michael phelps--how many thing he will do it?

Hey Matt, good to see you back. Dreamin' is fine as long as you eventually come back to reality. What sports-coverage model, currently working (ie profitable enough to be self-sustaining) in the US, would you like to see appplied to swimming throughout the year? Or are you thinking "whole new (for the US) paradigm"? If so, what entity(ies) are likely to undertake such a risk? Will it be an existing swim-interested entity or will it be an entity that already has a track record developing new marketing strategies for sports? Down Under, did TV create a whole new market for swimming coverage or did TV build on an existing wide base of interest for the sport? If swimming were already a "major" spectator sport here in the US, hope for more coverage done "our way" might not be in vain. As it is, however, every bit of free coverage we DO get is better than nothing at all, which is what we get MOST of the time. If we were actually PAYING for the coverage we're getting I could see complaining about it. But we're not, so we shouldn't. I wonder how many of the most avid swimming spectators (that would be US) communicated thanks and encouragement to NBC for bringing us the coverage that they did? Here's my dream - NBC receives 40,000 snail-mail, individually written, "Thank you" notes from USMS members after the Trials coverage - all asking for EVEN MORE underwater footage of the swimming events during the Olympics. Now I gotta get back to reality and take my kids to the archery range (where the fervent hope among the avid participants is that there will be more than one 30 second blip of archery coverage during the olympics). Did you know there are more avid archers in the US than avid swimmers? Most are bowhunters so NBC will probably have Ted Nugent as the color announcer when they finally give archery its "due" coverage.

Hey Matt, good to see you back. Dreamin' is fine as long as you eventually come back to reality. What sports-coverage model, currently working (ie profitable enough to be self-sustaining) in the US, would you like to see appplied to swimming throughout the year? Or are you thinking "whole new (for the US) paradigm"? If so, what entity(ies) are likely to undertake such a risk? Will it be an existing swim-interested entity or will it be an entity that already has a track record developing new marketing strategies for sports? Down Under, did TV create a whole new market for swimming coverage or did TV build on an existing wide base of interest for the sport? If swimming were already a "major" spectator sport here in the US, hope for more coverage done "our way" might not be in vain. As it is, however, every bit of free coverage we DO get is better than nothing at all, which is what we get MOST of the time. If we were actually PAYING for the coverage we're getting I could see complaining about it. But we're not, so we shouldn't. I wonder how many of the most avid swimming spectators (that would be US) communicated thanks and encouragement to NBC for bringing us the coverage that they did? Here's my dream - NBC receives 40,000 snail-mail, individually written, "Thank you" notes from USMS members after the Trials coverage - all asking for EVEN MORE underwater footage of the swimming events during the Olympics. Now I gotta get back to reality and take my kids to the archery range (where the fervent hope among the avid participants is that there will be more than one 30 second blip of archery coverage during the olympics). Did you know there are more avid archers in the US than avid swimmers? Most are bowhunters so NBC will probably have Ted Nugent as the color announcer when they finally give archery its "due" coverage.