2005 world championships

Originally posted by Sam Perry I hear you, but like it or not, they would show it if they could sell space. Ratings are all that matter, believe me if they thought they could get better ratings NOT showing boxing reruns or whatever they would. I think the only sport on the networks that is there in spite of bad ratings, is the WNBA. They show that b/c the NBA subsidizes the sport. Nothing against woman's basketball, I actually think women are better pure shooters than men for the most part. I guess if we could get some sort of major league to subsidize swimming we could get airtime. You speak the truth Sam. I suppose I should look at it as belonging to some sort of rare sport that few people GET to watch and even fewer know how to do correctly. Matt

Just out of curiosity how many people here get either FSN Northwest or FSN Detriot? I know someone who works for the company and am always trying to tell him that swimming is a bigger market than he thinks. If enough people show enough support in it, I think we could get our sport covered more. Feel free to PM or e-mail with comments. :)

I am so glad to find out about this! Awesome!

According to the CBC website they will have coverage Sunday afternoon, then weeknights from 7:00-8:00. Good news for those of us who get CBC!

There is one factor and one factor only driving what to put on TV - money. Let me say it again - money. The CBC is different given the 93% tax rate they have up there that subsidizes everything. If swimming, not a new sport, was interesting and appealing to the masses, it would have long, long ago been a major televised sport. Swim meets are boring, even as a participant. The sport is hard pressed to meet a logical TV format. 2 minutes of swimming, 3 minutes of waiting, 2 minutes of swimming, etc. All you want to see, for the most part, unless you are an avid swimmer like we are, is the final heat. That leavs hours of boredom where the stars do merely enough to advance. And, let's compare this Worlds Strongest Man rerun argument. The production costs for that are basically zero. Pop in the tape, you are done. Televising a major sporting event is expensive. Let's say it costs $1m to televise the swimming championships. You have to then sell ad space to support that. Swimming doesn't generate revenue cause no one watches it. So, it's a losing proposition.

My own, personal conspiracy (sort of) theory: TV airs programming that it expects to generate revenue, BUT network decisions influence what we think we want to see. Put another way, if networks are willing to put a lot of hype, publicity, and broadcasting production into covering an event, more people will watch it. So, what events will they choose to back with these kinds of resources? The ones that the executives believe will benefit the most from publicity and/or ones that will generate advertising revenue. Because American football is so popular with such a large percentage of the population, it pays more to flak relentlessly for a lousy, meaningless exhibition game than it does for the most compelling synchronized swimming competition in the history of the sport. However, because executives are human beings and not omniscient, often times their judgments will be unimaginative, risk-adverse, appealing to the crassest lowest common denominator, or simply ignorant to the opportunities of an off-beat sport. How many times have you channel-surfed past ESPN2, and seen yet another replay of some idiotic "World's Strongest Man" competition. Oh yes, I want to watch Olaf Larson carry a small Nordic village on his back for a 100m, one more time. Does ANYONE actually watch this drivel? Ever? Wouldn't seeing it one less time, and instead watching FINA World Championships, with recognizable U.S. stars like Michael Phelps in the competition, make some sense? So, how does this make any sense from any perspective? Well, assume some guy who knows this stuff has shown before, and figures advertisers are used to it and will pony up some minimal dollars to run it, and he couldn't tell the difference between FINA Worlds, and the local YMCA region championships and suddenly it makes sense. So, I read alot of apologia from various folks about how TV networks follow the money, and we have to build up the fan base for swimming so there will be more money in it for advertisers, yada, yada, yada. This is all true to a certain extent. However, there are factors other than sheer fan base that go into these kinds of decisions, and they tend to create inertia for seeing more of precisely what we have seen in the past, regardless of how dreary or tiresome it has become. Also, I think Skip has made a very valid point about FINA scaring away networks and advertisers with the off-again, on-again championship meet. Given the possibilities for building on the Athens Olympic swimming competition, this has to go down as a major lost opportunity. Matt

Judging by the last Olympic coverage, if Amanda Beard were competing NBC would be covering the story "from all possible angles" "blanket coverage" "more as this story unfolds" "up close and personal"....

Aquageek, I think we may be in violent agreement. Let's review the salient points: 1) TV is about making money. Oh yes, I am 100% in agreement with you on that one. I also happen to believe that sometimes networks make choices out of ignorance because they don't know every sport as well as its fans know it, and they take a pass on opportunities. 2) Swimming is a boring spectator sport; the production required to make it interesting takes work and money. I'm down with you on this point too. The one quibble I have is that you seem to think FINA and US Swimming have sole responsibility to sex up the meets and make them more spectator friendly, and only then will TV come. I happen to believe that TV coverage can take a swim meet as it is currently run, and with good editing and commentary, make it compelling TV viewing. I believe this because they do so, every 4 years, for the Olympic competition. The lost opportunity is that the networks don't see and/or choose not to make other meets into media events. But, this is where your point is very well taken. Why should they when FINA and US Swimming won't do anything to liven things up? You or I could explain to a TV network exec why the FINA World Championships are not just another meet, and describe to them the opportunities, but you or I are not going to get five minutes with a TV network exec. 3) Rerunning a tape of the World's Strongest Man has zero production cost. OOPS, you got me. I had not observed closely enough to tell that these were reruns of a finite number of competitions. However, this is true for rerunning a tape that already exists for ANY athletic competition. The production value is decidedly NOT zero when you make the tape for the first time it will run. So, why was this drivel so much more compelling the first time around? Back to my original point. TV can create demand for the sporting events it choses to televise. So, the question is why do they chose to create demand for some sports, and not others? An existing fan base is a big factor (hence the reason why basketball is seen more than water polo, despite the fact they have about the same level of watchability, because hey, they are practically the same dang sport). In some other "new" sports, like bikini beach volleyball, the initial hook is obvious. The difference between our opinions is small. Does it matter? I think it does in this respect. You think TV will never come if we do anything the way we have done it in the past, and we have to change everything to get them to notice. I think we are closer to being a money making proposition for them than you think. With a few strategically selected changes, and a little effective advocacy to point out the opportunities, I think they will come. Matt

I am so annoyed that Fox sports is covering and not ESPN. I don't get the Fox college Sports on my cable. I think that it is extra for that and my bill is high enough as it is. Oh well. What was ESPN 2 thinking. I am sure that they can make more money off Worlds than softball or whatever they will have on.

Recent results on most-watched 'sports' on US tv: 1. Football...well okay, I suppose 2. Nascar...vroom, vroom 3. Wait for it...Poker! No wonder we don't see swimming, hmm, maybe online betting on the 100 free, maybe they could swim in an oval pool & bump into each other...