The award for the most ridiculous, self-absorbed, overzealous all sports entertainment network in the world goes to...
ESPN, for the 10th year running.
They have once again proven that outside the 4 major sports, Tiger Woods, and the Williams sisters, you're really not much of an athlete. Unless you count token consideration of Cael Sanderson and -ahem- Sarah Hughes (don't even get me started on figure skating).
No offense to college athlete of the year Sue Bird (UConn BB) but a certain swimmer from Cal who set at least 6 AR and 1 WR over the short course season would have had my vote.
Anyone else? Natalie Coughlin, female college athlete of the year as awarded by the USMS discussion crew?
-RM
Parents
Former Member
"the sporting, broadcasting, and advertising industries decide what is marketable, and then package it for our consumption"
Don't forget promoters. Some of that "dead time" is purchased by promoters who act as middlemen, selling advertising, producing the show and keeping what profits may accrue. But they still make judgements about what is marketable and what is not. But that's the capitalist system and I wouldn't have it any other way.
If we (or some subset of "we") really think we have a commercially viable broadcast product AND we (or some subset of "we") think that product SHOULD be broadcast then we (or some subset of we) should get off the the mark, MAKE it happen and reap (or endure) whatever financial rewards ensue.
Most communities have public access channels where nearly ANYONE can get ANYTHING televised for dirt cheap. Not long ago I chanced across such a channel where two guys were hosting a show where the general concept was to watch girls in bikini's roll around in all manner of semi-liquid materials - 1000 gallons of creamed corn at the moment I caught it. I got the impression they do this regularly. Their show is filmed on a digital camcorder costing under $2000.
Could we get a higher quality product on the air? Undoubtedly. Could we get and keep a bigger audience? Undoubtedly.
If the USMS membership, as represented by the HOD at convention, thought it would be money well spent, a 30 or 60 minute show about a USMS nationals meet could be produced (possibly by volunteers, perhaps even the very swimmers who are so fired up to see Masters swimming on TV) and distributed for LMSCs to air on access channels. Or, if sufficient money was spent to do a professional production (EXTREMELY expensive), USMS might even be able to get enough sponsorship support to buy some of that ESPN dead time Matt was talking about. Or how about trying to get PBS involved. If the Magliozzi brothers can foist Car Talk on NPR then ANYTHING is possible!
Yes, I'm talking about inauspicious beginnings here. But after a number of inauspicious beginnings WWF/E now gets loads of TV time - and we have some ofthe same basics going for us - athletic guys and gals with good physiques wearing very little! Hey, somebody get Vince McMahon on the phone!
Endlessly moaning about swimming not getting its due coverage is utterly pointless - and has about as much mass entertainment appeal as one of Matt's 1500's :)
"the sporting, broadcasting, and advertising industries decide what is marketable, and then package it for our consumption"
Don't forget promoters. Some of that "dead time" is purchased by promoters who act as middlemen, selling advertising, producing the show and keeping what profits may accrue. But they still make judgements about what is marketable and what is not. But that's the capitalist system and I wouldn't have it any other way.
If we (or some subset of "we") really think we have a commercially viable broadcast product AND we (or some subset of "we") think that product SHOULD be broadcast then we (or some subset of we) should get off the the mark, MAKE it happen and reap (or endure) whatever financial rewards ensue.
Most communities have public access channels where nearly ANYONE can get ANYTHING televised for dirt cheap. Not long ago I chanced across such a channel where two guys were hosting a show where the general concept was to watch girls in bikini's roll around in all manner of semi-liquid materials - 1000 gallons of creamed corn at the moment I caught it. I got the impression they do this regularly. Their show is filmed on a digital camcorder costing under $2000.
Could we get a higher quality product on the air? Undoubtedly. Could we get and keep a bigger audience? Undoubtedly.
If the USMS membership, as represented by the HOD at convention, thought it would be money well spent, a 30 or 60 minute show about a USMS nationals meet could be produced (possibly by volunteers, perhaps even the very swimmers who are so fired up to see Masters swimming on TV) and distributed for LMSCs to air on access channels. Or, if sufficient money was spent to do a professional production (EXTREMELY expensive), USMS might even be able to get enough sponsorship support to buy some of that ESPN dead time Matt was talking about. Or how about trying to get PBS involved. If the Magliozzi brothers can foist Car Talk on NPR then ANYTHING is possible!
Yes, I'm talking about inauspicious beginnings here. But after a number of inauspicious beginnings WWF/E now gets loads of TV time - and we have some ofthe same basics going for us - athletic guys and gals with good physiques wearing very little! Hey, somebody get Vince McMahon on the phone!
Endlessly moaning about swimming not getting its due coverage is utterly pointless - and has about as much mass entertainment appeal as one of Matt's 1500's :)
