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
Matt sez: "You have greater faith in the impartiality of the market.... I happen to think the dice are loaded in this game, but the point I eventually stumbled into making was 'so, what?' "
Actually I was being a bit tongue in cheek - hence the "or some subset of 'we'". I, personally, don't think getting us on TV has great value (so I don't think USMS should sink gobs of volunteer or $$ resources into such an effort). Of even LESS value is griping about it. What DOES have great value is word of mouth promotion of what we do. Also of great value is the placement of articles about Masters in external publications (publications OTHER than Swim Mag etc). I'd venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of people who come to Masters have exposure to one or both of those figuring prominently along whatever path led them to USMS. I don't that that will change any time soon.
There is nothing "impartial" about the market for any given product. It is VERY partial toward those willing to risk their $$ in the production and distribution end and VERY partial toward those who would consume (in this case, sit still in front of the TV long enough to have commercial messages pumped into them).
Hey....production of broadcast material for RADIO is WAY cheaper than TV production. How about full end-to-end coverage of USMS Nats on the old squalk box!!! Yeah! THAT's the TICKET! :D
Matt sez: "You have greater faith in the impartiality of the market.... I happen to think the dice are loaded in this game, but the point I eventually stumbled into making was 'so, what?' "
Actually I was being a bit tongue in cheek - hence the "or some subset of 'we'". I, personally, don't think getting us on TV has great value (so I don't think USMS should sink gobs of volunteer or $$ resources into such an effort). Of even LESS value is griping about it. What DOES have great value is word of mouth promotion of what we do. Also of great value is the placement of articles about Masters in external publications (publications OTHER than Swim Mag etc). I'd venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of people who come to Masters have exposure to one or both of those figuring prominently along whatever path led them to USMS. I don't that that will change any time soon.
There is nothing "impartial" about the market for any given product. It is VERY partial toward those willing to risk their $$ in the production and distribution end and VERY partial toward those who would consume (in this case, sit still in front of the TV long enough to have commercial messages pumped into them).
Hey....production of broadcast material for RADIO is WAY cheaper than TV production. How about full end-to-end coverage of USMS Nats on the old squalk box!!! Yeah! THAT's the TICKET! :D
