Versus and NBC coverage

[point given]

was very good to my eye. Versus team of Moss and Pincay kept things moving and I found them on target with the races they covered. Then when they switched to NBC we got more "traditional " coverage with Gary Stevens and the anchor , who doesn't add much. I find Gary Stevens preferable to the old Jerry Bailey shtick, Stevens has a smooth flow and isn't in your face with all that ego that Bailey carries. Didnot miss Hammerin' Hank or Kenny Mayne either. The camera work was better than the old ESPN too, but had a little too much blimp shots to me, although its tough work with all the infield blockages of the actual races.. The worst part to me is the " lifestyle " segments which cover the " stars " which gags me up bigtime. All in all I'd give them a :ThmbUp: for the day.

[lamboguy]

i thought the coverage was excellent

as far as jockey comentator's they will always tell you how great the rider rode the horse after he wins and show you the reason's. when the horse loses its always the horse didn't switch oleads or got trapped on the rail and got out to late to catch the winner.

[Grits]

The worst part to me is the " lifestyle " segments which cover the " stars " which gags me up bigtime. All in all I'd give them a :ThmbUp: for the day.

Sure wouldn't want you to get all gagged up, but then, too, given those stars help bring you the show. . . . sorry, continue gagging.:lol:

[Spiderman]

Show was well produced, except for the race call. Both Mark Johnson and Larry Collmus race calls were on simultaneously.

That they showed the Woodford Reseve was also positive. race was blacked-out at my ADW.

[tribecaagent]

I didn't watch the telecast because I was at Belmont Park but I noticed the finish line camera looked different. With the recent renovations, did they move the perch closer to the racetrack?

[rrpic6]

Who were the two chicks that kissed the $100 win ticket on Pants on Fire? Great moment in prime time!

RR

[thespaah]

was very good to my eye. Versus team of Moss and Pincay kept things moving and I found them on target with the races they covered. Then when they switched to NBC we got more "traditional " coverage with Gary Stevens and the anchor , who doesn't add much. I find Gary Stevens preferable to the old Jerry Bailey shtick, Stevens has a smooth flow and isn't in your face with all that ego that Bailey carries. Didnot miss Hammerin' Hank or Kenny Mayne either. The camera work was better than the old ESPN too, but had a little too much blimp shots to me, although its tough work with all the infield blockages of the actual races.. The worst part to me is the " lifestyle " segments which cover the " stars " which gags me up bigtime. All in all I'd give them a :ThmbUp: for the day.
Those human interest time filler stories send me to the remote control.
Unless it's an underdog makes it good or a famous guy does something for a kid, I'm not interested.
Really though, those stories should be told on days when there is little in racing going on. Like I said, I keep the remote handy.
Gary Stevens is flat out a better anchor than Jerry Bailey. And I'm very much partial to NY.
Greenberg is an ok analyst. Kenny Mayne is all schtick. He's worn out his welcome.

[thespaah]

Sure wouldn't want you to get all gagged up, but then, too, given those stars help bring you the show. . . . sorry, continue gagging.:lol:
It figures.

[Grits]

It figures.

You can get behind your pal above and play backup all you want, but if you start directing posts at me again, while having had problems in the past--its as simple as this--I'm going to slice you seven ways from Sunday every time you so much as write two words, either to, or about me.

You're obnoxious. An insufferable bore who believes everyone around you is not as well informed as yourself--on all matters, anything posted. I'll ask you now, please, place me on ignore, and I'll do the same. What I won't do is tolerate any of your comments. I don't have to; one has choices online. In this case, it might be good if you make the right one. If you can't, I'll send a pm to all three of the moderators and see if I can FTFY. Thanks in advance.

[Grits]

Sounds to me that you should know all there is to know about gagging :lol:

No, not really, but common sense is valuable. In a 3 hour telecast that bears 2 minutes of a horserace as its focal point, showing another this year as well, we're talking 2 to 4 minutes of racing, if you find those that own the horses, or train them--the one's footing the bills of no interest or causing you to gag?

How as a producer might you do a better job? Interview each runner?

[point given]

No, not really, but common sense is valuable. In a 3 hour telecast that bears 2 minutes of a horserace as its focal point, showing another this year as well, we're talking 2 to 4 minutes of racing, if you find those that own the horses, or train them--the one's footing the bills of no interest or causing you to gag?

How as a producer might you do a better job? Interview each runner?

your condesending attitude towards others does not serve you well. I was referring to those segments on ,hats, cooking , celebraties, red carpet stuff not the players in the game.

[Grits]

your condesending attitude towards others does not serve you well. I was referring to those segments on ,hats, cooking , celebraties, red carpet stuff not the players in the game.

I don't feel I was condescending--not towards you or anyone else. In this case, though, common sense tell me this HAS to be part of the entertainment. This is a part of the three hours that producers have to include. How else are they going to fill the telecast, keeping in mind, its the one day of the year that many more folks, beyond horseplayers/handicappers are watching? This is a SHOW, our show, its the TRIPLE CROWN. The only time of year we have everyone's attention. If you felt I was condescending, I'm sorry, it was not my intention.

[PhantomOnTour]

Yeah, it would be neat if they spent the 3hrs showing iso and slo mo replays of all the major preps and detailing each horses journey to CD, but the average Joe would tune out. The fluff is necessary (just like the Olympics) to keep the casual fan tuned in.
All of us can agree that we could use a little less of it though.

[Canarsie]

There are probably around 50,000 active ADW players in the country give or take ten thousand.

First NBC knows the dedicated horseplayer will watching it's in HD and on a large screen. If they showed a soap opera between the races it will still be tuned in during the race.

They are trying to reach a far bigger audience I tip my hat to them. Did you see how many commercials there were for Twinspires? If they got over 1,000 new signups it was a job well done. After all isn't the objective to bring new players in?

[point given]

Yeah, it would be neat if they spent the 3hrs showing iso and slo mo replays of all the major preps and detailing each horses journey to CD, but the average Joe would tune out. The fluff is necessary (just like the Olympics) to keep the casual fan tuned in.
All of us can agree that we could use a little less of it though.

That is the point. There is too much of it compared to the actual event. Having a 3 hour show with a 2 minute race is ridiculous I'd sooner see them have a couple more races and more race related stuff than the filler. which seems out of balance now.

[Grits]

Point Given, I went back to search for the deal, as I knew it was reported earlier this year--this may help in realizing the dollars involved in brokering a five year contract that in recent years has been splintered among networks. With all the races, now viewable on one of the three major networks, one can be sure, with this commitment, with this kind of money involved, NBC is going to require that the "show," that the "entertainment" be geared towards reaching a wide audience, in order to garner ratings and advertising revenue. And I know you know all this.

NBC will, and rightfully so, be the power running these productions. They will deliver the decisions on their content. Right now, we should be thanking NBC, for every minute of coverage they've committed to delivering. The more weekend "prime time hours" we get, they better off we are. This is a GIFT to this sport because we're struggling so. Televised sports . . . hell, televised anything, as we know, is all about revenue. And this was my point, the telecast HAS to include what some of us consider "fluff" or "gagging up."

Gag we may, but it has to be--when the Preakness is telecast, go to the kitchen and get a beer or grill your steaks when they show what doesn't appeal to you. NBC can't and won't ever deliver, solely, what the horseracing channels can. (Several added races.) Still, I'd rather see some fluff than see the coverage not picked up by any major network. We'll really be in the tank if it ever comes down to HRTV or TVG.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/02/22/triple-crown-nbc-derby-preakness-belmont.aspx

The 2006-2010 Derby-Preakness deal was valued at about $44-million, with about $29-million (65.9%) going to Churchill, and the most recent five-year deal for the Derby is believed to be worth a similar figure at a minimum and possibly more.

The Triple Crown has been without a corporate sponsor since Visa bowed out following the 2005 season, but the three races on one network could re-open that door. First Chrysler, then Visa, had sponsored a $5-million bonus for the connections of any horse who swept the series.

“It’s not unheard of that the sponsorship deal gets done on the TV end,” Ed Seigenfeld, who served as executive director of Triple Crown Productions from 1990 through 2009, said earlier this year. “The network can sometimes shop the package better than the tracks can. That’s how the first deal with Visa got done: ABC organized that [for 1996-2000], and then the tracks helped with the renewal [for 2001-2005].”

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/kentucky-derby-television-ratings-slip

[thespaah]

Point Given, I went back to search for the deal, as I knew it was reported earlier this year--this may help in realizing the dollars involved in brokering a five year contract that in recent years has been splintered among networks. With all the races, now viewable on one of the three major networks, one can be sure, with this commitment, with this kind of money involved, NBC is going to require that the "show," that the "entertainment" be geared towards reaching a wide audience, in order to garner ratings and advertising revenue. And I know you know all this.

NBC will, and rightfully so, be the power running these productions. They will deliver the decisions on their content. Right now, we should be thanking NBC, for every minute of coverage they've committed to delivering. The more weekend "prime time hours" we get, they better off we are. This is a GIFT to this sport because we're struggling so. Televised sports . . . hell, televised anything, as we know, is all about revenue. And this was my point, the telecast HAS to include what some of us consider "fluff" or "gagging up."

Gag we may, but it has to be--when the Preakness is telecast, go to the kitchen and get a beer or grill your steaks when they show what doesn't appeal to you. NBC can't and won't ever deliver, solely, what the horseracing channels can. (Several added races.) Still, I'd rather see some fluff than see the coverage not picked up by any major network. We'll really be in the tank if it ever comes down to HRTV or TVG.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/02/22/triple-crown-nbc-derby-preakness-belmont.aspx
I get it. In order to have any broadcast of that length, time must be filled.
Few of us are interested in these deep sappy human interest pieces. The solution is to shorten the length of the broadcast. 90 minutes is long enough leding to the race. Then 30 minutes for post race comentary and interviews of the participants.
Quite frankly the fluff has me reaching for the remote. I am obviously not alone. If the broadcasters knew this, they'd realize they are selling ads to people who are not watching them. Bad.
I'd like to see the Nielsens for the whole show then the ratings for the 30 minutes prior and just after the race. Bet those ratings are far higher than the two and half hours prior.
Fluff is boring to me.
At the end of the day, I know which road we are going down re: sports broadcasting. Pay per view. Yep. The more we carp about commerical interuptions and non sports/event related content,the less we watch. The less we watch , the harder it becomes for broadcasters to sell ads. If broadcasters cannot sell enough ads to cover the costs of broadcasting events, someone has got to pay. Ain't gonna be NBC-U.