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

You are so right Frank about NBC not showing enough actual EVENTS!! What really infuriated me was that they didn't show Monday's events live. A local (Ryan Lochte) was swimming in the 200 IM, and I would have loved to see it live. However, NBC had something much more important to air - Fear Factor, the show where they eat bugs and stuff. So I had to be content with "watching" the 200 IM on-line via the Omega timing hook-up.

NBC has taken a lot of flak for the time they spend on personal stories instead of showing events-from people like us who are interested in seeing the events themselves. Most people who watch the Olympics are not runners or swimmers themselves, so the personal stories give them a connection that keeps them interested. Without NBC and their affiliate media constantly driving home the 7 gold thing, nobody outside the swimming community would know who Michael Phelps was-not to mention the other amazing members of USA swimming. NBC needs to engage the non-athletes in order to get the number of viewers that advertisers want. It's all about the money.....

Good point. We've seen an explosion in pay per view offerings in the last few years as cable and satellite companies try to make extra money. Directv has a package for English football that's pretty pricey, but people are paying almost $200 to see Manchester United and Arsenal. Then there's the OLN coverage of the Tour de France. Who would have ever thought that someone would cover that thing stage to stage? Part of it is Lance's quest for 6, of course, but if OLN does well, they may try again next year. If you like a network's coverage of your sport and want them to do more, write and say so, but more importantly write the advertisers and buy their products. If we want more and better coverage of our sport, we need to show NBC and it's advertisers that it's worth it for them financially. On another note-it will be interesting to watch our pools and see if the olympics motivates anyone to jump on in with us!

Emmett, I completely understand your point about NBC's coverage, and I think it is valid. Clearly, we in the swimming world would like to see our favorite sport get more exposure, credit, money for the pros, etc. Moreover, we are, or we should be, OK with seeing it morph into a bit more of a spectator friendly spectacle, and not be such purists about covering a meet just the way we want it. I agree this is a trend in the direction where we want to go. However, you can overdo it. Everyone would like to take college courses where the instructors are lively, interesting and humorous where appropriate, but there comes a point when a lecture ceases to be an educational presentation and turns into a stand-up routine. Everyone would like a little jazzy, more engaging music in their worship service, but there comes a point where it ceases to be a worship service and turns into a Vegas floor show. We would all like swimming to be more popular, but I hope we stop short of the WWF or NBA big money, freak show. If we were to look for a model of what we'd like, I would recommend the way swimming is covered as a major sport in Australia. Maybe I'm dreamin', and we Americans are culturally prone to turn our major sports into cynical, money-grubbing, self-promotion-above-all-else cess-pools, but hey, a guy can dream, can't he? Matt

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.

Face it. Not many people get excited about swiming. There's no blood. No contact. And, frankly, very few fans relative to the population base as a whole. If you want more people tuning to watch swimming, there should be some events done in the nude. :) :)

Well, Guvnah- if blood they want, then blood they'll get! Announcing the new swimming-archery event...watch world records fall in the water as the unlucky also-swams are ministered to by medical personnel...

I have not actually seen the NBC coverage, but having lived in Canada and watched their coverage of some major sporting events, I have a good idea of what it was like. I would probably have been irritated by it as well. TV coverage could change to show more of the artistry and skill that swimmers have. Swimming has a major advantage over other sports because of the beautiful fluid dynamics effects that could be shown to the public. This is really under utilised at present. I would like to see some more shots that show the beauty of swimming. The shots that show surface tension and water deforming around bodies and trailing vortices filmed in super slow motion are very dramatic and could promote the sport well. Very little of this is seen in normal coverage of a fast 100m event. If however live feeds were delayed to allow periods of super slow footage in an event it could enhance the coverage. The underwater shots at Sydney worked well, different camera angles can also add to the excitement. Could sensors be added to swimsuits that would display information such as velocity, water pressure, drag etc ? If it could be done this info could be displayed during a race or analysed afterwards.