not only train for many events, but to actually be good at them all and then actually medal. If it is so easy, why don't all swimmers come away with 6-8 medals? Usain Bolt gets a couple of days in between the 200 and 400 finals. Missy Franklin swam two finals within 15 minutes of each other and won gold in the second.
> 
> I'm not trying to diminish one side nor overinflate the other -- rather, I'd submit that perhaps things are about as hard for each sport as each sport can tolerate.


And I'm not trying to diminish Phelp's accomplishment's either. Obviously he's incredible. If he's not the greates Olympian ever, he's definitely among the best.

I'm simply pointing out that swimming is unique in that it affords an athlete the opportunity to compete for several medals, whereas the vast majority of Olympic athletes come to the Games with the opportunity to only go for one medal. If other sports offered athletes the chance to earn that many medals in a single Games, I don't think it would be so rare for the very best to earn 5+ medals in one meet. It's only because swimming is unique, and that Phelps is the best among swimmers, that his feat is unequaled.


----------



## aindik

There's a difference between it being extremely difficult to win six medals at a single Olympics, and it being literally impossible unless you participate in more than one sport.

There is only one medal in lots of sports. Tennis, equestrian, the team sports. Or one per weight class: weightlifting, boxing, wrestling.

Let's say some wrestler dominates at 3 Olympics in a row. You know how many gold medals he has? 3. He'd have to dominate for 80 years to get 20 gold medals.

What if Lebron James leads Team USA to gold in 2012, 2016, and 2020 (when he'll be 36 years old). He'll have 4 golds and a bronze. Might he be the greatest ever?

But that's only 5 medals. Phelps has 20.


----------



## pdhenry

aindik said:


> Is anyone's cable company carrying the NBC Basketball or Soccer channels in SD? My BIL doesn't have an HDTV or an HD cable box and would like to watch Team USA replays. I suppose I could direct him to On Demand, but let's be charitable and say he might not be able to figure it out.


I only see them in the guide in HD.


----------



## cmontyburns

aindik said:


> There's a difference between it being extremely difficult to win six medals at a single Olympics, and it being literally impossible unless you participate in more than one sport.
> 
> There is only one medal in lots of sports. Tennis, equestrian, the team sports. Or one per weight class: weightlifting, boxing, wrestling.
> 
> Let's say some wrestler dominates at 3 Olympics in a row. You know how many gold medals he has? 3. He'd have to dominate for 80 years to get 20 gold medals.
> 
> What if Lebron James leads Team USA to gold in 2012, 2016, and 2020 (when he'll be 36 years old). He'll have 4 golds and a bronze. Might he be the greatest ever?
> 
> But that's only 5 medals. Phelps has 20.


I'm not really taking sides in the "greatest ever" debate (although I do think Phelps has to be among the top two or three), but to continue the discussion:

Sure, some people are making it all about medal count. But if you want to reduce the importance of medal count for reasons like you are saying, I think his case still holds up. Consider, for example, medals per opportunity instead.

Phelps has 22 medals, but I think one of them in Athens came from swimming in the qualifying heats of the IM but not in the finals (and he was selected for the finals, but bowed out in deference to his teammate). So call it 21 medals to be generous to the contrary case. I believe he swam 7 events in Athens other than the relay, and made it to the finals in all 7; 8 events in Beijing, and of course made it to the finals of all 8 there; and 7 in London, again making the finals of each of them.

So that's 22 events total in which he could have medaled and 21 medals earned in response. Of those 21, the vast majority, 17, are gold. 2 are silver, and 2 bronze. (All of that leaves out the Athens relay.)

Even though he may have had more chances than athletes in other sports, that's still an overwhelming winning percentage -- and in a very grueling sport, where, as we have seen, winning can happen by the slimmest of margins. His _lack of failure_ at the Olympics over time is incredible. He has to be on the very short list of the best Olympians of all time.

(This doesn't even get into the numerous Olympic and world records, the fact that he is the first swimmer to win the same event at three consecutive Olympics [more than once, now], and other details.)


----------



## murgatroyd

aindik said:


> There is only one medal in lots of sports. Tennis, equestrian, the team sports. Or one per weight class: weightlifting, boxing, wrestling.


Minor correction to the statement quoted above.

For tennis and equestrian you could have more than one. Tennis: one for singles, one for doubles, and (possibly) mixed doubles.

For equestrian:

eventing: one team, one individual 
show jumping: one team, one individual
dressage: one team, one individual

This is the tenth Olympic appearance for Canadian rider (show jumping) Ian Millar. Wikipedia says that of the 2008 games, his nine appearances were the most for any equestrian, and matched the record for most appearances in an Olympics.

Millar's team won the silver medal in 2008. I submit that if there had been an equestrian with Millar's longevity who had won a medal at each of his/her Olympic games, this would be a FAR more impressive feat than what Phelps has done. Note that in the equestrian events, men and women compete against each other equally, so there is only one individual medal per discipline, not two as there would be in swimming, tennis, running, etc.

Again, I mean no disrespect for what Phelps has been able to do, but please, let's celebrate the fact that he is the most decorated, and also great, but not automatically exclude from "greatness" all the athletes from other sports who only have the chance to compete in one or two events per Olympiad.


----------



## Stephen Tu

whitson77 said:


> Kevin Durant has the best shot on the planet. Good lord!!


Nah, I think there are a number of players with a better shot than KD. E.g. Ray Allen. It's KD's size and long arms, combined with a very good but not "the best" shot, that makes him unguardable. He can just effortlessly shoot over just about anyone quick enough to attempt to check him at the 3-pt line, so when his shot is falling it's a total nightmare for the other team.


----------



## cmontyburns

Now that we've all agreed Phelps is the best Olympian in history , let's talk commentators.

Who are you liking and who do you wish would never appear on your TV again? Being a cord-cutter, I'm only treated to who appears on NBC's main channel, but here are a few thoughts:

Swimming (Dan Hicks / Rowdy Gaines): Probably my favorite pair. I think Hicks calls an exciting race, and while I know that Gaines has his detractors, I think he does a good job with technical analysis and I actually like how excited he gets during races. 

Diving (Ted Robinson / Cynthia Potter): Probably my second favorite pair. Potter's analysis is excellent, and Robinson makes an affable partner. They may get some benefit of the doubt because NBC edits the diving telecasts so very tightly; it's impossible to know what the duo does with the time that actually elapses between dives.

Gymnastics (Al Trautwig / Tim Daggett / Elfi Schlegel): Trautwig would be good enough if he would stick to play-by-play and setting up his analysts, but he doesn't, so he is tough to take. I like Daggett, chiefly because he comes really, really prepared and sets us up well for what to look for in such a quickly-moving sport. Schlegel is usually just kind of there.

Indoor volleyball (Dunno / Dunno): I don't like this duo very much. They call a technically proficient game as far as I can tell, but they just don't bring any oomph to it.

Beach volleyball (Dunno / Dunno): Decent duo. I like how the analyst will explain from time to time the nuances of playmaking in beach volleyball that make it distinct from conventional volleyball -- helping the viewer understand what they are looking at. The commentator sometimes acts like he is Misty May's and Kerri Walsh's best friend (calling them by their first names usually, where everyone else is called by their last), but hey, I wish I were their best friend, too.

Track and field (Tom Hammond / Ato Boldin / Dunno for field events): As far as I can tell, Hammond is a very good track play-by-play guy, but for the most part the T&F events don't interest me much so I don't really enjoy listening to him. Same for Boldin. I do like the guy that does the analysis for the field events, but those are usually edited so heavily that it's hard to get a real sense for how good he actually is.

Water polo (Dunno / Dunno): I don't like this pair. I don't think they call a very exciting game, and they never explain anything. I'm always watching and wondering why something is or isn't a foul, what some of the basic rules are, etc. The vast majority of their viewers don't see this sport except at the Olympics, but these announcers don't give any help to the viewers in understanding what they are watching.

Chime in on these or any others you like or hate!


----------



## MauriAnne

The field guy is Dwight Stones, who was a high jumper when I was in high school in the 70's and also high jumped. He knows what he's talking about but they only show such small snippets of field events, it's hard to tell how he'd do if he had to fill dead space between events.

Cynthia Potter is technically very good in diving. but something about her voice gets on my nerves big time.


----------



## murgatroyd

I'm still holding out for Greg Louganis, who has been in four Olympics and had double golds in two of them, but whatever.



cmontyburns said:


> Swimming (Dan Hicks / Rowdy Gaines): Probably my favorite pair. I think Hicks calls an exciting race, and while I know that Gaines has his detractors, I think he does a good job with technical analysis and I actually like how excited he gets during races.


I like Rowdy too, but sometimes I wish I had a yell-o-meter to see how excited he gets. Who would get the gold medal, Rowdy, or Scotty Hamilton (figure skating)? 



cmontyburns said:


> Diving (Ted Robinson / Cynthia Potter): Probably my second favorite pair. Potter's analysis is excellent, and Robinson makes an affable partner. They may get some benefit of the doubt because NBC edits the diving telecasts so very tightly; it's impossible to know what the duo does with the time that actually elapses between dives.





MauriAnne said:


> Cynthia Potter is technically very good in diving. but something about her voice gets on my nerves big time.


Yeah, she's a little bit shrill, and she over-articulates stuff, but I like Potter's analysis a lot.



cmontyburns said:


> Gymnastics (Al Trautwig / Tim Daggett / Elfi Schlegel): Trautwig would be good enough if he would stick to play-by-play and setting up his analysts, but he doesn't, so he is tough to take. I like Daggett, chiefly because he comes really, really prepared and sets us up well for what to look for in such a quickly-moving sport. Schlegel is usually just kind of there.


I like Daggett. If a great hole opened up in the earth and swallowed Trautwig, so he would be off somewhere doing some sport I didn't watch, that would be okay by me. I wish there were an analyst for gymnastics as good as Potter is for diving. IMHO Schelgel isn't it.



cmontyburns said:


> Beach volleyball (Dunno / Dunno): The commentator sometimes acts like he is Misty May's and Kerri Walsh's best friend (calling them by their first names usually, where everyone else is called by their last), but hey, I wish I were their best friend, too.


I chalked it up not to 'acting like he is their best friend' but rather that it is much easier to call a shot if he is using their first names rather than the hyphenated last names they are both using now. If I had his job, I'd be calling them Misty and Kerri, too. 



cmontyburns said:


> Track and field (Tom Hammond / Ato Boldin / Dunno for field events): As far as I can tell, Hammond is a very good track play-by-play guy, but for the most part the T&F events don't interest me much so I don't really enjoy listening to him. Same for Boldin. I do like the guy that does the analysis for the field events, but those are usually edited so heavily that it's hard to get a real sense for how good he actually is.


I like Boldin. I could be biased because I like his accent, but he seems to be doing a good job. I haven't found myself asking questions that Boldin hasn't answered yet.

Cycling: Paul Sherwin is one of my favorite analysts. Period. His partners Steve Schlanger (Road) and Todd Harris (Track) are okay. I haven't heard Harris much because I haven't seen very much of the track cycling. Schlanger seemed less annoying during the road races here than he used to be on Universal Sports.

Weightlifting (Jim Watson/	Shane Hamman): Weightlifting is a real pleasure to watch because of these guys. They talk enough but never too much, and I never feel they haven't told me something I need to know. And listening to Shane Hamman is just fun.

Tennis: Really really enjoyed hearing John McEnroe's commentary during tennis, and all the "what event did you see" pieces he has done throughout the games. My #1 pick for tennis analysis.

Synchronized Swimming: I have to give a special shout-out to Randy Moss here. He is obviously totally out of his element here, but he's doing his best to understand what his analyst Heather Olson is talking about, to prompt her to explain some basic stuff for the people who don't follow synchro, and to convey just how much athleticism is involved, all without stepping on Olson. His work on Canoeing has been good, too.

My yardstick for commentators and analysts is simple: would I want to be sitting next to them at the event, or have them over to my place to watch. Apolo Ono, John McEnroe, Randy Moss, and Paul Sherwin can come over to my place anytime.

The person I'd most like to see here, who isn't? Especially doing a gig like Apolo Ono or McEnroe? Bob Roll.


----------



## cmontyburns

murgatroyd said:


> Tennis: Really really enjoyed hearing John McEnroe's commentary during tennis, and all the "what event did you see" pieces he has done throughout the games. My #1 pick for tennis analysis.


I didn't even think to list Mac because he calls every major tennis event everywhere.  Agreed that he is the tops at it -- just great to listen to. I especially enjoy when he and Mary Carillo call a match together.


----------



## Amnesia

cmontyburns said:


> Beach volleyball (Dunno / Dunno)


Paul Sunderland / Kevin Wong. Sunderland was an indoor volleyball Olympian (gold medalist) and Wong was a professional beach volleyball player for over 15 years.



cmontyburns said:


> The commentator sometimes acts like he is Misty May's and Kerri Walsh's best friend (calling them by their first names usually, where everyone else is called by their last)


In beach volleyball, it's not uncommon to be called by your first name. The commentators also refer to the Brazilian duo of Larissa Franca and Juliana Silva as "Larissa and Juliana".


----------



## Steveknj

cmontyburns said:


> Water polo (Dunno / Dunno): I don't like this pair. I don't think they call a very exciting game, and they never explain anything. I'm always watching and wondering why something is or isn't a foul, what some of the basic rules are, etc. The vast majority of their viewers don't see this sport except at the Olympics, but these announcers don't give any help to the viewers in understanding what they are watching.
> 
> Chime in on these or any others you like or hate!


It's interesting about the water polo. Mike "Doc" Emerick is probably the best hockey pxp man in the world. I think he's fine doing water polo (a similar sport in some respects, but he definitely lacks the the enthusiasm he has for hockey. The live interviewer is Pierre McGuire who is also a hockey guy.


----------



## pdhenry

Steveknj said:


> It's interesting about the water polo. Mike "Doc" Emerick is probably the best hockey pxp man in the world. I think he's fine doing water polo (a similar sport in some respects, but he definitely lacks the the enthusiasm he has for hockey. The live interviewer is Pierre McGuire who is also a hockey guy.


I _thought _I was hearing a hockey game being called...


----------



## aindik

I only caught a bit of water polo, which I only watched in the first place because Doc Emerick was calling it. He sounds bored, but also his analysts need to seriously STFU and let the guy do his thing. He's one of the best in the world.

It sounds like someone told him not to scream "and a SHOT" like he does in hockey. And he calls a goal with "goal" instead of "score," which also sounds deliberate (and not as good).


----------



## cmontyburns

Amnesia said:


> In beach volleyball, it's not uncommon to be called by your first name. The commentators also refer to the Brazilian duo of Larissa Franca and Juliana Silva as "Larissa and Juliana".





cmontyburns said:


> The commentator sometimes acts like he is Misty May's and Kerri Walsh's best friend (calling them by their first names usually, where everyone else is called by their last), *but hey, I wish I were their best friend, too*.


Again...


----------



## That Don Guy

aindik said:


> Is anyone's cable company carrying the NBC Basketball or Soccer channels in SD?


From what I have been able to piece together, NBC is not providing an SD feed for these channels.


----------



## tivogurl

I'm ok with the track and field commentators, so long as they don't have Carol Lewis with them. She's so astonishingly bad I don't understand how she got the job.

I don't like Bolden, I'd rather they dump him and give Dwight a full-time job.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Amnesia said:


> Paul Sunderland / Kevin Wong. Sunderland was an indoor volleyball Olympian (gold medalist) and Wong was a professional beach volleyball player for over 15 years.
> 
> In beach volleyball, it's not uncommon to be called by your first name. The commentators also refer to the Brazilian duo of Larissa Franca and Juliana Silva as "Larissa and Juliana".


The other US team is also called by their first names, and they even have their names embroidered on their hats (April and Jen). I have no idea what their last names are.


----------



## Regina

OMG! Cynthia Potter sounds like Nancy Grace to me-not her fault, of course, she is great at explaining the dives and what the judges are looking for, etc...but that voice! UGH!


----------



## Amnesia

DevdogAZ said:


> The other US team is also called by their first names, and they even have their names embroidered on their hats (April and Jen). I have no idea what their last names are.


I'm watching the semi between Larissa/Juliana and Jen Kessy/April Ross. It seems to me that the announcers refer to the Brazilians 100% of the time by their first names and I'd say refer to the Americans 50% by both names, 40% by last name and only 10% by first name...even though Kevin Wong, at the very least, knows Jen and April personally (since they played in the AVP tour at the same time).

BTW: Before she got married, Jen Kessy's last name was "Boss" and so the team was referred to as "Boss and Ross"...


----------



## eskay

Amnesia said:


> I'm watching the semi between Larissa/Juliana and Jen Kessy/April Ross. It seems to me that the announcers refer to the Brazilians 100% of the time by their first names and I'd say refer to the Americans 50% by both names, 40% by last name and only 10% by first name...even though Kevin Wong, at the very least, knows Jen and April personally (since they played in the AVP tour at the same time).
> 
> BTW: Before she got married, Jen Kessy's last name was "Boss" and so the team was referred to as "Boss and Ross"...


I can't find a link, but Brazil's indoor volleyball team also goes by their first name. Their uniform even has their first name, not last name. Sunderland explained it, but I forgot what he said.


----------



## jay_man2

Regina said:


> OMG! Cynthia Potter sounds like Nancy Grace to me-not her fault, of course, she is great at explaining the dives and what the judges are looking for, etc...but that voice! UGH!


I couldn't watch diving because of that Nancy Grace voice.


----------



## murgatroyd

OMG, can someone just gag Tim Ryan? By the time I finish watching any of the equestrian stuff, I feel like my head is going to explode.

I tuned in to watch dressage, not to get the sales history of all the horses, for cryin' out loud.


----------



## cmontyburns

eskay said:


> I can't find a link, but Brazil's indoor volleyball team also goes by their first name. Their uniform even has their first name, not last name. Sunderland explained it, but I forgot what he said.


It's common for all Brazilian athletes to do that. For example, Nene Hilario, who plays in the NBA, professionally simply goes by Nene (and that's the name that's on his jersey).


----------



## cmontyburns

jay_man2 said:


> I couldn't watch diving because of that Nancy Grace voice.


Funny, I really dislike Nancy Grace but never noticed a similarity to her voice. As I said above, I really like Cynthia Potter.


----------



## cmontyburns

I was probably a bit hard on Elfie Schlegel above. She's no rock star, but she's a good complement to the broadcast. I really enjoyed listening to her and Daggett tonight. Even Al toned it down!


----------



## mike_k

eskay said:


> I can't find a link, but Brazil's indoor volleyball team also goes by their first name. Their uniform even has their first name, not last name. Sunderland explained it, but I forgot what he said.


Something like it's common for Brazilian sport stars to only go by one name - like Pelé.

ETRTS (edited to recognize the smeek): or Nenê


----------



## Amnesia

I'm watching the BVB gold medal match (from NBCOlympics.com) streaming in one browser and I have the live scores (from London2012.com) in another. The NBC "live" video stream is consistently about 3 points behind...


----------



## robojerk

Amnesia said:


> I'm watching the BVB gold medal match (from NBCOlympics.com) streaming in one browser and I have the live scores (from London2012.com) in another. The NBC "live" video stream is consistently about 3 points behind...


I work with a guy whose parents come from Korea, the NBC stream was 3-5 minutes behind the korean stream.


----------



## jsmeeker

Amnesia said:


> I'm watching the BVB gold medal match (from NBCOlympics.com) streaming in one browser and I have the live scores (from London2012.com) in another. The NBC "live" video stream is consistently about 3 points behind...


I predict



Spoiler



a gold medal for the USA!!!


----------



## Amnesia

Way to put yourself out there!


----------



## jsmeeker

yup.

I hope I am right.


----------



## jsmeeker

YAY!!

I was right


----------



## Amnesia

All I can say is Wow! Congrats to the winning team...


----------



## smak

Amnesia said:


> Paul Sunderland / Kevin Wong. Sunderland was an indoor volleyball Olympian (gold medalist) and Wong was a professional beach volleyball player for over 15 years.
> 
> In beach volleyball, it's not uncommon to be called by your first name. The commentators also refer to the Brazilian duo of Larissa Franca and Juliana Silva as "Larissa and Juliana".


Plus, Misty & Kerry is a lot easier than May-Treanor & Walsh-Jennings.

-smak-


----------



## gossamer88

Wow! Frank Viola's kid is an Olympiad...how cool is that?!


----------



## TheMerk

gossamer88 said:


> Wow! Frank Viola's kid is an Olympiad...how cool is that?!


That is pretty cool. I thought she was an Olympian.


----------



## murgatroyd

Can someone please tell Tom Hammond that the uniform worn by Attar (representing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) in the women's 800 meters is not "traditional Arab attire"? 

I know what he meant -- that her people's traditions dictate she be dressed modestly -- but that's not what he said.


----------



## murgatroyd

What a surprise! NBC didn't allocate enough time in their schedule for a lot of the LIVE stuff today. 

So if you like the short-event sports that they usually cram in between team sports as 'filler', good luck figuring out if/when they will air.

Anybody else remember when the decathlon actually got decent coverage?


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> Anybody else remember when the decathlon actually got decent coverage?


Bruce Jenner in '76?


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> Bruce Jenner in '76?


Probably.


----------



## DouglasPHill

Thank goodness for fast forward to get thru the way too often commercial breaks.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> What a surprise! NBC didn't allocate enough time in their schedule for a lot of the LIVE stuff today.
> 
> So if you like the short-event sports that they usually cram in between team sports as 'filler', good luck figuring out if/when they will air.
> *
> Anybody else remember when the decathlon actually got decent coverage?*


I was thinking this exact same thing. And you'd think with two American contenders it would have gotten more than just the afterthought it got. I wonder if this stems from the whole "Dan and D*ave*" thing that happened (I think it was Barcelona back in the 90s). I remember the huge advertising campaign for them and how they were going to battle for the gold. IRC one didn't even come to the Olympics and the other didn't win gold. I wonder if NBC didn't want to get burned with that sort of scenario again.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> I was thinking this exact same thing. And you'd think with two American contenders it would have gotten more than just the afterthought it got.


In retrospect, it looks like they were waiting until Day 2 to do a recap, and saving things for primetime. I expected not to see the final event until primetime, but that might also explain why I missed the javelin during the daytime coverage yesterday.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> In retrospect, it looks like they were waiting until Day 2 to do a recap, and saving things for primetime. I expected not to see the final event until primetime, but that might also explain why I missed the javelin during the daytime coverage yesterday.


I was half awake last night, but they didn't even cover this until past 11PM on the east coast last nght, after the Bolt win in the 200. And the 1500 seems like the only event they covered in it's entirety. I don't even remember them MENTIONING the decathlon until then. There are 10 events over 2 days and we only saw ONE? And then they have the nerve to call the winner the worlds greatest athlete, yet only show 30 minutes of the whole event? They showed so little I can't even remember the winner's name.


----------



## cherry ghost

Steveknj said:


> I was half awake last night, but they didn't even cover this until past 11PM on the east coast last nght, after the Bolt win in the 200. And the 1500 seems like the only event they covered in it's entirety. I don't even remember them MENTIONING the decathlon until then. There are 10 events over 2 days and we only saw ONE? And then they have the nerve to call the winner the worlds greatest athlete, yet only show 30 minutes of the whole event? They showed so little I can't even remember the winner's name.


They showed highlights of the first five events for the USA participants on Wednesday night. Last night they did the same for events 6-9 and then showed the leaders' heat of the 1,500. There are too many events with too many participants to show everything on NBC in primetime. All events were available live online.


----------



## murgatroyd

I tried to set up manual recordings to catch individual events, based on the schedule linked to earlier in this thread, but the start times seem to be unpredictable for those of us who are in west coast time. So I've finally figured out a work-around for the days when I'm home watching live, and I want to grab something on the fly to re-watch later (or to protect myself from accidentally dumping the buffer with a channel change).

1) wait until the event I want to see actually shows up (e.g. men's [swimming] marathon)

2) set up a manual recording for the length of time predicted for the (taped) event in the schedule, plus a smidgen. Here's the important part:

3) make sure your start time is earlier than when the event started, so it saves the bit you've already seen, which is still in the buffer

4) the TiVo will warn you that the program you want to record has already started, do you still want to record it? Say yes.

Now I have manageable bites which can easily be transferred to the computer. Problem solved.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> I was half awake last night, but they didn't even cover this until past 11PM on the east coast last nght, after the Bolt win in the 200. And the 1500 seems like the only event they covered in it's entirety. I don't even remember them MENTIONING the decathlon until then. There are 10 events over 2 days and we only saw ONE? And then they have the nerve to call the winner the worlds greatest athlete, yet only show 30 minutes of the whole event? They showed so little I can't even remember the winner's name.


I saw a lot of it during the daytime coverage. After a while, it all becomes a blur, and it's difficult to recall what I saw during the day and what I saw at night.

Which is no excuse for NBC. It's dreadful coverage.


----------



## lambertman

I seriously think people are complaining just to complain fairly often. Somebody on my FB thread dropped an #nbcfail for showing the women's water polo gold medal match on NBC while the women's soccer gold medal match was on NBCSN. Really? Water polo needs the expanded coverage more than the USWNT does, and cable is better suited for long commercial-free stretches. It makes perfect sense.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Most people are complaining because they don't understand the business that NBC is operating. All they care about is that they can't see every event on the main NBC channel at the time the competition is live. 

The truth is that NBC paid significantly more for the US TV rights than any other broadcaster paid for other country rights. As such, NBC needs to be smart about the way they monetize their rights. Some people are clearly perturbed that events aren't being shown live, but the reality is that in order for NBC to get the biggest possible primetime audience, and thus maximize its advertising revenue, it has to cater to everyone, and that means it won't fully satisfy anyone, but it will be most palatable for the most possible viewers.

Showing highlights plus human interest background stories plus a little studio analysis has proved to be extremely popular with American viewers. There's no way to know whether a different format would be more popular, but given the diversity of the audience, it's highly unlikely.


----------



## DouglasPHill

The fact that it isn't live does not bother me a bit. But, as in past olympics, way too many commercial breaks.


----------



## DevdogAZ

DouglasPHill said:


> The fact that it isn't live does not bother me a bit. But, as in past olympics, way too many commercial breaks.


It's an unfortunate business reality that really can't be changed at this point.


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> Most people are complaining because they don't understand the business that NBC is operating. All they care about is that they can't see every event on the main NBC channel at the time the competition is live.


All your points (most of which I'm not quoting, for space) are good, but I also get the frustration of the fans who want to watch a specific event and don't have access to streaming, or would rather be able to watch on their TV instead of on their computers.

It's annoying as crap to sit here and see commercials for how Universal Sports covers a lot of these Olympic Sports and will keep on showing them after the Games are over, when I can't see US on cable or OTA anymore. So I can't blame anyone else for being annoyed at NBC for creating a demand and then not satisfying it.

Edited to add: re: commercials -- thumbs up to the sponsors who put some thought and care into the ads they make for the Olympics.

AT&T's ads showing athletes watching the games and then putting up the new world records on their "goal boards". Nice storyboarding there, and it's clever how they drop the footage in from the Olympics.

I like the Coke "Moments of the Games" ads.

P&G's ads which are the "tribute to moms" -- fun.

There are other ads which have athlete profiles too.

I'd much rather see that, even if I see the same ads over and over, than the same dumb crap that we get all the time.

P.S. extra shout-out for the ad which announces that the Steve Harvey show is going to be running in the afternoon along with the Ellen deGeneris show, where Ellen is trying to tell Siri to remind her to watch Steve's show.


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> All your points (most of which I'm not quoting, for space) are good, but I also get the frustration of the fans who want to watch a specific event and don't have access to streaming, or would rather be able to watch on their TV instead of on their computers.
> 
> It's annoying as crap to sit here and see commercials for how Universal Sports covers a lot of these Olympic Sports and will keep on showing them after the Games are over, when I can't see US on cable or OTA anymore. So I can't blame anyone else for being annoyed at NBC for creating a demand and then not satisfying it.


It's not NBC's fault that you don't have access to Universal Sports. They're advertising the channel to create demand, so that people like you will contact your carrier and demand that they offer US. That's good business.


----------



## TonyD79

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not NBC's fault that you don't have access to Universal Sports. They're advertising the channel to create demand, so that people like you will contact your carrier and demand that they offer US. That's good business.


Considering it was an NBC decision to pull universal sport as a subchannel in the many cities it was in, yes it is their fault.


----------



## DevdogAZ

TonyD79 said:


> Considering it was an NBC decision to pull universal sport as a subchannel in the many cities it was in, yes it is their fault.


I guess I don't know the history here. But if the channel is available but the carrier doesn't offer it, then that's the carrier's issue. If the channel isn't available, then I don't know why NBCU would be advertising it. If NBC used to offer the channel as a subchannel and decided to split it off into its own separate channel, I'm sure they had legitimate business reasons for doing so. If there's a fourth possibility, I'm not sure what that would be, but I'd be happy to learn.


----------



## aindik

>>If NBC used to offer the channel as a subchannel and decided to split it off into its own separate channel, I'm sure they had legitimate business reasons for doing so.<<

I'm sure they did too. But it's still their fault it's not on where it used to be.

After the Comcast merger and the renaming of "Versus" into "NBCSN,", I'm not sure what the purpose of having a channel called "NBCSN" and a separate channel called "Universal Sports" is supposed to be. Either merge the channels or rename US to "NBCSN 2."


----------



## dswallow

Laughable.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through Comcast.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell Comcast you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell Comcast you want Universal Sports.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through Verizon FiOS.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell Verizon FiOS you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell Verizon FiOS you want Universal Sports.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through Optimum.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell Optimum you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell Optimum you want Universal Sports.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through Service Electric Cable TV.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell Service Electric Cable TV you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell Service Electric Cable TV you want Universal Sports.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through RCN.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell RCN you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell RCN you want Universal Sports.


Sorry, Universal Sports is unavailable through Time Warner Cable.

Your voice counts. Call 1-800-55-GET-US and tell Time Warner Cable you want Universal Sports and access to year-round coverage of your favorite Olympic & adventure sports and athletes. After you call, double your voice and click here to tell Time Warner Cable you want Universal Sports.


----------



## jsmeeker

who the hell gets it?

I used to when it was a sub channel on the local NBC affiliate. But it wasn't in HD. And I really never watched it anyway.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Sounds to me like NBCU is trying to use the platform of the Olympics to create demand for a new channel they've just launched (or just separated off from being an OTA subchannel feed). Again, I see no problem with this. They won't have a better platform for launching a channel like this for another two (or four) years.


----------



## MauriAnne

jsmeeker said:


> who the hell gets it?
> 
> I used to when it was a sub channel on the local NBC affiliate. But it wasn't in HD. And I really never watched it anyway.


It's available on DirecTV, but I don't have it. I initially thought I was going to need it for the Olympics, but didn't turn out that way.

It was also on free preview for the Olympic trials for gymnastics and swimming. I thought that was an odd channel to broadcast the trials on, but I was glad I could see them.


----------



## TonyD79

DevdogAZ said:


> Sounds to me like NBCU is trying to use the platform of the Olympics to create demand for a new channel they've just launched (or just separated off from being an OTA subchannel feed). Again, I see no problem with this. They won't have a better platform for launching a channel like this for another two (or four) years.


They also have no HD on that channel you seem to think they are making good business decisions on. To me it seems like they don't have a clear plan. Few carriers and no HD available. Pull the channel from decent distribution with no assurance anyone will ever see it and make devalue it by offering it only in SD. A sports channel without HD in 2012! But advertise it on the Olympics. Good planning.


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not NBC's fault that you don't have access to Universal Sports. They're advertising the channel to create demand, so that people like you will contact your carrier and demand that they offer US. That's good business.





TonyD79 said:


> Considering it was an NBC decision to pull universal sport as a subchannel in the many cities it was in, yes it is their fault.





jsmeeker said:


> who the hell gets it?
> 
> I used to when it was a sub channel on the local NBC affiliate. But it wasn't in HD. And I really never watched it anyway.


I used to get it when it was a sub-channel on the local NBC station, and I think it was also on Comcast. NBC pulled it, and now as far as I know, it's only available on DirecTV. Maybe Dish has it, too. I don't know. But it's pretty much the only place to see cycling these days, not counting the Tour de France.

So thanks a lot, NBC, for taking it away from me and then taunting me that I could watch all this cycling if only I still had it.


----------



## murgatroyd

Why look, I'm getting a banner ad here on TCF to watch the Olympics courtesy of YouTube. With only three days left to go. Way to go, NBC ad people.


----------



## murgatroyd

aindik said:


> After the Comcast merger and the renaming of "Versus" into "NBCSN,", I'm not sure what the purpose of having a channel called "NBCSN" and a separate channel called "Universal Sports" is supposed to be. Either merge the channels or rename US to "NBCSN 2."


The reason to keep both is obvious -- to show more stuff. Just like we have ESPN and ESPN2 and the other ESPNs. The problem with renaming it to NBCSN2 is that we've already got Comcast SportsNet here as a local channel, so how many [something] SportsNets do you need?

Wikipedia's article says the channel was founded in 2006 and NBC came on board in 2008, re-branding the channel as Universal Sports and adding the logo with the peacock.



> Previously, Universal Sports had been distributed through digital subchannels on other television stations, including NBC's owned and operated stations. On June 15, 2011, DirecTV became the first television provider to carry Universal Sports as a national basic channel.
> 
> This carriage agreement led to a further announcement on September 12, 2011, when it was announced that Universal Sports would transition to distribution via cable and satellite providers only by January 2012.
> 
> On February 26, 2012, Dish Network added Universal Sports.


So there you go.


----------



## mattack

DouglasPHill said:


> Thank goodness for fast forward to get thru the way too often commercial breaks.


What does this have to do with the Olympics? This is true for TV in general.. (and VCRs before Tivo for that..)

BTW, I mentioned this in another thread, but people always complain about the heartwarming stories, etc., but it seems to me they did far fewer of them this time. (I mostly watch the prime time NBC coverage.) I don't like all of them, don't watch all of them (analogous to commercials, above), but definitely don't hate them like some people do.


----------



## cmontyburns

mattack said:


> BTW, I mentioned this in another thread, but people always complain about the heartwarming stories, etc., but it seems to me they did far fewer of them this time. (I mostly watch the prime time NBC coverage.) I don't like all of them, don't watch all of them (analogous to commercials, above), but definitely don't hate them like some people do.


They seem to be shorter, too. I think it has been a pretty good balance this year. Of course, they made up for this by having Ryan Seacrest interrupt the proceedings every night for "social media updates", and oh, that wacky Mary Carillo!


----------



## jsmeeker

I like the "human interest" stories when they are not about athletes that gets tons and tons and tons of hype every day.


----------



## murgatroyd

And here we go again, leading off with a documetary about the Dream Team. I feel for the people who are only watching Primetime OTA. Imagine what it would be like to wait all day to see the Olympics and then you get home from work and turn on the Primetime show and what do you get? A documentary about some other Olympics which is already over. 

This is a fine documentary, and would be way cool as a special in the lead-up TO the Olympics, to get people jazzed about watching the Olympics. It has no business at the top of the show, delaying the stuff that happened today for people who are waiting to watch it.

Yes, I'm complaining again, but JFC, NBC. I don't care whether it's a feature or an event. 

Can you just show me 2012? Please? 2012?


----------



## duncan7

Out of curiosity, who's to blame for the horrible video quality on the Olympic broadcasts? My HD degrades badly into a mosaic of lossy artifacts whenever there's fast action on the screen, like whenever the camera zooms in in a sprinter or a gymnast. It'll happen around the edges of a graphic wipe on the screen, too. This is both on my local NBC affiliate and on the "deep cable" channels during the day, and noticeable on both my LCD and Plasma.

Is the TiVo Premiere not up to the codec challenge? (Seems unlikely, as I don't notice it during football or baseball games on other channels.)

Is it Charter, my cableco, jacking up their compression? Or is it NBC?


----------



## jsmeeker

yeah... I hear yeah...


I loved me the Dream Team.. But that was 20 years ago.. I saw it all then for realz


(damn... i am getting old)


----------



## tiams

murgatroyd said:


> And here we go again, leading off with a documetary about the Dream Team. I feel for the people who are only watching Primetime OTA. Imagine what it would be like to wait all day to see the Olympics and then you get home from work and turn on the Primetime show and what do you get? A documentary about some other Olympics which is already over.
> 
> This is a fine documentary, and would be way cool as a special in the lead-up TO the Olympics, to get people jazzed about watching the Olympics. It has no business at the top of the show, delaying the stuff that happened today for people who are waiting to watch it.
> 
> Yes, I'm complaining again, but JFC, NBC. I don't care whether it's a feature or an event.
> 
> Can you just show me 2012? Please? 2012?


I just FFed through the Dream Team piece; no problem.

Really, all this complaining about NBC's coverage is rooted in an annoying sense of entitlement and ignorance of for-profit enterprises. Olympics on TV as it occurs is not a god given right, so get over it.


----------



## murgatroyd

tiams said:


> Really, all this complaining about NBC's coverage is rooted in an annoying sense of entitlement and ignorance of for-profit enterprises. Olympics on TV as it occurs is not a god given right, so get over it.


You don't think it's ridiculous for NBC to advertise that they're going to show us the Olympics that took place in 2012, and then blow off a half-hour talking about Barcelona instead?

It's false advertising. If I had paid for ad rights and my ad was placed in that half hour, I would be mad as hell.


----------



## tiams

murgatroyd said:


> You don't think it's ridiculous for NBC to advertise that they're going to show us the Olympics that took place in 2012, and then blow off a half-hour talking about Barcelona instead?
> 
> It's false advertising.


No, that is not false advertising.


----------



## tiams

Dumping Tarmoh from the relay was the smart thing to do. New World Record!


----------



## DouglasPHill

I enjoyed the Dreamteam video, assuming it was leading up to the men's basketball final game, oops my bad.


----------



## pdhenry

tiams said:


> I just FFed through the Dream Team piece; no problem.
> 
> Really, all this complaining about NBC's coverage is rooted in an annoying sense of entitlement and ignorance of for-profit enterprises. Olympics on TV as it occurs is not a god given right, so get over it.


So are you so married to the for-profit enterprise to avoid FFing through the ads?


----------



## cmontyburns

murgatroyd said:


> This is a fine documentary, and would be way cool as a special in the lead-up TO the Olympics, to get people jazzed about watching the Olympics.


The thing is, NBATV already aired a Dream Team anniversary documentary a month or two ago. (I started a thread on it here in Now Playing.) It was feature-length and way better than what we saw last night. Granted, given the network it aired on, it was seen by a fraction of the people that saw last night's NBC version, but it makes the NBC airing doubly unnecessary.

I love basketball and a couple of the Dream Teamers are my all-time favorite players, but even I was impatient with this.


----------



## Steveknj

DevdogAZ said:


> Most people are complaining because they don't understand the business that NBC is operating. All they care about is that they can't see every event on the main NBC channel at the time the competition is live.
> 
> The truth is that NBC paid significantly more for the US TV rights than any other broadcaster paid for other country rights. As such, NBC needs to be smart about the way they monetize their rights. Some people are clearly perturbed that events aren't being shown live, but the reality is that in order for NBC to get the biggest possible primetime audience, and thus maximize its advertising revenue, it has to cater to everyone, and that means it won't fully satisfy anyone, but it will be most palatable for the most possible viewers.
> 
> Showing highlights plus human interest background stories plus a little studio analysis has proved to be extremely popular with American viewers. There's no way to know whether a different format would be more popular, but given the diversity of the audience, it's highly unlikely.


Exactly. Those of you who can spend all day watching either live on the networks or online are lucky. Those of us who just don't have that option, because we work, are happy to see what we can on NBC. There's no way around that.


----------



## lambertman

NBCU has just announced they will livestream the closing ceremony.


----------



## pdhenry

Can I still use my 4-hour free pass for that?


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> Exactly. Those of you who can spend all day watching either live on the networks or online are lucky. Those of us who just don't have that option, because we work, are happy to see what we can on NBC. There's no way around that.


From some of the comments here, I don't think people get what I am complaining about. Look, guys, I'm an old fart. I started watching the Olympics back when there was only OTA, and only people who worked in the industry had access to VCRs. I get what it's like to not be able to see the daytime coverage, and only have the Primetime stuff to watch, because that's the way it used to be for everybody.

Like DouglasPHil said, if it had been leading up to a basketball game, the Dream Team feature would have made sense. During daytime on the weekend, I get that. But it wasn't.

So viewers like steveknj who have jobs might have to miss the current events that were aired later on in the broadcast. People who work can't just stay up all night because they have to go to work the next day. One night a week, for Monday Night Football, people might be able to do that and not suffer too much, but you can't expect viewers to do that every night for two and a half weeks. It's nuts.

I get that they have to run some features, but why can't they think? They've got more Olympics to pick from than any human can watch, and they can't find anything more compelling to fill that half hour? Oh, please.

It's just a big FU to the people who are watching OTA.


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> Why look, I'm getting a banner ad here on TCF to watch the Olympics courtesy of YouTube. With only three days left to go. Way to go, NBC ad people.


 Why should they not be advertising the ability to watch the Olympics on the internet? What exactly are you complaining about here? Are you saying that they shouldn't be advertising this at all? Or are you saying they should have advertised this sooner (I'm sure they did)?


murgatroyd said:


> And here we go again, leading off with a documetary about the Dream Team. I feel for the people who are only watching Primetime OTA. Imagine what it would be like to wait all day to see the Olympics and then you get home from work and turn on the Primetime show and what do you get? A documentary about some other Olympics which is already over.
> 
> This is a fine documentary, and would be way cool as a special in the lead-up TO the Olympics, to get people jazzed about watching the Olympics. It has no business at the top of the show, delaying the stuff that happened today for people who are waiting to watch it.
> 
> Yes, I'm complaining again, but JFC, NBC. I don't care whether it's a feature or an event.
> 
> Can you just show me 2012? Please? 2012?


I loved the feature they did on the 1992 Dream Team last night. I read the thread about the feature-length doc that steveknj referenced and wished I'd been able to see it, but never did. This was a good substitute.

There are 4 hours of prime-time coverage every night. In my experience, that's plenty of time for them to show the highlights of all the important stuff that happened during the day. As the Games are drawing to an end, many of the competitions are already over. There just weren't that many things to show on Friday. Now could they have filled that time with more event coverage from this year? Yes. Would that have interested the broadest possible audience? Apparently they didn't think so. I'd much rather see that feature than field hockey or sailing or wrestling.


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> I loved the feature they did on the 1992 Dream Team last night. I read the thread about the feature-length doc that steveknj referenced and wished I'd been able to see it, but never did. This was a good substitute.
> 
> There are 4 hours of prime-time coverage every night. In my experience, that's plenty of time for them to show the highlights of all the important stuff that happened during the day. As the Games are drawing to an end, many of the competitions are already over. There just weren't that many things to show on Friday. Now could they have filled that time with more event coverage from this year? Yes. Would that have interested the broadest possible audience? Apparently they didn't think so. I'd much rather see that feature than field hockey or sailing or wrestling.


1) Yeah, it was a nice feature, and I would have enjoyed it, too, had they not put it up front in the broadcast like a giant dog pill, delaying the start of the stuff I had tuned in to see.

2) You are completely missing the point that the Primetime show is NOT the "highlights of the important stuff that happened during the day". Unless you can stream, it is the ONLY time you can watch the prime events that they've cherry-picked for the nighttime broadcast.

I keep asking this, but nobody wants to answer. Why should I or any other viewer that can't stream be forced to stay up until midnight or later to see my events, just so you can see a feature about something that took place in 1992?

If they wanted to run a half-hour of analysis on the current men's basketball team, anticipating that they'd be in the gold medal game, I would understand that. But jeez, the Dream Team was 20 years ago. I saw all that stuff back then. It's a re-run.

If NBC advertised that they were running a preview of a new show, and then when you turned up in that timeslot, in the first half-hour, they aired the a half-hour episode of a completely different show that was made 20 years ago by the same showrunner, would that make sense to you?

What about if they showed 20 year old NBA highlights for a half-hour and delayed the broadcast of the Super Bowl?

Think about something that you wanted to watch, then assume that the half-hour feature is something completely unrelated and from 20 years ago, showing interviews that you had pretty much seen already multiple places.

Can't you understand why some people might not want to sit through that half hour feature at that moment in time?

I keep saying: it's not that the feature was bad. It was out of place.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Except that it wasn't out of place. NBC's primetime coverage has included lots of things like that. Anyone who is tuning in to the NBC primetime coverage of the Olympics knows (or should know):

a) that it will not include any live events, and therefore is just an extended highlights show;
b) that it will include pre-produced featurettes on athletes, sports, the host city, Olympic history, and other semi-related stuff;
c) that the coverage will be incredibly US-centric, often failing to show complete events when a US athlete does not make it through the preliminary rounds;
d) that the coverage will only feature the marquee events that are easily digested by a broad audience, and that events that are long (such as soccer matches and basketball games, will not be shown in their entirety, if at all;
e) that it will be a mish-mash of coverage of a bunch of events, with no published times or schedules, often jumping back and forth to save the climactic parts for the end of the telecast; and
f) that NBC will usually save the most anticipated events for the final hour of the prime-time block, to keep people watching as long as possible.

Therefore, nobody should get up in arms when NBC shows something like the Dream Team package. It's part of the coverage, which includes many things that are not actual 2012 competition. Nobody in this country has ever been able to watch the Olympics in any other way. They've always been presented like this, with pre-produced packages cut in with live (or tape-delayed) events. I just don't understand why people are suddenly acting like NBC is the devil when all they're doing is airing the Games the same way they've always done, and the same way others before them did.


----------



## jsmeeker

I wish NBC commentators would have shut up while they were handing out the gold medals so you could hear the names of the people on the team.


----------



## Steveknj

duncan7 said:


> Out of curiosity, who's to blame for the horrible video quality on the Olympic broadcasts? My HD degrades badly into a mosaic of lossy artifacts whenever there's fast action on the screen, like whenever the camera zooms in in a sprinter or a gymnast. It'll happen around the edges of a graphic wipe on the screen, too. This is both on my local NBC affiliate and on the "deep cable" channels during the day, and noticeable on both my LCD and Plasma.
> 
> Is the TiVo Premiere not up to the codec challenge? (Seems unlikely, as I don't notice it during football or baseball games on other channels.)
> 
> Is it Charter, my cableco, jacking up their compression? Or is it NBC?


I noticed this too. I thought it was my TV, but maybe it isn't.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> From some of the comments here, I don't think people get what I am complaining about. Look, guys, I'm an old fart. I started watching the Olympics back when there was only OTA, and only people who worked in the industry had access to VCRs. I get what it's like to not be able to see the daytime coverage, and only have the Primetime stuff to watch, because that's the way it used to be for everybody.
> 
> Like DouglasPHil said, if it had been leading up to a basketball game, the Dream Team feature would have made sense. During daytime on the weekend, I get that. But it wasn't.
> 
> So viewers like steveknj who have jobs might have to miss the current events that were aired later on in the broadcast. People who work can't just stay up all night because they have to go to work the next day. One night a week, for Monday Night Football, people might be able to do that and not suffer too much, but you can't expect viewers to do that every night for two and a half weeks. It's nuts.
> 
> I get that they have to run some features, but why can't they think? They've got more Olympics to pick from than any human can watch, and they can't find anything more compelling to fill that half hour? Oh, please.
> 
> It's just a big FU to the people who are watching OTA.


Yeah, I thought it was unnecessary, but, I have to admit, I enjoyed it. I thought it was a slow night for the events anyway. A lot of preliminary diving I couldn't care less about. I don't feel in the least mislead about it, and I understand that it's about ratings and I bet it was a pretty popular piece. For time reference, the first Olympics I remember watching was the Mexico City Olympics in 1968. I think I've seen most of what I wanted to, with the weekends giving me a lot of the less popular events. I've fine with it. I think a lot of the complaining here is that some of you have a favorite sport that might have gotten short shrift. But I don't think events like Equestrian is going to bring in a lot of viewers. Not sure about BMX either, but I get why they might show that because it might bring in the under 30 somethings.


----------



## jsmeeker

Heads up.. yet another long story to lead off tonight's PT coverage. And it's not even about sports.


----------



## TomK

Twice today (including just now) I tuned into the regular NBC coverage and both times I see Tom Brokaw on some 'story'. I thought this was the freaking Olympics. I guess it's just another case of bad guide data. WTF are they thinking? Show sports please!


----------



## Turtleboy

NBC is doing a story on Britain vs. Hitler. We just hit the 1/2 hour mark. Could this go a full hour?


----------



## jsmeeker

you were warned




Gimme some more Bolt. I know I am gonna have to wait until the final hour.


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> NBC is doing a story on Britain vs. Hitler. We just hit the 1/2 hour mark. Could this go a full hour?


According to the schedule here, it does:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012-london-olympics-tv-schedule-on-nbc-nbcsn-msnbc-cnbc-and-bravo/



> 3:00 PM 4:00 PM General "Their Finest Hour" TAPED NBC


Interesting -- according to the schedule, it was originally planned to air before the women's basketball final, which was to be aired live in all time zones.

IF the schedule linked to above is correct (start times have been less and less accurate as the Games have gone on), we should see track and field early in the show, the men's platform diving final, and women's volleyball afterwards.

Edited to add: another reason that NBC is a dbag network -- they wait until after the feature and the commercials are over, and then -- as the competition is about to be shown instead -- NBC News cuts in to tell us who Romney is going to announce for his running mate the next day.

I see the 'special report' banner come up and I'm thinking, okay, who died. But no, Romney can't wait until the Olympics is over to make his announcement. He has to do it before the Games are over, and then NBC has to 'report' it early because God Forbid anybody else should scoop them.

What does he care? This isn't his Olympics.


----------



## jsmeeker

Did they not air the ball game live in the west?


----------



## andyw715

duncan7 said:


> Out of curiosity, who's to blame for the horrible video quality on the Olympic broadcasts? My HD degrades badly into a mosaic of lossy artifacts whenever there's fast action on the screen, like whenever the camera zooms in in a sprinter or a gymnast. It'll happen around the edges of a graphic wipe on the screen, too. This is both on my local NBC affiliate and on the "deep cable" channels during the day, and noticeable on both my LCD and Plasma.
> 
> Is the TiVo Premiere not up to the codec challenge? (Seems unlikely, as I don't notice it during football or baseball games on other channels.)
> 
> Is it Charter, my cableco, jacking up their compression? Or is it NBC?


I've always noticed that with NBC 1080i sports programming. Especially with college basketball. 720p sports broadcasts from Fox and ESPN are much better.


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> Did they not air the ball game live in the west?


As far as I can tell, they did. But when they air a live event across all the time zones, the taped stuff around the live events can be wildly different for the west coast than what shows on that schedule. The amount of time shown there is roughly the same, but who knows when it will air.


----------



## cmontyburns

Just think, guys -- after tomorrow, when the Olympics are over, we're going to have to go back to complaining about NBC's regular crappy programming.


----------



## murgatroyd

I've got a Season Pass set up for _Stars Earn Stripes_. And I'm watching _So You Think You Cand Dance_ and _Project Runway_, so I'll have plenty of mayhem to last me for a while.


----------



## jsmeeker

They need to find a show for Usain Bolt.


----------



## cmontyburns

For all we complain about NBC's editing of the events, it's funny to think about what preparation it takes. For example, I just watched the portion of this evening with the men's 5000 meter race. Right after that, they did an update on the women's high jump, called by Dwight Whatshisname. In the background of the high jump, we could see the 5000 meters going on. And then after the high jump update, we go back to Tom Hammond who says, "OK Dwight, and now we are ready for the women's (whatever it was)." Obviously Dwight didn't really throw it back to Tom, and not right at that moment since the 5000 meters was still going on and Hammond was busy calling that. Yet someone had to tell Hammond when that women's race was starting that an update from Dwight would be inserted first so that Hammond could act like it had been thrown back to him.


----------



## jsmeeker

cmontyburns said:


> For all we complain about NBC's editing of the events, it's funny to think about what preparation it takes. For example, I just watched the portion of this evening with the men's 5000 meter race. Right after that, they did an update on the women's high jump, called by Dwight Whatshisname. In the background of the high jump, we could see the 5000 meters going on. And then after the high jump update, we go back to Tom Hammond who says, "OK Dwight, and now we are ready for the women's (whatever it was)." Obviously Dwight didn't really throw it back to Tom, and not right at that moment since the 5000 meters was still going on and Hammond was busy calling that. Yet someone had to tell Hammond when that women's race was starting that an update from Dwight would be inserted first so that Hammond could act like it had been thrown back to him.


I'm sure they know exactly when they will air what during PT. It's all scripted out in advance. They could even pre-record those "and now back to Dwight Stones" stuff.

The whole telecast is tape delayed. Bob Costas isn't actually up at this time, doing the studio stuff. He's in bed.


----------



## lambertman

Modern Pentathlon (if what I read is correct) isn't guaranteed to be back for Rio.

I'm torn. It's a ridiculous event, yet it's oddly fascinating.


----------



## murgatroyd

lambertman said:


> Modern Pentathlon (if what I read is correct) isn't guaranteed to be back for Rio.
> 
> I'm torn. It's a ridiculous event, yet it's oddly fascinating.


It's very military. Shooting, fencing, riding, running, swimming. All stuff that officers might have been called upon to do in an earlier time.

For more details, Wikipedia on the Pentathlon.

Edited to add: Wikipedia is wrong. The equestrian event is not a steeplechase. It is stadium jumping.


----------



## jsmeeker

they should go old school and bring back the ORIGINAL Pentathlon


----------



## murgatroyd

The variation with the pankration would be popular, I'm sure.


----------



## Steveknj

OK, now I'm going to definitely agree with you guys how NBC Fubared tonight. I'm a history buff and loved the story about the UKs resolve during WWII, but, I have on the Women's volleyball final, and they show the first set where the US dominated......Now they cut away, talk about Romney for a few minutes and we come back....and they are now DOWN 2-1? WTF?!!!! They were WAY ahead and now they are WAY behind? And NBC doesn't show Brazil's big comeback to take the lead? That's just ridiculous!!! Now the announcer says..."This is one of the most amazing comebacks that he's ever seen (referring to Brazil coming back) and do we see it? NO!!!!

Instead of an hour on WWII, how about they show the whole match? I just don't get it. There were other times to show that story.


----------



## cmontyburns

Steveknj said:


> OK, now I'm going to definitely agree with you guys how NBC Fubared tonight. I'm a history buff and loved the story about the UKs resolve during WWII, but, I have on the Women's volleyball final, and they show the first set where the US dominated......Now they cut away, talk about Romney for a few minutes and we come back....and they are now DOWN 2-1? WTF?!!!! They were WAY ahead and now they are WAY behind? And NBC doesn't show Brazil's big comeback to take the lead? That's just ridiculous!!! Now the announcer says..."This is one of the most amazing comebacks that he's ever seen (referring to Brazil coming back) and do we see it? NO!!!!
> 
> Instead of an hour on WWII, how about they show the whole match? I just don't get it. There were other times to show that story.


I was just going to post this. We've talked earlier in the thread about how NBC really blows the narrative of much of what they air by showing so little of it. When they started showing the match so late, and joined with the US up by so much in the first set, I figured, OK, it's a US blowout so we basically get the highlights. But like you say, we see the US destroy Brazil in the first set, and then when we next join the match, Brazil is a few points from winning the match, which they do! How the hell did it happen?!? It's beyond insulting that NBC apparently thinks we won't want to watch something in which the US loses. This US team has been great in the tournament, so it's a huge deal that they came unraveled and lost. But we have no idea how that happened.


----------



## murgatroyd

Exactly. NBC's game plan of having a mix of some features plus some sports is not the issue.

It's how you execute the game plan that counts -- and they are executing it poorly.



Steveknj said:


> Now the announcer says..."This is one of the most amazing comebacks that he's ever seen (referring to Brazil coming back) and do we see it? NO!!!!


I remember another sports event where the person doing the report actually said "I wish you could have been here to see this" -- well, if that's the case, then WHY AREN'T YOU SHOWING IT TO US?

When I tune into see coverage of a sporting event, I want to see the event. I don't want to see some guy doing a stand-up piece in the arena, taunting me that he saw the event but I'm not going to see it.


----------



## laria

That sucks that they blew the volleyball coverage... I really enjoyed the history piece though.


----------



## tiams

pdhenry said:


> So are you so married to the for-profit enterprise to avoid FFing through the ads?


You make no sense. NBC exists to make a profit, but It's not my duty to provide them with that profit.


----------



## tiams

murgatroyd said:


> I keep asking this, but nobody wants to answer. Why should I or any other viewer that can't stream be forced to stay up until midnight or later to see my events, just so you can see a feature about something that took place in 1992?


I'll answer you. You aren't forced to stay up. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. NBC provides what they see fit and you can take it or leave it.


----------



## murgatroyd

Is this for real? NBC is showing the men's marathon live across all timezones (starting at 3:00 am my time) and then re-running it in HD 12 hours later OTA on one of the subchannels?


----------



## murgatroyd

tiams said:


> I'll answer you. You aren't forced to stay up. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. NBC provides what they see fit and you can take it or leave it.


You are free to have whatever personal opinion you like, of course, but I think this is a crappy attitude for a business to have toward its customers.


----------



## pdhenry

tiams said:


> You make no sense. NBC exists to make a profit, but It's not my duty to provide them with that profit.


Sounds like 'an annoying sense of entitlement and ignorance of for-profit enterprises' to me... 

Or at least the entitlement part. "Oh, yeah, they deserve to make money, but darned if _I'm_ going to participate!


----------



## Kamakzie

NBC sucks!


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> You are free to have whatever personal opinion you like, of course, but I think this is a crappy attitude for a business to have toward its customers.


They are treating their customers well.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> Is this for real? NBC is showing the men's marathon live across all timezones (starting at 3:00 am my time) and then re-running it in HD 12 hours later OTA on one of the subchannels?


uhh... yeah... But the marathon didn't



Spoiler



end in Olympic stadium, shortly before the start of the closing ceremony, with the stadium packed with people.

I thought they always did that.
It just ended out on a street like any other regular marathong


----------



## cmontyburns

I don't have any interest in the marathon, but I always thought that was cool. Wonder why this time was different.


----------



## pdhenry

Why do you keep spoilering that, smeek? It wasn't a secret.


----------



## lambertman

They don't always do that. In Athens, it ended in the original 1896 Olympic Stadium, which I thought was even more awesome.

I've been a pretty staunch defender of NBCU on this thread, but I have to say I was also pretty disappointed with the way they handled the volleyball match. Glad I saw most of it live so it wasn't a shellshock to me that Brazil battled back so well.


----------



## jsmeeker

pdhenry said:


> Why do you keep spoilering that, smeek? It wasn't a secret.


I didn't know that.

Is there a reason for it?


----------



## murgatroyd

cmontyburns said:


> I don't have any interest in the marathon, but I always thought that was cool. Wonder why this time was different.


It would give them more time to set up for the Closing Ceremonies.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> It would give them more time to set up for the Closing Ceremonies.


I guess your are right. They gotta bring back a lot of musicians from the dead.


----------



## chocophile

About the blown volleyball coverage: The piece on the WWII history was essentially a one hour infomercial for Tom Brokaw's book, IMHO. If I want to watch the history channel, I know where it it. The women's volleyball final was the ONLY event I was interested in last night, and it was given cursory coverage at best.

I think the WWII piece was extremely inappropriate given the broadcast time slot and rating for the show. There were graphic scenes of dead bodies lying by the roadside, a mass execution by firing squad, airplanes in flames, crashing into the sea and land among many other violent and disturbing images. I wonder if this documentary is worth filing an FCC complaint on these grounds?

I guess NBC didn't want to waste valuable broadcast time on a losing game. Despite the fact that the American team lost the match, they WON a silver medal. I guess that's just not worth showing any more.


----------



## tiams

pdhenry said:


> Sounds like 'an annoying sense of entitlement and ignorance of for-profit enterprises' to me...
> 
> Or at least the entitlement part. "Oh, yeah, they deserve to make money, but darned if _I'm_ going to participate!


I know what for profit means and I don't feel any company owes me anything, so I am not the one who feels entitled. The people complaining about the product NBC is offering are the ones who think they deserve or are owed something. As a consumer I participate in a free market; I choose what to buy and what not to. Maybe you think NBC should be run by the government and all citizens be required to pay their share whether they like it or not.


----------



## murgatroyd

Closing ceremonies co-hosted by Al Michaels and Ryan Seacrest?


----------



## mike_k

chocophile said:


> I guess NBC didn't want to waste valuable broadcast time on a losing game. Despite the fact that the American team lost the match, they WON a silver medal. I guess that's just not worth showing any more.


I agree with your entire post - this is the part the annoys me the most. NBC doesn't give a crap about second place. They've proved it time and time again.


----------



## pdhenry

tiams said:


> Maybe you think NBC should be run by the government and all citizens be required to pay their share whether they like it or not.


Where the hell did that come from?

You said people don't understand the for-profit model of broadcasting and I observed that you understood it well enough to circumvent it.

Touchy, much?


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> Closing ceremonies co-hosted by Al Michaels and Ryan Seacrest?


Michaels good.

Seacrest? He needs to stick to celebrity gossip.


----------



## Steveknj

chocophile said:


> About the blown volleyball coverage: The piece on the WWII history was essentially a one hour infomercial for Tom Brokaw's book, IMHO. If I want to watch the history channel, I know where it it. The women's volleyball final was the ONLY event I was interested in last night, and it was given cursory coverage at best.
> 
> I think the WWII piece was extremely inappropriate given the broadcast time slot and rating for the show. There were graphic scenes of dead bodies lying by the roadside, a mass execution by firing squad, airplanes in flames, crashing into the sea and land among many other violent and disturbing images. I wonder if this documentary is worth filing an FCC complaint on these grounds?
> 
> I guess NBC didn't want to waste valuable broadcast time on a losing game. Despite the fact that the American team lost the match, they WON a silver medal. I guess that's just not worth showing any more.


I don't think they actually mentioned Brokaw's book during the documentary, and most people probably aren't aware he wrote a book about WWII. But he has some expertise on the subject so I didn't have a problem with them doing the story. I just thought that, given the events of the night, they should have pre-empted it. Sometimes you just have to make last minute changes based on events and NBCU dropped the ball this time. As for what the documentary showed, this is nothing worse than what you can see on the History channel any night of the week. This isn't 1958 where mainstream viewers were afraid to KISS on TV. I have no problem with this in 2012.

If NBC didn't want to waste valuable time, they could have just come in during the last set and show that. But they had this HUGE buildup with the US team creaming Brazil in the first set, and then have the audacity to say that this was one of the great comebacks WITHOUT SHOWING IT. What a mess.


----------



## Steveknj

tiams said:


> I know what for profit means and I don't feel any company owes me anything, so I am not the one who feels entitled. The people complaining about the product NBC is offering are the ones who think they deserve or are owed something. As a consumer I participate in a free market; I choose what to buy and what not to.* Maybe you think NBC should be run by the government and all citizens be required to pay their share whether they like it or not.*


I figured that's where you were coming from....Corporate apologist. Here's the difference. It's not like we had any other option, or at least many people didn't. It's not like in the "free market" I could watch another feed of the same thing on another network, I can't, it's their way or the highway. So that's why people are complaining. That said, I've mostly been fine with NBC's coverage and until last night, didn't think they botched things up TOO much. Last night however was a FUBAR on the highest order. Had I known they were going to do this, I would have watched the live stream.


----------



## Steveknj

jsmeeker said:


> Michaels good.
> 
> Seacrest? He needs to stick to celebrity gossip.


Totally agree. I'll say it again, I don't get the Seacrest love. Why are the networks so insistent on shoving this guy down our throats. I don't see how he has any talent that makes him any better than average game show host. Do people watch AI to see Seacrest? Would they still watch it if "generic game show host A" was the host? Probably.

Michaels is good, except when he tries to do his "inner Cosell" and use stupid puns that Cosell used 30 years ago on MNF. But he's generally good at what he does.


----------



## murgatroyd

tiams said:


> The people complaining about the product NBC is offering are the ones who think they deserve or are owed something.


The only thing I feel entitled to is the right to give 'notes' on the performance NBC has done in bringing the Games to me. Any director will have an idea about what he/she wants a show to be, and audience members experience a show each in their own way. Sometimes (like the Opening Ceremony and a large portion of the audience in the US), there is no common ground between what the director meant and what the audience took away from it. But any audience member has a right to say what they thought about a performance. It is their experience.

Even given all the constraints that NBC or other Olympic broadcasters must work within, I think it is possible to do a better job than what NBC is delivering in Prime Time.

I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> The only thing I feel entitled to is the right to give 'notes' on the performance NBC has done in bringing the Games to me. Any director will have an idea about what he/she wants a show to be, and audience members experience a show each in their own way. Sometimes (like the Opening Ceremony and a large portion of the audience in the US), there is no common ground between what the director meant and what the audience took away from it. But any audience member has a right to say what they thought about a performance. It is their experience.
> 
> Even given all the constraints that NBC or other Olympic broadcasters must work within, I think it is possible to do a better job than what NBC is delivering in Prime Time.
> 
> I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand.


NBC breaks records while angering viewers

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-st-olympic-ratings-20120730,0,1565984.story


----------



## Steveknj

jsmeeker said:


> NBC breaks records while angering viewers
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-st-olympic-ratings-20120730,0,1565984.story


How can they even talk about comparing how BBC handled the opening ceremonies as opposed to how NBC did it? BBC could show the opening ceremonies LIVE in prime time, where NBC couldn't. As far as streaming it live, really that is something they could have done, but I understand why they didn't. Advertisers are paying for prime time, not the stream, and would not look favorably on NBC showing one of their ratings drivers earlier in the day.

Can I argue about NBCs directing choices as what to show in primetime after that? Yes. Outside of them cutting out the segment and FF through some of the countries during the opening ceremonies, I don't have a huge gripe with the OC.


----------



## murgatroyd

I can't read the linked story in the LA Times, so I don't know what was said there. 

Just to clarify: when I talk about "how the BBC presents an event" versus "how NBC presents an event" I'm not talking about broadcast vs. streaming. I'm talking about what the content is.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> I can't read the linked story in the LA Times, so I don't know what was said there.
> 
> Just to clarify: when I talk about "how the BBC presents an event" versus "how NBC presents an event" I'm not talking about broadcast vs. streaming. I'm talking about what the content is.


Still, I don't think it's fair to compare the host country broadcast with that of a foreign broadcast. If you want to compare, say CBC (or whatever network is covering the Olympics in Canada) with that of NBC, I can see it. I'm sure the BBC covered every nook and cranny of the OC as it's a national event.


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> Edited to add: another reason that NBC is a dbag network -- they wait until after the feature and the commercials are over, and then -- as the competition is about to be shown instead -- NBC News cuts in to tell us who Romney is going to announce for his running mate the next day.
> 
> I see the 'special report' banner come up and I'm thinking, okay, who died. But no, Romney can't wait until the Olympics is over to make his announcement. He has to do it before the Games are over, and then NBC has to 'report' it early because God Forbid anybody else should scoop them.
> 
> What does he care? This isn't his Olympics.


Now this is just completely silly for you to complain about. It's now obvious you're just bitter at NBC and have lost all objectivity.

NBC cut in when their news division had a story they felt was newsworthy enough to warrant cutting in. They didn't time it to break just after the package piece. I'm sure their reporters are all based in the eastern time zone and had no idea they'd be disturbing your west coast Olympics viewing. In fact, I just went back in my Friday night recording and found the breaking news segment. It came at 10:22 pm PT, which is 1:22 am ET. For me, it interrupted the preliminary heats of the BMX competition. For you, it must have interrupted something more interesting. For most of the rest of the country, it came after the primetime Olympics coverage was over for the evening.

And Romney wasn't making his announcement until the next morning, so it's not like he wanted to disturb the Olympics. Some reporters simply were doing their job and were able to get the story before the scheduled announcement.


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> Is this for real? NBC is showing the men's marathon live across all timezones (starting at 3:00 am my time) and then re-running it in HD 12 hours later OTA on one of the subchannels?


What is it you're complaining about here? Everyone has been complaining about tape delay, and now you're complaining when they're showing something live?


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> Still, I don't think it's fair to compare the host country broadcast with that of a foreign broadcast. If you want to compare, say CBC (or whatever network is covering the Olympics in Canada) with that of NBC, I can see it. I'm sure the BBC covered every nook and cranny of the OC as it's a national event.


Fair enough, but I doubt the either the Canadians or the BBC presenters make disparaging or stupid remarks about the names of other countries in the Parade of Nations.


----------



## laria

Steveknj said:


> I don't think they actually mentioned Brokaw's book during the documentary, and most people probably aren't aware he wrote a book about WWII.


No they didn't mention a book... this is the first time I'm hearing that Tom Brokaw wrote a book.


----------



## DevdogAZ

murgatroyd said:


> Fair enough, but I doubt the either the Canadians or the BBC presenters make disparaging or stupid remarks about the names of other countries in the Parade of Nations.


You continue to harp on this subject, as if it was particularly egregious. It really wasn't bad. They were just trying to take an event that tends to be very long and boring and make it more palatable for the viewers. I heard one joking remark about Djibouti, but didn't think it was disparaging.


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> What is it you're complaining about here? Everyone has been complaining about tape delay, and now you're complaining when they're showing something live?


No, I'm not complaining, I'm just surprised. If somebody wants to see the marathon in HD, it gives them another chance.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> No, I'm not complaining, I'm just surprised. If somebody wants to see the marathon in HD, it gives them another chance.


you can also re-watch the men's gold medal hoops game. Being re-aired right now on NBC Sports Network

Where is the marathon? Which network?


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> You continue to harp on this subject, as if it was particularly egregious. It really wasn't bad. They were just trying to take an event that tends to be very long and boring and make it more palatable for the viewers. I heard one joking remark about Djibouti, but didn't think it was disparaging.


Just because the TV guys want to capture 18-49 year old male eyeballs, why does that mean they have to play to the younger end of that range?


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> you can also re-watch the men's gold medal hoops game. Being re-aired right now on NBC Sports Network
> 
> Where is the marathon? Which network?


The main NBC station here is San Jose, channel 11.

At 3 PM my time, 11-1, which is channel 3 on Comcast, is showing Basketball and Volleyball and stuff.

But when I do view upcoming episodes, it says the Sacramento NBC station, which is Channel 3 OTA, is re-airing the marathon on 3-1 in HD at 3 PM.

So maybe it's only a Guide data glitch, but ordinarily I would expect 11-1 and 3-1 to be showing the same thing.


----------



## Steveknj

The closing ceremonies are on now. Unfortunately I can't get the sound working on my PC and don't have the cable yet to connect my iPad. Guess I'll just watch tonight


----------



## murgatroyd

DevdogAZ said:


> NBC cut in when their news division had a story they felt was newsworthy enough to warrant cutting in. They didn't time it to break just after the package piece. I'm sure their reporters are all based in the eastern time zone and had no idea they'd be disturbing your west coast Olympics viewing. In fact, I just went back in my Friday night recording and found the breaking news segment. It came at 10:22 pm PT, which is 1:22 am ET. For me, it interrupted the preliminary heats of the BMX competition. For you, it must have interrupted something more interesting. For most of the rest of the country, it came after the primetime Olympics coverage was over for the evening.


Yeah, it's easy for people in the rest of the country to say that it's no big deal because for them, it didn't impact anything important.

Earlier this week, just before the primetime coverage began, we had an actual urgent news story that happened in the Bay Area. There was a fire at one of the refineries and a shelter-in-place alert was given for one of the counties in the area. Our local station covered the emergency up to the point where the primetime coverage started, then they put a crawler on screen, and gave brief live updates during the commercial breaks, including a brief remark that they wouldn't be interrupting any of the Olympics coverage.

They manged to keep everybody in the affected area informed of what was happening and still not disrupt the broadcast except for the break that came from sending out the EAS notice.

I guess I'm just an old fart, but when I see that kind of "Special Report" banner, and they break away from a show entirely, I expect it to be important news that can't wait, like the 9/11 attacks, the President getting assassinated, stuff like that.


----------



## jsmeeker

Steveknj said:


> The closing ceremonies are on now. Unfortunately I can't get the sound working on my PC and don't have the cable yet to connect my iPad. Guess I'll just watch tonight


audio quality of the performers is poor. I hope it's just a streaming thing.

Commentators are not NBC. They are some brits.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> I guess I'm just an old fart, but when I see that kind of "Special Report" banner, and they break away from a show entirely, I expect it to be important news that can't wait, like the 9/11 attacks, the President getting assassinated, stuff like that.


+this

Breaking away to announce who Romney will announce as a VP running mate is totally not break in news worthy.


----------



## pkscout

chocophile said:


> About the blown volleyball coverage: The piece on the WWII history was essentially a one hour infomercial for Tom Brokaw's book, IMHO. If I want to watch the history channel, I know where it it. The women's volleyball final was the ONLY event I was interested in last night, and it was given cursory coverage at best.
> 
> I think the WWII piece was extremely inappropriate given the broadcast time slot and rating for the show. There were graphic scenes of dead bodies lying by the roadside, a mass execution by firing squad, airplanes in flames, crashing into the sea and land among many other violent and disturbing images. I wonder if this documentary is worth filing an FCC complaint on these grounds?
> 
> I guess NBC didn't want to waste valuable broadcast time on a losing game. Despite the fact that the American team lost the match, they WON a silver medal. I guess that's just not worth showing any more.


You're being too kind. What NBC did was a slap in the face to everyone involved in the final game, including their own announcers. That was, to me, one of the biggest crap moves NBC did the entire two weeks. About a minute after coming back to the end of the last set the announcer said, "This is the biggest comeback I've ever seen." As others have said, too bad the idiots at NBC didn't let us see it. And since I'm a cord cutter, NBC didn't even let me have the choice to watch the whole game streaming (which I would have paid for had that been an option).

I watched just about all the coverage NBC broadcasted, and I feel like NBC screwed up so many things so many ways that the only two choices are that they are the most incompetent network ever or they don't get a crap about their audience. I guess the two aren't mutually exclusive though.

So now I'm won't watch the olympics anymore as long as NBC broadcasts it. It's just not worth it.


----------



## laria

murgatroyd said:


> I guess I'm just an old fart, but when I see that kind of "Special Report" banner, and they break away from a show entirely, I expect it to be important news that can't wait, like the 9/11 attacks, the President getting assassinated, stuff like that.


It's not an old fart thing... I hate news crawlers. Especially up here when they run all through primetime shows in the winter with stupid stuff like school cancellations for the next day for snowstorms. If there's a crawler going, someone better be dead or stuff is blowing up somewhere, IMO.

Edit: Woops, it sounds like they broke away from it entirely... they don't get quite that bad for snowstorms.


----------



## Steveknj

jsmeeker said:


> +this
> 
> Breaking away to announce who Romney will announce as a VP running mate is totally not break in news worthy.


I'm no Romney supporter, but a quick break in just to say who it was, and then right back to the games is warranted I think. That's all.


----------



## robojerk

Steveknj said:


> I'm no Romney supporter, but a quick break in just to say who it was, and then right back to the games is warranted I think. That's all.


I think a news ticker at the bottom of the screen, saying who Romney picked, and with a note about turning to MSNBC or something would have sufficed. I think the IOC should have clauses in the rights to air the events that only emergencies should be the only thing to break the broadcast (Flood, fire, earthquake, hurricane, tornadoes, terrorism, nuclear reactor accident, etc).

But then again I hate politics (I have a pessimistic view on both parties), and don't care who the VP is.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> I'm no Romney supporter, but a quick break in just to say who it was, and then right back to the games is warranted I think. That's all.


My local guys did a _quick_ update about the refinery fire.

For the Romney story, the national guys pontificated about who wasn't picked and why he should be disappointed. Which is newsworthy, sure, but I don't see why it was urgent news.



laria said:


> It's not an old fart thing... I hate news crawlers. Especially up here when they run all through primetime shows in the winter with stupid stuff like school cancellations for the next day for snowstorms. If there's a crawler going, someone better be dead or stuff is blowing up somewhere, IMO.
> 
> Edit: Woops, it sounds like they broke away from it entirely... they don't get quite that bad for snowstorms.


I'm not keen on crawlers either, but for an ongoing event with real urgency, I can put up with it. The refinery fire started with explosions, so I guess that meets your rule.


----------



## murgatroyd

pkscout said:


> I watched just about all the coverage NBC broadcasted, and I feel like NBC screwed up so many things so many ways that the only two choices are that they are the most incompetent network ever or they don't get a crap about their audience. I guess the two aren't mutually exclusive though.


IMO, somebody is making decisions based on "most people" liking something a certain way, with a narrow definition of "most people", probably 18-49 year old males, the target demographic they are going after. As long as they can satisfy their idea of what the audience will want, they don't care about doing any better.

Then they get huge numbers because most people (in the real world sense) don't have any other choice apart from watching what they offer, no matter what the quality of the offering is.

They don't care how many people put up dishes to get Canadian TV instead, or torrent coverage from other countries. There aren't enough people doing that, and nobody counts them anyway. Apart from Twitter and things like that, there is no way to give feedback to NBC about how the parts of their coverage that suck.

If I ran the coverage, I would do things differently.

The first thing I would do is to recognize that the Olympics wasn't about me.

Then I would assume that what I had to offer was compelling to someone, and to make sure the broadcast was good for that core audience. (If you can't understand what makes the Olympics good, I don't see why you are broadcasting the Olympics at all.)

Then I would assume that other people who tuned in were at least a little bit interested in watching an unfamiliar sport or they wouldn't be watching the Olympics at all.

I would keep in mind that some of them might be waiting to see another sport that was coming up next, but while they were waiting, I would want them to discover what it was that made the sport compelling to the fans for whom it was a must-see sport.

Viewers should come away saying "I never thought I would like [this other sport] but it was really cool."

Thus on my network, I might hire John McEnroe in as a host because he has the courage to admit that while he never expected to like the equestrian sports, now that his daughter is riding, he's actually watched some and it hasn't killed him. Not Mary Carillo, who tosses things back to the equestrian venue by saying "now back to the horsies".


----------



## murgatroyd

3 PM on NBC is a replay of the marathon, despite Guide Data which has the same listings of sports as the timeslot before that.

Also note -- starting tomorrow, NBC SportsNet will be airing a series of "Return to London" recaps. Check your Guide Data for more details. Each show appears to feature a single sport, so it might be a useful way to catch up on stuff you missed. I'm seeing Guide Data for both SD and HD channels on my Comcast listings. 

NBC SportsNet is part of the Digital Starter package in my area.

It won't help people who are OTA only, of course, but if you missed Usain Bolt because his event is so short, this will give you a chance to record the track events by themselves.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> 3 PM on NBC is a replay of the marathon, despite Guide Data which has the same listings of sports as the timeslot before that.


must have been a west coast only thing.

Which makes sense, because it would have been on VERY early in the AM out there.


----------



## Steveknj

murgatroyd said:


> IMO, somebody is making decisions based on "most people" liking something a certain way, with a narrow definition of "most people", probably 18-49 year old males, the target demographic they are going after. As long as they can satisfy their idea of what the audience will want, they don't care about doing any better.
> 
> Then they get huge numbers because most people (in the real world sense) don't have any other choice apart from watching what they offer, no matter what the quality of the offering is.
> 
> They don't care how many people put up dishes to get Canadian TV instead, or torrent coverage from other countries. There aren't enough people doing that, and nobody counts them anyway. Apart from Twitter and things like that, there is no way to give feedback to NBC about how the parts of their coverage that suck.
> 
> If I ran the coverage, I would do things differently.
> 
> The first thing I would do is to recognize that the Olympics wasn't about me.
> 
> Then I would assume that what I had to offer was compelling to someone, and to make sure the broadcast was good for that core audience. (If you can't understand what makes the Olympics good, I don't see why you are broadcasting the Olympics at all.)
> 
> Then I would assume that other people who tuned in were at least a little bit interested in watching an unfamiliar sport or they wouldn't be watching the Olympics at all.
> 
> I would keep in mind that some of them might be waiting to see another sport that was coming up next, but while they were waiting, I would want them to discover what it was that made the sport compelling to the fans for whom it was a must-see sport.
> 
> Viewers should come away saying "I never thought I would like [this other sport] but it was really cool."
> 
> Thus on my network, I might hire John McEnroe in as a host because he has the courage to admit that while he never expected to like the equestrian sports, now that his daughter is riding, he's actually watched some and it hasn't killed him. Not Mary Carillo, who tosses things back to the equestrian venue by saying "now back to the horsies".


The things is, "it's not about me" would A) not generate the ad revenue that is warranted to at least not take a bath on the Olympic coverage. Second, on McEnroe, if his daughter wasn't riding, I wonder if he would really like it or not. Maybe he said that to get people to watch his daughter's sport. We'll obviously never know.

I mean if I RAN the NBC coverage, we'd probably see nothing but team handball, swimming and volleyball, and no equestrian, diving or rhythmic gymnastics, but that's only what I like. I'm sure NBC has realized that there are core events AMERICANS want to see, and that's what they push. Doesn't bother me as long as they don't do stupid stuff like they did Saturday night with the volleyball.


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> must have been a west coast only thing.
> 
> Which makes sense, because it would have been on VERY early in the AM out there.


Yes, we had it live at 3 AM. If that had been the only West Coast airing, it would have been rough on the people without DVDs/VCRs.


----------



## cmontyburns

I liked how at the end of the afternoon coverage, NBC ran a promo for the 2014 Sochi winter games, saying that they would bring them to us "like we've never seen them before".

Oh you, NBC. I have a feeling they will be exactly as we've seen them before.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> The things is, "it's not about me" would A) not generate the ad revenue that is warranted to at least not take a bath on the Olympic coverage. Second, on McEnroe, if his daughter wasn't riding, I wonder if he would really like it or not. Maybe he said that to get people to watch his daughter's sport. We'll obviously never know.
> 
> I mean if I RAN the NBC coverage, we'd probably see nothing but team handball, swimming and volleyball, and no equestrian, diving or rhythmic gymnastics, but that's only what I like. I'm sure NBC has realized that there are core events AMERICANS want to see, and that's what they push. Doesn't bother me as long as they don't do stupid stuff like they did Saturday night with the volleyball.


Let's say for the sake of argument you run the Steve Network and you have the rights to show the stuff you want, so you don't have to worry about whether to show the stuff you don't like. Somebody else will pick up the rights to other stuff.

My question is: how do you make the broadcast of volleyball the best than it can be, so that if I happen to land on your broadcast, I get sucked in and excited about watching volleyball?

Remember, I'm a tough sell, because while I am inherently interested in watching the Olympics, I have a deep-seated loathing of indoor volleyball from having to play volleyball in high school. 

So how do you make a broadcast that is satisfying to the hard-core fans, and at the same time, win me over?

As for "it's not about me" -- I like hearing Bob Costas talk about baseball, because he's passionate about baseball. I'm not so keen at hearing Costas just for the sake of hearing Costas. As far as I'm concerned, there needs to be a balance. NBC's people should enhance the broadcast, not upstage it.


----------



## jsmeeker

cmontyburns said:


> I liked how at the end of the afternoon coverage, NBC ran a promo for the 2014 Sochi winter games, saying that they would bring them to us "like we've never seen them before".
> 
> Oh you, NBC. I have a feeling they will be exactly as we've seen them before.


lol

I saw a piece on NBC Nighty News on Sochi.

They didn't even have any type of ski resort there until AFTER they won the games. That seems nuts. But apparently they are going all out to build the facilities. The ski runs are up and got good reviews.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> My question is: how do you make the broadcast of volleyball the best than it can be, so that if I happen to land on your broadcast, I get sucked in and excited about watching volleyball?
> 
> Remember, I'm a tough sell, because while I am inherently interested in watching the Olympics, I have a deep-seated loathing of indoor volleyball from having to play volleyball in high school.


I'm not Steve, but I would put all volleyball on the "beach". And I would make sure it was always warm.


----------



## murgatroyd

cmontyburns said:


> I liked how at the end of the afternoon coverage, NBC ran a promo for the 2014 Sochi winter games, saying that they would bring them to us "like we've never seen them before".
> 
> Oh you, NBC. I have a feeling they will be exactly as we've seen them before.


And for some of the sports, we won't see them again, just like we haven't seen them before.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> And for some of the sports, we won't see them again, just like we haven't seen them before.


they have added quite a few new sports for 2014, (think young, hip "X Games" types of events) so I fear it will be even tougher for some of your sports to get coverage.

Sorry


----------



## zordude

murgatroyd said:


> So how do you make a broadcast that is satisfying to the hard-core fans, and at the same time, win me over?


At some point the ROI is not there. If you can please "most" of the viewers with the setup you have, it's probably not worth the hassle to try and please "all" of the viewers. Especially if you have 5+ other channels of coverage they can switch to if they want.

Z

ETA: and the "horsies" comment amuses me every time you post it


----------



## TonyD79

zordude said:


> At some point the ROI is not there. If you can please "most" of the viewers with the setup you have, it's probably not worth the hassle to try and please "all" of the viewers. Especially if you have 5+ other channels of coverage they can switch to if they want.


That's part of the problem. You can't tune to the other nets when most people are home. Primetime. It is NBC or nothing.


----------



## cmontyburns

jsmeeker said:


> they have added quite a few new sports for 2014, (think young, hip "X Games" types of events) so I fear it will be even tougher for some of your sports to get coverage.
> 
> Sorry


Yeah -- if you thought the equestrian skiing events were getting the shaft now, just wait!


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> they have added quite a few new sports for 2014, (think young, hip "X Games" types of events) so I fear it will be even tougher for some of your sports to get coverage.
> 
> Sorry


Hey, Shaun White understands physics, so he knows how awesome the ice skaters are, even if NBC is clueless.

Wish I had been there to see the snowboarder's faces when they found out for the first time that the top ice skaters can do quads.

Apolo Ohno probably respects the ice dancers now, too.


----------



## jsmeeker

Can you forbid any more coverage of Michael Phelps?


----------



## murgatroyd

cmontyburns said:


> Yeah -- if you thought the equestrian skiing events were getting the shaft now, just wait!


Hmm, a winter modern pentathlon.

Shooting, cross-country skiing, speed skating, luge, and ... dogsled racing?



jsmeeker said:


> Can you forbid any more coverage of Michael Phelps?


Michael is working on that, but his mom has other ideas.


----------



## jsmeeker

murgatroyd said:


> Hmm, a winter modern pentathlon.
> 
> Shooting, cross-country skiing, speed skating, luge, and ... dogsled racing?


Figure skating?

Hmmm... Would a soldier do that? 

lets see... how about some sort of downhill skiing ?


----------



## murgatroyd

jsmeeker said:


> Figure skating?
> 
> Hmmm... Would a soldier do that?
> 
> lets see... how about some sort of downhill skiing ?


Not figure skating -- speed skating. People used to race on frozen rivers.

Downhill skiing would probably be better than luge.


----------



## TomK

Oh great, we get to hear more commentating over the closing ceremonies. I guess the mouthpieces have to earn their money.


----------



## morac

And in a final insult by NBC, they start airing the closing ceremonies 10 minutes before their scheduled time. At least they are "pausing" the closing ceremony during commercials, unlike they did with the opening one.


----------



## jsmeeker

TomK said:


> Oh great, we get to hear more commentating over the closing ceremonies. I guess the mouthpieces have to earn their money.


you should have watched the online streaming..

then you would have heard the talking heads with a british accent.


----------



## TomK

morac said:


> And in a final insult by NBC, they start airing the closing ceremonies 10 minutes before their scheduled time. At least they are "pausing" the closing ceremony during commercials, unlike they did with the opening one.


Surely not the final insult. We still have over two hours to go.


----------



## jsmeeker

thankfully NBC compressed up/cut out the full athlete arrival.. Otherwise, we would be here until like 2 am.


----------



## murgatroyd

NBC cut _Kate Bush_? 

That alone shows they are a big bag of incompetent suck.


----------



## JimSpence

I'm glad I recorded this to watch on delay.
They built a sculpture of John Lennon in the middle and only showed at most 5 seconds of the completed sculpture from above before it was disassembled.

So far I'm not impressed! I'd rather watch a repeat of the gold medal table tennis.

Maybe I'll change my mind a little once I see all of this.


----------



## morac

TomK said:


> Surely not the final insult. We still have over two hours to go.


I stand corrected. They cut out about an hour of the ceremony, including a number of performances.


----------



## waynomo

No Who or Muse. Bob Costas even mentioned that the Who was/were coming up. Kaiser Chiefs did "Pinbal Wizard" but the supposedly played "My Generation.

And Muse is huge these days. A lot bigger than a several of the one hit wonders that they played.

Ugh, this sucked.


----------



## morac

waynomo said:


> No Who or Muse. Bob Costas even mentioned that the Who was/were coming up. Kaiser Chiefs did "Pinbal Wizard" but the supposedly played "My Generation.
> 
> And Muse is huge these days. A lot bigger than a several of the one hit wonders that they played.
> 
> Ugh, this sucked.


They're airing The Who now (guide info says Olympic Gold). Apparently they decided to air the pilot of some show that will be canceled in a few weeks first.


----------



## murgatroyd

Oh, yeah, because everybody wants a preview of a new show dropped into the Closing Ceremony of the Olympics.

Way to spoil the mood, NBC!

Thanks to the East / Central time peeps in the Watching Party thread for the heads-up on this.


----------



## LoadStar

You'd have thought they'd have learned from "The Marriage Ref" debacle, but nooooo....


----------



## whitson77

The closing ceremonies were no bueno.


----------



## waynomo

This is reminiscent of the famous NBC Heidi game in 1968. How do you butcher the coverage like that of the closing ceremonies?


----------



## waynomo

And still no Muse? Did I somehow miss them?


----------



## MarkofT

You sure did. Silly person expecting to see everything by watching a major US TV network.

NBC cut them for some silly reason.


----------



## cwerdna

whitson77 said:


> The closing ceremonies were no bueno.


So, was it worth watching or should I just delete it? I don't care about The Who.

I only watched a few pieces of the opening ceremonies since so many people said it was bad (not just folks here on TC).


----------



## morac

cwerdna said:


> So, was it worth watching or should I just delete it? I don't care about The Who.
> 
> I only watched a few pieces of the opening ceremonies since so many people said it was bad (not just folks here on TC).


Actually other than NBC cutting a few items from the opening ceremonies, I thought they were pretty good. As for the closing ceremony, it was basically a concert with a bunch of different genres of music, with a fashion model show thrown in for no reason. If you don't care about music or fashion you can skip it.


----------



## loubob57

murgatroyd said:


> NBC cut _Kate Bush_?
> 
> That alone shows they are a big bag of incompetent suck.


Here's the video of the Kate Bush number:


Turtleboy said:


> Here's the Kate Bush song.
> 
> http://gawker.com/5934102/heres-the-...osing-ceremony


Not as big a deal as I thought after seeing that.


----------



## JimSpence

The only part that was interesting was the extinguishing of the Olympic Caldron.

Shame on NBC for cutting out any of the closing ceremony. That Kate Bush part was great in relation to what we saw. Having the montage of the athletes is what this should be. I wonder ho much more of that was cut?


----------



## lambertman

Is Roger Daltrey making it a habit of changing all his lyrics to be more uplifting, or was that just for this occasion? Either way, it was lame.


----------



## Steveknj

lambertman said:


> Is Roger Daltrey making it a habit of changing all his lyrics to be more uplifting, or was that just for this occasion? Either way, it was lame.


Actually, he doesn't write the lyrics, Pete Townsend does. I haven't seen the performance yet, got it recorded, but I'm sure it's going to p**s me off.


----------



## JimSpence

It seems that we missed a whole lot of the closing ceremony.
Look through these pictures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-rendition-Always-Look-Bright-Side-Life.html


----------



## Turtleboy

JimSpence said:


> It seems that we missed a whole lot of the closing ceremony.
> Look through these pictures.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-rendition-Always-Look-Bright-Side-Life.html


I saw 98% of what was in those pictures.


----------



## laria

Turtleboy said:


> I saw 98% of what was in those pictures.


I didn't. 

Off the top of my head... There was a LOT of the stuff with The Beatles and the newspaper wrapped cars, people, etc and the Tower of London with Churchill coming out of it and reciting from The Tempest that we didn't see. We didn't see Muse, George Michael's second song, Ray Davies, Emeli Sande, Kate Bush, The Who (although I guess they were on the late late show). We didn't see the 200 ballerinas dancing during the phoenix stuff. We didn't see them building a pyramid out of the blocks representing all the events. We saw that John Lennon face image on the floor for like half a second before cutting to commercial. We didn't see the gymnasts performing to The Beatle's "A Day in the Life".


----------



## murgatroyd

laria said:


> I didn't.
> 
> Off the top of my head... There was a LOT of the stuff with The Beatles and the newspaper wrapped cars, people, etc and the Tower of London with Churchill coming out of it and reciting from The Tempest that we didn't see.


I caught the opening, thanks to the warnings here. (i.e. in the Olympics Watching Party thread).

The show started 10 minutes before the timeslot in the Guide Data.


----------



## laria

murgatroyd said:


> They started 10 minutes early. I caught the opening, thanks to the warnings here. (i.e. in the Olympics Watching Party thread).


The start of our broadcast pretty clearly looked like the beginning of the NBC broadcast with the introductions and stuff... or did you mean you watched the beginning online?


----------



## Turtleboy

laria said:


> I didn't.
> 
> Off the top of my head... There was a LOT of the stuff with The Beatles and the newspaper wrapped cars, people, etc and the Tower of London with Churchill coming out of it and reciting from The Tempest that we didn't see.


Sure we did. It's just that NBC started 10 minutes early.


----------



## Turtleboy

laria said:


> The start of our broadcast pretty clearly looked like the beginning of the NBC broadcast with the introductions and stuff... or did you mean you watched the beginning online?


No, on the TV.

It seems that the show went long, so they started it 10 minutes early (compared to the guide data) and still had to cut everything.

I understand that NBC is a business and paid billions of dollars to cover the Olympics. I understand they have to show commercials, and lots of them.

The problem is not that there were too many commercials, but they showed too much fluff.


----------



## murgatroyd

The other thing that bugs me about both the OC and CC is that there are parts of the ceremony I never saw.

In the OC, we didn't get the athletes' oath (or any of them). In the CC, we didn't see the Olympic flag lowered or see it passed on to the people in the next host city.

It's hard to believe that London 2012 would have blown off these parts of the ceremony, so I can only conclude that NBC did.

Which is kinda like your neighbor promising that he'll video your kid's high school graduation since you can't be there, and when you get home, you find out he got great shots of some kids sneaking in beers and puking after the ceremony, but he somehow forgot to include the part where your kid actually walks across the stage to get his diploma.


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> No, on the TV.
> 
> It seems that the show went long, so they started it 10 minutes early (compared to the guide data) and still had to cut everything.


"The show went long?" I'd say instead that NBC did not allocate enough time for the Closing Ceremonies, just like they never allocate enough time for the Opening Ceremonies, or any other live or pseudo-live event like this. They don't know how long it will be, and the default always is to have a timeslot which is too short. Local stations are smart enough to have post-game shows and just fill any 'extra' time that way, but national isn't smart enough for that.

There's a reason our TiVos now have software warning us certain events are live, asking us if they want to pad.



laria said:


> The start of our broadcast pretty clearly looked like the beginning of the NBC broadcast with the introductions and stuff... or did you mean you watched the beginning online?


What TB said (many thanks for his warning). They were doing a highlights show of moments from the Games ("London Gold" in the Guide Data). And the ceremony actually started 10 minutes before the end of that half hour. Then NBC came back from break with the full intro you saw and carried on from there.

Totally lame.


----------



## laria

Turtleboy said:


> No, on the TV.
> 
> It seems that the show went long, so they started it 10 minutes early (compared to the guide data) and still had to cut everything.


I guess I don't understand... when I started watching our recording, there was some local news blurb, then London 2012 logos, then the announcers came on saying hi I'm Bob Costas along with Ryan Seacrest, blah blah blah. It sounded like the beginning of a broadcast. You are telling me there was another 10 minutes before that? My guide data had the recording for 2 hours 28 minutes... it was really 2 hours and 38 minutes?

Some of the stuff (the missing ballerinas, the super brief John Lennon face shot) weren't even the fault of too many commercials... they just didn't edit it well and show us what was happening further out on the floor. Well, they did show us a little big of the assembly of the Lennon face but only from the floor level side view.


----------



## Turtleboy

laria said:


> I guess I don't understand... when I started watching our recording, there was some local news blurb, then London 2012 logos, then the announcers came on saying hi I'm Bob Costas along with Ryan Seacrest, blah blah blah. It sounded like the beginning of a broadcast. You are telling me there was another 10 minutes before that? My guide data had the recording for 2 hours 28 minutes... it was really 2 hours and 38 minutes?
> 
> Some of the stuff (the missing ballerinas, the super brief John Lennon face shot) weren't even the fault of too many commercials... they just didn't edit it well and show us what was happening further out on the floor. Well, they did show us a little big of the assembly of the Lennon face but only from the floor level side view.


If you recorded based on guide data, without pre-padding and didn't do a manual recording, you missed the first 10 minutes.

The whole thing is available to download, if you know where to look.

Of course, watching it live is more fun.


----------



## laria

Well that is weird then that they would introduce the announcers and do beginning of broadcast stuff 10 minutes into the broadcast.


----------



## vertigo235

I downloaded the bbc version, I guess I'll just watch that and skip the one on my DVR.


----------



## Turtleboy

Just to show that other countries have annoying broadcasters, here are the French blabbering into the Spice Girls.



Edit: Never mind. Taken down. That was fast.


----------



## lambertman

Anybody else hold back some events to watch this week? I've still got all four team handball medal games waiting for me


----------



## Idearat

I haven't watched it yet, but I downloaded the BBC coverage of the closing ceremonies. The music starts a minute or two in and there are fireworks and singing ending at 3:10:00 with another 10 minutes of announcers talking while people are dancing or filing out of the stadium.


----------



## pdhenry

murgatroyd said:


> n the OC, we didn't get the athletes' oath (or any of them). In the CC, we didn't see the Olympic flag lowered or see it passed on to the people in the next host city.
> 
> It's hard to believe that London 2012 would have blown off these parts of the ceremony, so I can only conclude that NBC did.


NBC showed the flag transfer. I remember Mayor Boris waving the Olympic flag on the staff during that ceremony (after they lowered and folded the big one on the pole).


----------



## laria

pdhenry said:


> NBC showed the flag transfer. I remember Mayor Boris waving the Olympic flag on the staff during that ceremony (after they lowered and folded the big one on the pole).


Yeah, I definitely remember that part. The flag was being lowered while some Welsh choirs were singing the Olympic anthem... I remember joking to my SO about their name, one of them was something like the Welsh Rugby Choir.  And then the armed forces people marched the flag out of the stadium. And they definitely showed Boris Johnson waving the flag, passing it to Jacques Rogge, and then passing it to the Rio mayor. During the voiceover they talked about how he had been the mayor since 2008 and was instrumental in the 2016 bid.


----------



## jsmeeker

Jan is right. the problem is they allocated an hour of TV time on Sunday night to preview an hour long pilot of a new fall TV show.

The total length of the actual ceremony, from the real start to the true final end, was much longer than NBC's time slot to broadcast the ceremony.

I didnt even realize they broke up the coverage into two separate programs. The "Olympics Wrap Up" , then the Cermony. I watched it all "live" live in real time. I didn't record a single second of any of it (beyond the 30 minute LiveTV buffer), so it was all totally seamless for me.

as far as "missed shots" of stuff? Probably not NBC. Probably the host broadcaster and the way they put together the video. I don't think NBC is controlling much, if any, of those. At best, they might have a camera or two to squeeze in some quick shots of USA atheletes.


----------



## Steveknj

laria said:


> Yeah, I definitely remember that part. The flag was being lowered while some Welsh choirs were singing the Olympic anthem... I remember joking to my SO about their name, one of them was something like the Welsh Rugby Choir.  And then the armed forces people marched the flag out of the stadium. And they definitely showed Boris Johnson waving the flag, passing it to Jacques Rogge, and then passing it to the Rio mayor. During the voiceover they talked about how he had been the mayor since 2008 and was instrumental in the 2016 bid.


Yep, I remember it too. Anyone watch the late broadcast after the local news? Worth watching? I have it recorded, but if it's a waste of time, I'll skip it.


----------



## Turtleboy

Here is Muse, Ray Davies, and The Who that NBC didn't broadcast.

http://gawker.com/5934199/here-are-...ray-davies-that-nbc-didnt-broadcast/gallery/1


----------



## zordude

Steveknj said:


> Yep, I remember it too. Anyone watch the late broadcast after the local news? Worth watching? I have it recorded, but if it's a waste of time, I'll skip it.


The first 7 minutes or so are worth watching to see The Who.


----------



## billypritchard

The Waterloo Sunset performance was better than 95% of the rest of the show. Stupid NBC.


----------



## laria

murgatroyd said:


> I caught the opening, thanks to the warnings here. (i.e. in the Olympics Watching Party thread).


Ah well, I wasn't reading that thread at all.

I would have seen it if it had been in the "Urgent Pad Recordings Alert" thread in the Season Pass Alerts forum though.


----------



## waynomo

lambertman said:


> Anybody else hold back some events to watch this week? I've still got all four team handball medal games waiting for me


Yep, I still have a bunch to watch!


----------



## waynomo

laria said:


> I didn't.
> 
> Off the top of my head... There was a LOT of the stuff with The Beatles and the newspaper wrapped cars, people, etc and the Tower of London with Churchill coming out of it and reciting from The Tempest that we didn't see. We didn't see Muse, George Michael's second song, Ray Davies, Emeli Sande, Kate Bush, The Who (although I guess they were on the late late show). We didn't see the 200 ballerinas dancing during the phoenix stuff. We didn't see them building a pyramid out of the blocks representing all the events. We saw that John Lennon face image on the floor for like half a second before cutting to commercial. We didn't see the gymnasts performing to The Beatle's "A Day in the Life".


Now you're making me more upset. I didn't know about all this other stuff they didn't show. I knew of a few, and was plenty pissed already. Thanks for nothing! 

(But I did see Churchill, Tower of London, and newspaper wrapped cars. Might have been in the first ten minutes.)


----------



## Turtleboy

More on what was cut, in detail.

http://deadspin.com/5934166/nbc-cut...didnt-show-you-including-the-kinks-ray-davies


----------



## Turtleboy

NBC's biggest sin was that they pretended what they were showing was what was there. If they came out and said, "Look, we unfortunately had to cut some of the show for commercial time, but after the broadcast, you can go see the whole thing on our website" that would be ok.

But they don't even acknowledge that they are making cuts - until they are asked about it. The uneducated viewing audience doesn't know. 

That's because NBC treats it as a show, and not as a live event.


----------



## murgatroyd

pdhenry said:


> NBC showed the flag transfer. I remember Mayor Boris waving the Olympic flag on the staff during that ceremony (after they lowered and folded the big one on the pole).


Okay, I must have missed it while I was looking up the London Welsh Rugby Club.


----------



## murgatroyd

Steveknj said:


> Yep, I remember it too. Anyone watch the late broadcast after the local news? Worth watching? I have it recorded, but if it's a waste of time, I'll skip it.


I'm watching it, and The Who, right now.

You know that firework show that went off all at once? It looks sorta like that, at the very end.

So The Who's set is over 10 minutes into the timeslot, and then they put in athlete interviews? WTF? Why not just ditch the 20 minute highlight show at the front, and have The Who in the main show?


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> More on what was cut, in detail.
> 
> http://deadspin.com/5934166/nbc-cut...didnt-show-you-including-the-kinks-ray-davies


So NBC went through and cut a bunch of the stuff I would have really liked (e.g. the Kate Bush segment, the medal ceremony for the marathon, etc.).

Figures.

Screw NBC, I'll just have to find an uncut copy somewhere else.


----------



## waynomo

Turtleboy said:


> Here is Muse, Ray Davies, and The Who that NBC didn't broadcast.
> 
> http://gawker.com/5934199/here-are-...ray-davies-that-nbc-didnt-broadcast/gallery/1


Turtleboy - Did Gawker shorten the length of the videos. I could have sworn they were longer the first time I watched.


----------



## laria

Well, it turned out that we got to see those missed opening minutes. After the broadcast was done and they were saying to tune in later for the after party, we were not sure what to record... there was a 0:35 show listed as a repeat of London Gold, and then a 2:55 one listed as a repeat of the closing ceremonies, so we just put both of them in.

The 0:35 one had The Who (interrupted in the middle of Baba O'Riley by an EAS test in the recording!?) and then some interviews on the ground with a few American athletes who were all reading from the same script that everything was "amazing" and they couldn't wait for Rio. 

Then the 2:55 one had some junk at the start, but at 0:18 started up the repeat of the ceremony at the actual start point.


----------



## TonyD79

Turtleboy said:


> NBC's biggest sin was that they pretended what they were showing was what was there. If they came out and said, "Look, we unfortunately had to cut some of the show for commercial time, but after the broadcast, you can go see the whole thing on our website" that would be ok.
> 
> But they don't even acknowledge that they are making cuts - until they are asked about it. The uneducated viewing audience doesn't know.
> 
> That's because NBC treats it as a show, and not as a live event.


This is it. Pure arrogance. And a editing of someone else's art. It is like a museum painting over a portion of a painting and telling you there is nothing there.


----------



## mattack

cmontyburns said:


> They seem to be shorter, too. I think it has been a pretty good balance this year. Of course, they made up for this by having Ryan Seacrest interrupt the proceedings every night for "social media updates", and oh, that wacky Mary Carillo!


She's weird, but I like the Mary Carillo bits.


----------



## mattack

murgatroyd said:


> 2) You are completely missing the point that the Primetime show is NOT the "highlights of the important stuff that happened during the day". Unless you can stream, it is the ONLY time you can watch the prime events that they've cherry-picked for the nighttime broadcast.


That's absolutely false.

NBC has been showing 6-8 hours a day of Olympics on the OTA channel. They've been ALSO showing craploads of hours (in 8-12 hour blocks) of Olympics on craploads of channels.


----------



## mike_k

mattack said:


> That's absolutely false.
> 
> NBC has been showing 6-8 hours a day of Olympics on the OTA channel. They've been ALSO showing craploads of hours (in 8-12 hour blocks) of Olympics on craploads of channels.


But they didn't show those events that they had reserved for primetime. They didn't show the women's indoor volleyball gold medal match during the day because they were saving it for primetime - during which they only showed about 20 minutes of the match. None of the sprint finals were aired during the day. Even the semi-finals for a lot of the track events were reserved until primetime. Basically nothing they showed during primetime was available during the day.


----------



## LoadStar

With the closing ceremonies, the thing is, they could've kept the commercials and still wouldn't have needed to cut nearly as much. Ditching both the "London Gold" olympic recap and that trainwreck of a sitcom would have given them 40+ extra minutes to play with. I don't know if 40 extra minutes was enough to show everything, but it would've been much closer than what they ended up with.

I mean, the "London Gold" thing seems like one of those things that, if this were live, would have been a package they aired simply as time-fill until the show started. But this wasn't live, so that "time fill" just was "time waste."


----------



## waynomo

LoadStar said:


> With the closing ceremonies, the thing is, they could've kept the commercials and still wouldn't have needed to cut nearly as much. Ditching both the "London Gold" olympic recap and that trainwreck of a sitcom would have given them 40+ extra minutes to play with. I don't know if 40 extra minutes was enough to show everything, but it would've been much closer than what they ended up with.
> 
> I mean, the "London Gold" thing seems like one of those things that, if this were live, would have been a package they aired simply as time-fill until the show started. But this wasn't live, so that "time fill" just was "time waste."


I ran about 3:10.


----------



## alansh

waynomo said:


> Turtleboy - Did Gawker shorten the length of the videos. I could have sworn they were longer the first time I watched.


Looks like they got a nastygram from NBC. They're not going to show the cut footage or allow anyone else to show it.


----------



## pdhenry

mattack said:


> She's weird, but I like the Mary Carillo bits.


Whenever I see her I think of Will Ferrill in an SNL skit.


----------



## pdhenry

LoadStar said:


> Ditching both the "London Gold" olympic recap and that trainwreck of a sitcom would have given them 40+ extra minutes to play with. I don't know if 40 extra minutes was enough to show everything, but it would've been much closer than what they ended up with.


London Gold ran from 7:00 to 8:20, I think. When it started at 7 I checked the guide and realized I had time to mow the lawn before the real show began.


----------



## Steveknj

mike_k said:


> But they didn't show those events that they had reserved for primetime. They didn't show the women's indoor volleyball gold medal match during the day because they were saving it for primetime - during which they only showed about 20 minutes of the match. None of the sprint finals were aired during the day. Even the semi-finals for a lot of the track events were reserved until primetime. Basically nothing they showed during primetime was available during the day.


So you are saying they should have cannibalized their ratings and show those events during the day as well? From a pure business perspective that doesn't make any sense. You can argue about short shrifting certain events, such as what they did with the women's volleyball, but I don't think you can really argue with them not showing events during the day that they were planning to show at night.


----------



## jsmeeker

Say what you will about how they handle the Prime Time, but the numbers show that their ratings are up 8% over Bejing 2008. And for those games, there were truly live events shown in Prime Time.

They were the highest rated Summer Games staged outside the USA since 1976. 219.5 million unique viewers (a unique viewer is someone who watches at least 6 minutes )


----------



## billypritchard

What's good for NBC is not necessarily good for me, the viewer.


----------



## jsmeeker

billypritchard said:


> What's good for NBC is not necessarily good for me, the viewer.


correct.

But they have to focus on their customers.


----------



## billypritchard

jsmeeker said:


> correct.
> 
> But they have to focus on their customers.


Don't you mean the shareholders?


----------



## TonyD79

Steveknj said:


> So you are saying they should have cannibalized their ratings and show those events during the day as well? From a pure business perspective that doesn't make any sense. You can argue about short shrifting certain events, such as what they did with the women's volleyball, but I don't think you can really argue with them not showing events during the day that they were planning to show at night.


There is zero proof that ratings would be cannibalized. Event results were leaked all over the place and people still tuned in.

And why not show multiple channels at night. Point out the total ratings not just NBC OTA. Grow up and face new realities. OTA networks are only a part of the entertainment system. NBC acted as if they are the only part. 1950s mentality. Yeah, they streamed (horribly as it turns out) and they used their cable stations during the day. But all that was unimportant to them. The whole effort (by their own words) was to funnel people to NBC OTA in prime time.


----------



## jsmeeker

billypritchard said:


> Don't you mean the shareholders?


them and the customers

P&G
McDonalds
Visa

all the companies that bought the ad spots.


----------



## pdhenry

You have to buy into the belief that the total audience would be significantly lower if the events were aired live and again in the evening "highlights" show. While this might be a reasobnable assumption it's not necessarily true. Did the internet streaming cut into the prime time audience? Apparently not, given the figures cited about about this being the biggest non-US Olympics viewership since before most of the 2012 athletes were born. 

Another view: if you air an event twice you get to sell ads twice around the same programming.


----------



## mike_k

Steveknj said:


> So you are saying they should have cannibalized their ratings and show those events during the day as well? From a pure business perspective that doesn't make any sense. You can argue about short shrifting certain events, such as what they did with the women's volleyball, but I don't think you can really argue with them not showing events during the day that they were planning to show at night.


No - I'm not saying that at all. I was just responding to mattack's statement that it is false that "Unless you can stream, it is the ONLY time you can watch the prime events that they've cherry-picked for the nighttime broadcast."

I don't have a problem with them holding events until primetime. I agree that it doesn't make any sense for them to do otherwise.

What I do have a problem with is when they hold an event for primetime, but then only show 20 minutes of it so now we never get a chance to view the entire event. But this wasn't the reason for my post.


----------



## Steveknj

TonyD79 said:


> There is zero proof that ratings would be cannibalized. Event results were leaked all over the place and people still tuned in.


There's also zero proof it wouldn't. If I'm NBC and plunked down billions on this, I wouldn't risk it.



> And why not show multiple channels at night. Point out the total ratings not just NBC OTA. Grow up and face new realities. OTA networks are only a part of the entertainment system. NBC acted as if they are the only part. 1950s mentality. Yeah, they streamed (horribly as it turns out) and they used their cable stations during the day. But all that was unimportant to them. The whole effort (by their own words) was to funnel people to NBC OTA in prime time.


Like it or not (and I don't for the record), advertisers pay a LOT more for OTA broadcasts than they do for cable broadcasts. So, if they showed multiple channels at night, that COULD significantly cut into advertising revenues if the advertisers think there will be a 20% decrease in viewers for the NBC broadcast they will pay 20% less. I don't think you could make that up on the other channels.

Again, NBC has to strike a balance between pleasing the viewers and the bottom line. Based on the ratings, it looks like they might have. Only us TV nerds are complaining loudly enough to be heard.

Maybe the TV landscape will change a lot more by the 2016 games, but I doubt it. Certainly not by 2014.


----------



## aindik

I think it depends on how advertisers buy advertising. Is the pricing linear? Compare two numbers:
1) Revenue for a 30 second spot on a show with 20 million viewers
2) Revenue for a 30 second spot on a show with 17 million viewers, plus revenue for a second 30 second spot on a show with 3 million viewers

Are 1 and 2 the same? If not, which is bigger?

Also, the problem (from NBC's perspective) with putting the events on during the day isn't that people will watch them during the day. It's that people will DVR it during the day and watch it at night during prime time. That means they see no ads at all.


----------



## jsmeeker

mike_k said:


> .
> 
> What I do have a problem with is when they hold an event for primetime, but then only show 20 minutes of it so now we never get a chance to view the entire event. But this wasn't the reason for my post.


Primetime is only so many minutes. They can't show all of every thing in that time slot.

Show the whole volleyball match? Fine. Tell me what you cut out of PT to show it. Then, you have to defend why you cut some event someone else wanted to watch.


----------



## cherry ghost

jsmeeker said:


> Tell me what you cut out of PT to show it.


An hour of Tom Brokaw.


----------



## mike_k

jsmeeker said:


> Primetime is only so many minutes. They can't show all of every thing in that time slot.
> 
> Show the whole volleyball match? Fine. Tell me what you cut out of PT to show it. Then, you have to defend why you cut some event someone else wanted to watch.


Well, what about the hour long segment on WWII?  I'm guessing that they would have showed more of the VB game had the US won, but maybe not. Either way, if they are not going to show more than 1/4 of the game, they should have let it aired during the day.


----------



## waynomo

Since talking about advertising . . .

One thing I found interesting is the coordinated commercials among the various channels during the day.

Whenever they could they would cut to commercials at the same time. Now if they were in the middle of a soccer match they wouldn't cut to commercial there, but if the event allowed it, they usually did it.


----------



## jsmeeker

cherry ghost said:


> An hour of Tom Brokaw.





mike_k said:


> Well, what about the hour long segment on WWII?  I'm guessing that they would have showed more of the VB game had the US won, but maybe not. Either way, if they are not going to show more than 1/4 of the game, they should have let it aired during the day.


ahh OK

I forgot that match aired on the night of the WWII thing.

In that case, you have fair cause to bump that segment. But what about on other nights when there isn't some hour long piece that has nothing to do with sports or the Olympics.


----------



## mike_k

jsmeeker said:


> In that case, you have fair cause to bump that segment. But what about on other nights when there isn't some hour long piece that has nothing to do with sports or the Olympics.


Same issue - if you're (not you, but NBC) going to hold an event for PT coverage - then at least plan on showing the majority of the event. If you don't have time in PT to do this, then show the event during the day.

They showed several volleyball matches during PT (indoor and beach) and for the most part did a reasonable job with them. They didn't show every point, but I don't think I ever felt cheated by the coverage. Until this last one.

I don't know what the plan would have been had the US won gold - maybe cut some of the diving semis or trim some of the fluff from track and field - but I have to believe that they would have arranged things to show more of the match.


----------



## aindik

waynomo said:


> Since talking about advertising . . .
> 
> One thing I found interesting is the coordinated commercials among the various channels during the day.
> 
> Whenever they could they would cut to commercials at the same time. Now if they were in the middle of a soccer match they wouldn't cut to commercial there, but if the event allowed it, they usually did it.


This is another reason not to have multiple channels going at the same time. They don't want people to avoid commercials during Olympic coverage by flipping to other Olympic coverage.


----------



## BrettStah

aindik said:


> This is another reason not to have multiple channels going at the same time. They don't want people to avoid commercials during Olympic coverage by flipping to other Olympic coverage.


It actually sounds like NBC thought of that, and coordinated commercial breaks.


----------



## aindik

BrettStah said:


> It actually sounds like NBC thought of that, and coordinated commercial breaks.


They did that during the day. During prime time they didn't. Perhaps because they didn't think they could.


----------



## BrettStah

aindik said:


> They did that during the day. During prime time they didn't. Perhaps because they didn't think they could.


I thought that during prime time, only the main NBC channel carried any Olympics coverage?


----------



## aindik

BrettStah said:


> I thought that during prime time, only the main NBC channel carried any Olympics coverage?


It did. I think one of the reasons why they did it that was is to stop people from tuning over to their other channels during commercial breaks in the NBC coverage.


----------



## BrettStah

aindik said:


> It did. I think one of the reasons why they did it that was is to stop people from tuning over to their other channels during commercial breaks in the NBC coverage.


I don't know why they couldn't coordinate commercial breaks during primetime coverage, if they could do it during daytime hours.


----------



## lambertman

BrettStah said:


> I don't know why they couldn't coordinate commercial breaks during primetime coverage, if they could do it during daytime hours.


The affiliates would raise holy heck.


----------



## BrettStah

lambertman said:


> The affiliates would raise holy heck.


Why? NBC can simply run the commercial breaks on their cable outlets at the same time they run the commercial breaks on the main NBC channel, right?


----------



## pdhenry

Because then they'd just tune to *another* network??


----------



## lambertman

BrettStah said:


> Why? NBC can simply run the commercial breaks on their cable outlets at the same time they run the commercial breaks on the main NBC channel, right?


Nielsen doesn't just count the time commercials are on...


----------



## BrettStah

lambertman said:


> Nielsen doesn't just count the time commercials are on...


Scroll back up to see the post from aindik that I was initially responding to...


----------



## aindik

BrettStah said:


> I don't know why they couldn't coordinate commercial breaks during primetime coverage, if they could do it during daytime hours.


The format of the prime time OTA coverage is different than what is or would be on the ancillary channels. The main NBC coverage was lots of quick hits and back and forth. Simultaneous coverage on NBCSN probably wouldn't be formatted the same way. The way people are discussing it, they're looking for longer-form single-event coverage on the other channels.


----------



## lambertman

BrettStah said:


> Scroll back up to see the post from aindik that I was initially responding to...


Don't see anything that refers to the fact that the affiliates would prefer you not tune away from them at any time. NBC still needs to cater to their needs before their cable nets.


----------



## morac

They ran a lot more commercials during prime time. It was nearly half and half for some events, so they couldn't wait for opportune times. As for why they ran so many commercials in prime-time, it was likely to make up for the fact that they hardly ran any during the day.


----------



## TonyD79

Steveknj said:


> There's also zero proof it wouldn't. If I'm NBC and plunked down billions on this, I wouldn't risk it.
> 
> Like it or not (and I don't for the record), advertisers pay a LOT more for OTA broadcasts than they do for cable broadcasts. So, if they showed multiple channels at night, that COULD significantly cut into advertising revenues if the advertisers think there will be a 20% decrease in viewers for the NBC broadcast they will pay 20% less. I don't think you could make that up on the other channels.
> 
> Again, NBC has to strike a balance between pleasing the viewers and the bottom line. Based on the ratings, it looks like they might have. Only us TV nerds are complaining loudly enough to be heard.
> 
> Maybe the TV landscape will change a lot more by the 2016 games, but I doubt it. Certainly not by 2014.


Yeah. NBC is not creative enough to out together packages. Advertiser pay by eyeballs. If the eyeballs are spread across four channels, they are spread. I think it is more about boasting rights than actual advertising payments.


----------



## TonyD79

aindik said:


> They did that during the day. During prime time they didn't. Perhaps because they didn't think they could.


Didn't what? They didn't have more than one channel during prime time.


----------



## aindik

TonyD79 said:


> Didn't what? They didn't have more than one channel during prime time.


Right. I think if they could have worked out timing the commercials out, they might have had more than one channel during prime time.

But the concern about the affiliates is a good one. The affiliates don't get a cut of commercials that air on NBCSN while a local spot is airing on their air.


----------



## DevdogAZ

NBC came into the Games expecting to lose money. They paid about $1 Billion for the rights to air these games, and as of the week before the Opening Ceremony, they had sold a record high amount of about $950 million in ads. Due to the high ratings, they were able to get more and they probably ended up breaking even or maybe even making a little bit. But it was tight.

With that information in mind, how was NBC expected to wring any additional ad revenue out of these Games if they didn't hold the marquee events for the primetime show? Splitting the audience during primetime is not an option. I'll bet that of the hundreds of hours NBC aired on all its various outlets, it made 80% or more of its total ad revenue on the primetime network broadcast. Ad rates on cable nets just don't compare to broadcast.


----------



## Turtleboy

My biggest problem with NBC was editorial. During the opening ceremony, they cut material not because of commercials but to air an interview with Ryan Seacrest Michael Phelps.

They frequently showed fluff pieces in primetime instead of sports.


----------



## MauriAnne

Turtleboy said:


> My biggest problem with NBC was editorial. During the opening ceremony, they cut material not because of commercials but to air an interview with Ryan Seacrest Michael Phelps.
> 
> They frequently showed fluff pieces in primetime instead of sports.


I totally agree. The only place Ryan Seacrest even vaguely fit in was the closing ceremonies.

If they could get rid of Ryan, not screw up the volleyball, move the WWII piece to before the Olympics, and delete the Animal Practice disaster which messed up the closing ceremonies, I really wouldn't have much to complain about. And considering how many hours they broadcast, that's really not a bad percentage.

I enjoyed the games tremendously and miss them this week.


----------



## mattack

So, I saw a brief mention of there being a DVD of the opening ceremony. (I still am vaguely interested in a DVD of the Beijing Opening Ceremony.. that was literally awesome.)

I wonder if they'll do one of the closing ceremony.. including the bits we missed! Skip the lip syncers, and I'd pay a couple of bucks for the performances. (I realize a DVD would actually be more than that.. But they'd get SOME money out of me for a cheap one.)

Hmm, I see the Beijing opening ceremonies DVD for $16.44 on ebay.. I wonder if those are legit. Still, that's more than I'd pay.


----------



## mattack

Turtleboy said:


> My biggest problem with NBC was editorial. During the opening ceremony, they cut material not because of commercials but to air an interview with Ryan Seacrest Michael Phelps.
> 
> They frequently showed fluff pieces in primetime instead of sports.


They showed WAY FEWER than previous Olympics.


----------



## TonyD79

DevdogAZ said:


> NBC came into the Games expecting to lose money. They paid about $1 Billion for the rights to air these games, and as of the week before the Opening Ceremony, they had sold a record high amount of about $950 million in ads. Due to the high ratings, they were able to get more and they probably ended up breaking even or maybe even making a little bit. But it was tight.
> 
> With that information in mind, how was NBC expected to wring any additional ad revenue out of these Games if they didn't hold the marquee events for the primetime show? Splitting the audience during primetime is not an option. I'll bet that of the hundreds of hours NBC aired on all its various outlets, it made 80% or more of its total ad revenue on the primetime network broadcast. Ad rates on cable nets just don't compare to broadcast.


Yeah. Cause more choices and more sports and more events doesn't add up to more viewers. That's why they don't own a bunch of cable stations that broadcast regular programming during prime time.

And why espn never runs games on one than more channel.

What makes sense for every day makes even more sense for the olympics.

Once again. NBC devised a plan that was based on old technology and old patterns. How do you get fewer viewers with more channels.


----------



## TonyD79

mattack said:


> They showed WAY FEWER than previous Olympics.


They did. But they showed way more commercials.


----------



## Steveknj

jsmeeker said:


> Primetime is only so many minutes. They can't show all of every thing in that time slot.
> 
> Show the whole volleyball match? Fine. Tell me what you cut out of PT to show it. Then, you have to defend why you cut some event someone else wanted to watch.


Well that one is easy, unfortunately. Cut the Brokaw piece. Not sports related, and it lasted an hour. There were other places they could have put that piece. How about show one less round of diving for instance? A problem I had with NBC's coverage (which I've mostly defended) Is I felt they were a bit too rigid in their scheduling. Sometimes you have to change things up a bit. Volleyball match compelling? Cut out some of another event. And so forth. I know it's tough, as you say that if someone tunes in to see an event and it's preempted they are going to be upset.


----------



## Steveknj

aindik said:


> It did. I think one of the reasons why they did it that was is to stop people from tuning over to their other channels during commercial breaks in the NBC coverage.


I'm sure they didn't count on me flipping to the Yankee game every commercial break and sometimes sticking with it too


----------



## Steveknj

TonyD79 said:


> Yeah. Cause more choices and more sports and more events doesn't add up to more viewers. That's why they don't own a bunch of cable stations that broadcast regular programming during prime time.
> 
> And why espn never runs games on one than more channel.
> 
> What makes sense for every day makes even more sense for the olympics.
> 
> Once again. NBC devised a plan that was based on old technology and old patterns. How do you get fewer viewers with more channels.


See, I don't think it was NBC that devised that plan, but advertisers that are still stuck on the old plans. They still pay A LOT more for broadcast ads than they do for cable. I don't think the networks push it as much because they get a subscriber fee for their cable outlets which subsidizes ad revenues on cable (I know there's been battles for fees for broadcast networks now, but I'm still not sure they get paid the same way). I'd bet that ad rates for NBC are probably double that of NBCSN or MSNBC, even for the Olympics. And that's mostly because that's what advertisers pay.

Even during regular primetime programming, how often does any cable channel beat the broadcast nets in ratings? Maybe MNF does, but probably not much else. There's still some justification in the old way, even though I agree, it's becoming increasingly antiquated.

Again, weren't ALL event streamed live on the internet?


----------



## BrettStah

Are ad rates lower for cable, or are the ratings on cable typically lower for cable, leading to lower rates? In other words, if Show A is on NBC, and Show B is on NBCSN, and the ratings are identical, would the rates charged for ads be different?


----------



## waynomo

TonyD79 said:


> Once again. NBC devised a plan that was based on old technology and old patterns. How do you get fewer viewers with more channels.


+1

Clearly they don't get social media yet either. Their reports on what celebrities were tweeting were ridiculous. This would make great fodder for an SNL skit.


----------



## DevdogAZ

TonyD79 said:


> Yeah. Cause more choices and more sports and more events doesn't add up to more viewers. That's why they don't own a bunch of cable stations that broadcast regular programming during prime time.
> 
> And why espn never runs games on one than more channel.
> 
> What makes sense for every day makes even more sense for the olympics.
> 
> Once again. NBC devised a plan that was based on old technology and old patterns. How do you get fewer viewers with more channels.


NBC owns multiple channels because it's an inevitability that the audience will be fractured, and they want to capture more of the segments. ESPN knows not everyone wants to watch the same game, and thus offers additional choices.

But the Olympics are different. They come along once every four years. The broadcast rights cost a fortune. NBC knows that in order to recoup its expenses and maximize its revenue on this, they have to funnel as many viewers as possible into one primetime telecast. If they fragment the Olympic viewership themselves, and encourage people to channel surf, there's no way they end up with the same number of viewers.

NBC devised a plan that's based on the viewing habits of the masses, and the masses still act as if they have old technology. The last figures I saw showed that less than half the US had DVRs, and probably much fewer than that use them properly. We still use hit shows to launch new shows, because the "lead-in" is very valuable. We still see from ratings that on nights when a primetime program gets big ratings, the corresponding late-night show on that same station gets a bump. People still tend to turn their TVs on and leave them on a specific channel. NBC knows this, and this is what they based their programming and revenue decisions on. Just because a few technically savvy people don't like it, doesn't mean it wasn't the best business decision they could have made.


----------



## mrdbdigital

DevdogAZ said:


> But the Olympics are different. They come along once every four years.


The Olympics come along every 2 years. You've forgotten NBC also uses the same coverage techniques for the Winter Olympics.


----------



## laria

Technically, every 1.5 and 2.5 years.


----------



## DevdogAZ

mrdbdigital said:


> The Olympics come along every 2 years. You've forgotten NBC also uses the same coverage techniques for the Winter Olympics.


Right, but the economics of the Summer Games are much bigger than the Winter Games, and so for purposes of this debate, the Summer Games only happen every four years.


----------



## cherry ghost

Article on Comcast/NBC winning the bid for 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020

http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/43311618

since that was written, Rome has withdrawn it's bid for 2020 and the finalists are Istanbul, Tokyo, and Madrid.


----------



## laria

I hope it's not Istanbul, because then I will be singing "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" for 4 years every time I hear/see news about it.

Doot doo doo... doot doo dee doo dee doo...


----------



## jsmeeker

cherry ghost said:


> Article on Comcast/NBC winning the bid for 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020
> 
> http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/43311618
> 
> since that was written, Rome has withdrawn it's bid for 2020 and the finalists are Istanbul, Tokyo, and Madrid.


Go Tokyo!!


----------



## aindik

Madrid - 6 hours ahead of east coast U.S. time
Istanbul - 7 hours ahead
Tokyo - 13 hours ahead

Of the 3, Tokyo is the best option for live events during prime time. 8 p.m. ET will be 9 a.m. Tokyo time.

OTOH, there won't be any live events during the work day from a Tokyo Olympics.


----------



## cherry ghost

It'll be interesting to see what they do with Rio and the West Coast. If evening sessions are shown live across all US time zones, that would mean finishing around 7-8 on the West Coast versus 10-11 in the East.


----------



## DevdogAZ

cherry ghost said:


> It'll be interesting to see what they do with Rio and the West Coast. If evening sessions are shown live across all US time zones, that would mean finishing around 7-8 on the West Coast versus 10-11 in the East.


I can't imagine that NBC wouldn't be showing the Olympics during the normal primetime hours on the west coast. Which means they'd have to show them once live and then again immediately afterward on a delay. I can't imagin that NBC would be interested in cannibalizing the west coast viewership by airing the same programming at 5 pm PT and then again at 8 pm PT. That would fracture the audience and diminish the viewership and it would also encourage viewers to record the earlier telecast and then watch the recording during the later hours. Both of those options results in less advertising revenue for NBC.


----------



## DevdogAZ

jsmeeker said:


> Go Tokyo!!


I think it will be nearly impossible for Tokyo to win the 2020 Games, since the 2018 Games were awarded to South Korea. The IOC generally likes to move the games to a different region each time, as much as possible, and not return to a region for several years. Since the Summer and Winter Games went to a staggered schedule, the hosting has been as follows:

1992 Europe (Albertville)
1992 Europe (Barcelona)
1994 Europe (Lillehammer)
1996 North America (Atlanta)
1998 Asia (Nagano)
2000 Australia (Sydney)
2002 North America (Salt Lake City)
2004 Europe (Athens)
2006 Europe (Torino)
2008 Asia (Beijing)
2010 North America (Vancouver)
2012 Europe (London)
2014 Europe (Sochi)
2016 South America (Rio)
2018 Asia (Pyongchang)
2020 ?

This means that Istanbul and Madrid are the only real contenders for 2020, and it's kind of surprising since they're both in the same basic region as London, and that will only be eight years after London. Since 1988 (24 years), North America has only hosted three Games (1996 ATL, 2002 SLC, 2010 VAN). By 2020, that will be three games in 32 years. In that same 24 years, Europe has hosted 6 times, and if Madrid or Istanbul win, it will be 8 times in 32 years by 2020.

I'd think it would definitely be North America's turn again by 2020 and for sure by 2022/4.

Edit: After including the list of the host regions, it appears that Europe has been allowed to double up a couple times since 1992. So maybe the IOC won't have an issue with back-to-back games in Asia.


----------



## cherry ghost

DevdogAZ said:


> I can't imagine that NBC wouldn't be showing the Olympics during the normal primetime hours on the west coast. Which means they'd have to show them once live and then again immediately afterward on a delay. I can't imagin that NBC would be interested in cannibalizing the west coast viewership by airing the same programming at 5 pm PT and then again at 8 pm PT. That would fracture the audience and diminish the viewership and it would also encourage viewers to record the earlier telecast and then watch the recording during the later hours. Both of those options results in less advertising revenue for NBC.


I agree, and complaints could be worse than this year


----------



## robojerk

I can imagine the next olympics, and the one after that having more of a streaming focus.

TV's have apps now, there's Roku, GoogleTV, AppleTV, etc. BBC streams through iPlayer, The question is how much will NBC Comcast try to strangle these options.


----------



## aindik

I don't know about the rest of North America, but IIRC the USOC did not submit a bid for 2020.

I just googled the Philadelphia bid for 2020, which the USOC decided not to submit. I found a PowerPoint presentation that said the Olympic village would have been walking distance from my house.


----------



## cherry ghost

aindik said:


> I don't know about the rest of North America, but IIRC the USOC did not submit a bid for 2020.


Correct, and no USOC bid for 2022.

The only North American cities that are currently actively exploring a bid for 2024 are Toronto, Baltimore-Washington, and Tulsa.


----------



## DevdogAZ

cherry ghost said:


> Correct, and no USOC bid for 2022.
> 
> The only North American cities that are currently actively exploring a bid for 2024 are Toronto, Baltimore-Washington, and Tulsa.


Pyongchang won the 2018 bid on their third try. Several other sites haven't been successful on their first bid and have won on their second. I wonder why cities like NYC and Chicago only bid once and then give up. Why doesn't the USOC pick the US site that should get the games next and then just continue to submit that site until it wins? Seems to me that they're basically reinventing the wheel by moving the bid to a different city each time. The voting members of the IOC build up a familiarity with a bid site, and if it comes back again, they'll know more about it and be more inclined to vote for it. But if it's a new bid city every time, they'll never get the benefit of that familiarity.


----------



## jsmeeker

cherry ghost said:


> Correct, and no USOC bid for 2022.
> 
> The only North American cities that are currently actively exploring a bid for 2024 are Toronto, Baltimore-Washington, and Tulsa.


Tulsa?

LOL

IOC will go to Canada long before it selects a city in the USA again.


----------



## aindik

jsmeeker said:


> Tulsa?
> 
> LOL
> 
> IOC will go to Canada long before it selects a city in the USA again.


They just did Canada in 2010.


----------



## jsmeeker

aindik said:


> They just did Canada in 2010.


That was winter

And they would do Canada again sooner than they would do the USA again.


----------



## LoadStar

jsmeeker said:


> That was winter
> 
> And they would do Canada again sooner than they would do the USA again.


Why do you say that?


----------



## LoadStar

It's too bad that the Chicago bid wasn't selected for 2016. I'd like to see them go for it again. I thought the bid was quite solid, although the opinions in the city were rather split for and against it. Chicago's bid was a lot like London's - lots of use of existing venues, lots of temporary venues, virtually no permanent construction other than the athlete's village and a handful of others.

I know, I know, I've heard from those in Chicago opposed to it, I don't need to hear about it again.


----------



## murgatroyd

cherry ghost said:


> It'll be interesting to see what they do with Rio and the West Coast. If evening sessions are shown live across all US time zones, that would mean finishing around 7-8 on the West Coast versus 10-11 in the East.


The broadcast schedule will be determined by what's good for the East Coast audience, and the West Coast will have tape delay, and hardly anyone will even say what happens for the folks in Mountain, Alaska or Hawaii time. Just like always.


----------

