| |
Main
Date: 04 Sep 2006 13:40:17
From: EdSmithers
Subject: TV Coverage
|
Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
Then some putts. Then the commercials.
Ed
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 16:52:19
From: cja
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
multi wrote:
> The ABC coverage this weekend was the worst I've ever seen for shots
> per hour. I'm guessing it's because they lost the TV contract, so
> they're saying screw it, we'll make as much money as we can in the
> last few telecasts. They know that while Tiger is on this run, a lot
> of people will watch, no matter what they do.
>
ABC must have loved how this tourney turned out: Tiger and Vijay
running away with it, so they figure those are the only two golfers
they really have to show. That leaves a lot of time for commercials,
and they _still_ couldn't show all shots live for those two. It was
frustrating, and it sure would not have been worth the effort to watch
if guys like Bateman, Allenby, and Rose were battling for the win
instead of Tiger and Vijay.
Nice that The Tennis was on at the same time so I could at least flip
to something during the ads.
- cja
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 16:11:07
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
> now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
> Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
> then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
> get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
Andy Bean never won two US Opens. You gotta win two US Opens to get to
stand by Tiger's ball. That's why Billy Ray Cyrus was assigned to
Vijay's ball.
At least you had TV coverage instead of a stupid telethon.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 14:46:36
From: No cameras and shut up while I am putting
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
> now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
> Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
> then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
> get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>
> Ed
Whilst I agree with you ...about the commercials .. it is true that...
If you want the Golf for Free.....
$omebody ha$ to pay for it .....
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 22:16:58
From: rt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
<fastpitstops@aol.com >
wrote in news:1157406396.434174.319530
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> EdSmithers wrote:
>> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of
commercials
>> right now, but every once in a while they show taped
coverage of
>> Singh and Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen
at
>> one time, and then it's anybody's guess what happens until
the
>> commercials end and we get to see Andy Bean standing by
someone's
>> ball. Then commercials.
>>
>> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>>
>> Ed
>
> Whilst I agree with you ...about the commercials .. it is
true
> that...
>
> If you want the Golf for Free.....
> $omebody ha$ to pay for it .....
>
>
Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used to
be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial". At
least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come up
with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a radio
program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
commercials per hour.
rt
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 23:06:35
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"rt" <rt@rt.com > wrote in message
news:Xns9834B9F652411rt52a59bb38ccc@212.227.76.70...
> "No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
> Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
> literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used to
> be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial". At
> least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
> etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come up
> with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a radio
> program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
> commercials per hour.
> rt
So, "pay per view" would suit you better? Maybe golf on HBO? And aren't
some of the NFL games going to pay per view soon? Isn't ESPN about to start
up a pay per event channel? Hell, when I was a kid, we didn't even have TV.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 02:04:57
From: rt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com > wrote in
news:%j2Lg.5068$Qg.1533@southeast.rr.com:
>
> "rt" <rt@rt.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9834B9F652411rt52a59bb38ccc@212.227.76.70...
>> "No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
>> Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
>> literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used
to
>> be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial".
At
>> least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
>> etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come
up
>> with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a
radio
>> program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
>> commercials per hour.
>> rt
>
> So, "pay per view" would suit you better? Maybe golf on
HBO?
> And aren't some of the NFL games going to pay per view soon?
> Isn't ESPN about to start up a pay per event channel? Hell,
when
> I was a kid, we didn't even have TV.
>
>
Well, if things keep going the way they are, you'll be back to
no TV again, except for a flood of commercials.
rt
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 18:01:48
From: long&left
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
3putt wrote:
> "rt" <rt@rt.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9834B9F652411rt52a59bb38ccc@212.227.76.70...
>> "No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
>> Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
>> literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used to
>> be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial". At
>> least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
>> etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come up
>> with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a radio
>> program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
>> commercials per hour.
>> rt
>
> So, "pay per view" would suit you better? Maybe golf on HBO? And aren't
> some of the NFL games going to pay per view soon? Isn't ESPN about to start
> up a pay per event channel? Hell, when I was a kid, we didn't even have TV.
>
>
NFL pay per view via satilite has been reality for some time (NFL Season
Ticket on Direct TV for instance). To be honest, I'd pay money to watch
continuous golf without any commercials.
Oh, and I didn't have TV when I was a kid either :)
Dave
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 15:28:18
From: long&left
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
rt wrote:
> "No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
> <fastpitstops@aol.com>
> wrote in news:1157406396.434174.319530
> @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> EdSmithers wrote:
>>> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of
> commercials
>>> right now, but every once in a while they show taped
> coverage of
>>> Singh and Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen
> at
>>> one time, and then it's anybody's guess what happens until
> the
>>> commercials end and we get to see Andy Bean standing by
> someone's
>>> ball. Then commercials.
>>>
>>> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> Whilst I agree with you ...about the commercials .. it is
> true
>> that...
>>
>> If you want the Golf for Free.....
>> $omebody ha$ to pay for it .....
>>
>>
>
> Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
> literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used to
> be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial". At
> least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
> etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come up
> with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a radio
> program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
> commercials per hour.
> rt
well, look at it this way...TIVO sales are going to increase :)
Dave
--
Dave
You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch
on your own objective approach to life. ~Grantland Rice
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 22:46:54
From: rt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote in news:4M1Lg.46$Ct3.3
@newsfe06.lga:
> rt wrote:
>> "No cameras and shut up while I am putting"
>> <fastpitstops@aol.com>
>> wrote in news:1157406396.434174.319530
>> @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> EdSmithers wrote:
>>>> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of
>> commercials
>>>> right now, but every once in a while they show taped
>> coverage of
>>>> Singh and Woods. They put both players' drives on the
screen
>> at
>>>> one time, and then it's anybody's guess what happens until
>> the
>>>> commercials end and we get to see Andy Bean standing by
>> someone's
>>>> ball. Then commercials.
>>>>
>>>> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>> Whilst I agree with you ...about the commercials .. it is
>> true
>>> that...
>>>
>>> If you want the Golf for Free.....
>>> $omebody ha$ to pay for it .....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Way too many commercials. It's making the game unwatchable,
>> literally. Notice how they say: "while we were away". Used
to
>> be they'd tell it as it was: "while we were in commercial".
At
>> least with other sports, baseball, tennis, boxing, football,
>> etc, they have to stay with the action. Even then, they come
up
>> with ways of working in the sponsors. When I was a kid, a
radio
>> program or TV program would have at most 2-5 minutes of
>> commercials per hour.
>> rt
>
> well, look at it this way...TIVO sales are going to increase
:)
> Dave
>
LOL. My Philco is 25 years old and the channel selector is
making contact with the aid of a clothespin, but the remote to
the cable box converter was getting a workout while surfing
until the micro-coverage of the golf resumed.;o)
rt
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:04:34
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"rt" <rt@rt.com > wrote
>
> Way too many commercials.
This would only be speculation on my part, but if ABC did, in fact, run more
commercials per hour on Monday's coverage than they usually run on a Sunday
final round, it may be due to the fact that their commercial load is
typically higher (on soap operas and such) Monday thru Friday than they
commonly run during sports coverage on the weekend. They had to recoup the
lost revenue somehow, so that may account for the higher commercial load on
a Monday finish.
An educated guess.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 15:41:08
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On 4 Sep 2006 13:40:17 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
>now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
>Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
>then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
>get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
>Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>
>Ed
No commercials, no televised golf.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 14:53:55
From: long&left
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:40:17 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right=
>> now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
>> Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
>> then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and w=
e
>> get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>>
>> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>>
>> Ed
>=20
> No commercials, no televised golf.
> ___, =20
> \o =20
>
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 15:16:30
From: multi
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:53:55 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots, 5 minutes of
>commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes of commercials. I'll betcha
>there wasn't 40 minutes of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
The ABC coverage this weekend was the worst I've ever seen for shots
per hour. I'm guessing it's because they lost the TV contract, so
they're saying screw it, we'll make as much money as we can in the
last few telecasts. They know that while Tiger is on this run, a lot
of people will watch, no matter what they do.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 17:02:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:53:55 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> No commercials, no televised golf.
>> bk
>
>true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots, 5 minutes of
>commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes of commercials. I'll betcha
>there wasn't 40 minutes of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
>Dave
Point taken, but ask Pete z if he would've been happy with that ratio.
His area, as well as some others, didn't see any of today's play.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 15:27:08
From: long&left
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:53:55 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>=20
>>> No commercials, no televised golf.
>=20
>>> bk
>> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots, 5 minutes of=20
>> commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes of commercials. I'll betcha =
>> there wasn't 40 minutes of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
>> Dave
>=20
> Point taken, but ask Pete z if he would've been happy with that ratio.
> His area, as well as some others, didn't see any of today's play.
> ___, =20
> \o =20
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:41:53
From:
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
too many commercials - everywhere, and very poor grade at that, but
nevertheless space / time consuming.
>m h o
>=A0v =83e
>d r i v e =A0l e s s =A0- =A0h e l p =A0c r e a t e =A0a =A0g l u t
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:57:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote
>
> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots,
> 5 minutes of commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes
> of commercials. I'll betcha there wasn't 40 minutes
> of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
I'll take that bet.
Having spent five years doing radio play-by-play of golf, mostly from the
satellite "back haul" feed from the TV truck on the golf course, I can speak
with a considerable amount of certainty on this subject.
Each network is a little different, but in general, the commercial load on
most tournaments is around 12 minutes per hour. Almost all network breaks
are 2 minutes (plus, perhaps, a L30-second promo). Now, that doesn't take
into account breaks that are built into the broadcast that contain 2 minutes
of network commercials, a network promo, followed by a local station break,
which often is 90-seconds to 2 minutes (plus a station ID, usually
10-seconds). But those breaks containing local cutaways almost always
happen no more than once per hour.
Here's what I know for a fact (because I once charted it). Of the three
networks, the one that commonly shows the fewest number of shots per hour is
ABC (and I include ESPN in this). The network that typically shows the most
shots is NBC, although to be fair, the tournament I charted from them was
The Players Championship, where I know they were working closely with the
TOUR to ensure maximum coverage. And even then, I'm quite sure no telecast
shows more golf shots each year than CBS's coverage of The Masters,
especially given the limited number of commercial interruptions (4 mintues
per hour).
The problem with ABC's coverage has always been their "Wild World of Sports"
mindset, which has made them prone to adding an inordinately high number of
features, interviews and other elements that take viewers away from actual
coverage of GOLF SHOTS. ABC is also notorious for focusing on just a very
few players in the field, especially as the field narrows to a select few
who are in contention late on Sunday. I mean, this past Monday, how many
shots did you see hit by anybody other than Woods and Singh once it was
clear that one of them was going to win the tournament? Very few.
Personally, I won't miss ABC's coverage of golf. I will, however, miss Mike
Tirico on golf, and I grew to really enjoy Ian Baker-Finch, Paul Azinger and
Nick Faldo. I also always liked Steve Melnick, and I hope he'll return to
CBS, where he belongs.
There's really nobody on NBC's coverage that I think all that much of. Dan
Hicks is a pro, but he's fairly bland, and I never really get that he's all
that much of a "golf guy," although I never see him doing anything else for
NBC (so maybe he *is* a golf guy). Johnny Miller, while very knowledgable,
seems to me to be going out of his way to be controversial. He just seems
like he's trying too hard.
There have always been two styles of coverage of golf. There's the style
where you have "walking soldiers" following individual groups (NBC, ABC),
and then there's the style made famous by Frank Chirkanian at CBS, with
announcers in towers covering individual holes. (CBS, in recent years, has
gone to combination of both styles, with stationary announcers on holes,
while Kostis and Feherty are on the ground following the last two groups).
I think you get the best of both worlds with CBS's coverage. And unlike
most everyone else in RSG, I really like Jim Nantz. He's the one single
"broadcaster" doing golf who I know for a fact knows and understands golf,
having lived around it through his years rooming with Fred Couples at the
University of Houston. (He's a little too milktoast on NFL games for my
taste, though.)
Then there's the matter of Lanny Wadkins. One wonders if he'll survive now
that Baker-Finch and Azinger are suddenly free agents, and I think both are
clearly better than Lanny at being lead analysts. (Faldo, I understand, has
signed with The Golf Channel for their Thursday-Friday coverage next year of
all the TOUR events.)
I recently had a conversation with a fellow broadcaster friend of mine and
we both agree that it's very, very strange that ABC Television would
essentially pull the plug on almost all-things-sport. They're out of the
Monday Night Football business. Plus, now that they've walked away from
doing golf on a regular basis, they really don't have any franchise sports
coverage left, except for college football. And if you noticed on their
coverage of the Deutche Bank Championship, it was being branded as "ESPN on
ABC." It seems all sports on ABC from now on will be branded in this way.
Evidently, the "suits" at ABC/Disney have deemed it best to stop
bastardizing the ESPN brand by running sports on ABC, so they've decided to
brand all sports coverage carried on ABC as "ESPN on ABC." Given ABC's long
history of doing sports, it seems a very odd move to just walk away from
that history, but it's a pretty clear signal that there's been a fundamental
shift in emphasis at the network.
Or as Hank Williams, Jr. might say, "Are you ready for some Designing
Women?"
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:43:16
From: rich
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:-uKdndR6lecQ82LZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The problem with ABC's coverage has always been their "Wild World of
> Sports" mindset, which has made them prone to adding an inordinately high
> number of features, interviews and other elements that take viewers away
> from actual coverage of GOLF SHOTS. ABC is also notorious for focusing on
> just a very few players in the field, especially as the field narrows to a
> select few who are in contention late on Sunday. I mean, this past
> Monday, how many shots did you see hit by anybody other than Woods and
> Singh once it was clear that one of them was going to win the tournament?
> Very few.
What annoyed me was that on several occasions they *did* show the guys
fighting it out for 3rd and then cut away for commercial and came back with
the side by side "while we were away" for Tiger and Singh. They were
deliberately missing action just so they could use their latest toy. The
proof is that they didn't use the side by side once for any players other
than Tiger and Vijay.
Rich
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:42:58
From: long&left
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote
>> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots,
>> 5 minutes of commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes
>> of commercials. I'll betcha there wasn't 40 minutes
>> of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
>
>
> I'll take that bet.
>
(snip lots of boring shit)
OK, I betcha $25 bucks that there wasn't more than 40 minutes of golf in
that totaL telecast...I don't have any basis for my bet other than
having to suffer through the commercials. Anyone have the last round on
tape so we can decide the winner??
Dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 10:10:50
From: multi
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:57:52 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Given ABC's long
>history of doing sports, it seems a very odd move to just walk away from
>that history, but it's a pretty clear signal that there's been a fundamental
>shift in emphasis at the network.
They now work for Karl Rove.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:36:40
From: Hunt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
In article <-uKdndR6lecQ82LZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com >,
noneofyourbusiness@all.com says...
>
>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote
>>
>> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots,
>> 5 minutes of commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes
>> of commercials. I'll betcha there wasn't 40 minutes
>> of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
>
>
>I'll take that bet.
>
>Having spent five years doing radio play-by-play of golf, mostly from the
>satellite "back haul" feed from the TV truck on the golf course, I can speak
>with a considerable amount of certainty on this subject.
[SNIP]
>
>Randy
Randy,
Thanks for a concise breakdown of the "normal" flow of things in a similar
broadcast. Question - did you happen to see the tournament on ABC/ESPN? I'm in
the "business" too, though from a different end. I expect things to be pretty
much as you outlined. This coverage, however, went above and beyond. As you
state elsewhere, maybe it was the Monday finish, but it was too much IMHO. I
have never seen a broadcast so bad, in regards to commercial/promo breaks.
Besides that aspect, the coverage that was shown was just plain bad, as well.
As I stated earlier, I'm so glad that I remembered the US Tennis Open on
opposite, though I had tolerated about 40 min. of the ABC/ESPN coverage,
hoping that they would finish there commercial requirements and just get on
with the broadcast. It was just the worst. Good riddance to ABC and golf.
I'd be interested in hearing a timing from a tape/Tivo of the broadcast. I
think that long&left just might win in this case.
Hunt
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:18:14
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com > wrote in message
news:edpapo21h3b@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <-uKdndR6lecQ82LZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> noneofyourbusiness@all.com says...
>>
>>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote
>>>
>>> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots,
>>> 5 minutes of commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes
>>> of commercials. I'll betcha there wasn't 40 minutes
>>> of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
>>
>>
>>I'll take that bet.
>>
>>Having spent five years doing radio play-by-play of golf, mostly from the
>>satellite "back haul" feed from the TV truck on the golf course, I can
>>speak
>>with a considerable amount of certainty on this subject.
>
> [SNIP]
>>
>>Randy
>
> Randy,
>
> Thanks for a concise breakdown of the "normal" flow of things in a similar
> broadcast. Question - did you happen to see the tournament on ABC/ESPN?
> I'm in
> the "business" too, though from a different end. I expect things to be
> pretty
> much as you outlined. This coverage, however, went above and beyond. As
> you
> state elsewhere, maybe it was the Monday finish, but it was too much IMHO.
> I
> have never seen a broadcast so bad, in regards to commercial/promo breaks.
> Besides that aspect, the coverage that was shown was just plain bad, as
> well.
I was at the driving range on Monday (see the other thread, "My Swing on
Video -- laugh all you want"). I got home just in time to see Tiger lip
out for birdie on 16 and then finish off the win on 17 and 18. So I didn't
get to see very much of the telecast, and I didn't tape it or TIVO it.
I suppose it's possible that ABC may be taking a somewhat lame duck approach
to these final few broadcasts of their contract, but that seems unlikely to
me. A more likely explanation is the fact that it was a Monday finish, and
I'm pretty sure that most networks are accustomed to a heavier commercial
load per hour on weekday daytime schedules than they are during sports
coverage on the weekend. But like I said earlier, that's just an educated
guess -- I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time, or the last).
Since I didn't see enough of the actual telecast, I can't really say much
more, except to say that what I saw didn't seem much different from any
other golf telecasts I've seen on ABC in the past.
> I'd be interested in hearing a timing from a tape/Tivo of the broadcast. I
> think that long&left just might win in this case.
Perhaps. But based on past experiences reading complaints on this board
concerning TV coverage of golf, it's almost never as bad as some make it out
to be.
I, too, would be interested if someone taped it to go back and actually
count the number of commercial minutes per hour. I'll bet you'd find it's
in the 12 to 14-per-hour vicinity -- like always.
Randy
PS -- What area of the "business" are you in?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 21:58:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:18:14 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>A more likely explanation is the fact that it was a Monday finish, and
>I'm pretty sure that most networks are accustomed to a heavier commercial
>load per hour on weekday daytime schedules than they are during sports
>coverage on the weekend. But like I said earlier, that's just an educated
>guess -- I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time, or the last).
I think you're wrong. It was just as bad on Sunday.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:21:42
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:b2u1g29pntcshhlg6frbt2pn42gqnfbhju@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:18:14 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>>A more likely explanation is the fact that it was a Monday finish, and
>>I'm pretty sure that most networks are accustomed to a heavier commercial
>>load per hour on weekday daytime schedules than they are during sports
>>coverage on the weekend. But like I said earlier, that's just an educated
>>guess -- I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time, or the last).
>
> I think you're wrong. It was just as bad on Sunday.
Well, either way, ABC has been notorious for this for a long time.
Y'know, in the early days of television, ABC was actually the first to do
live televised golf. That was back in the day when industry insiders called
the "Almost Broadcasting Company." hehehe
FWIW, I can tell you that pretty much everybody in broadcasting considers
all the events AFTER Akron (with the possible exception of the TOUR
Championship) to be pretty much silly-season events in terms of viewer
interest. After all, it's football season.
And therein may lie the key to the problem.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:13:33
From: Hunt
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
In article <1157402416.966435.43610@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com says...
>
>Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
>now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
>Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
>then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
>get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
>Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>
>Ed
I could only take it for a few segments. Between the promos and the
commercials, it was the worst that I can ever recall. I'm just glad that the
US Open (Tennis) was on at the same time. Didn't have PIP on the pool TV, so I
had to do a lotta' Previous Channel stuff, but do not believe that I missed
ANY live coverage from ABC. Heck, weren't these the folk, who practically
invented TV Sports coverage, with their early Olympic broadcasts? Man, have
they sunk to a new low.
Note to self: get PIP by the pool!
Hunt
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:18:44
From: Ezran
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On 4 Sep 2006 13:40:17 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
>now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
>Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
>then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
>get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
>Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>
>Ed
Yes the 'two screens at one time' is something new. I think they even
have a caption above the two screens saying something like "while we
were watching commercials". This was handled WAY better before. You'd
have thought that they'd be decent enough to show BOTH players (who
were basically on matchplay for the title) one at a time.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:01:42
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:8hcqf292ithukesd4ghaqucevch0jkjteq@4ax.com...
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:40:17 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
>>now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
>>Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
>>then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
>>get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>>
>>Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>>
>>Ed
>
> Yes the 'two screens at one time' is something new. I think they even
> have a caption above the two screens saying something like "while we
> were watching commercials". This was handled WAY better before. You'd
> have thought that they'd be decent enough to show BOTH players (who
> were basically on matchplay for the title) one at a time.
If you wanna know the truth, only about 20% of all golf shots you see on TV
coverage are actually happening live. Everything else is being shown to you
from a hard drive that captured it a few seconds ago. Different network
directors have different philosophies about whether or not to reveal to you
that it happened "a moment ago." On CBS, for example, you'll rarely hear
them say those words...UNLESS they segue directly from a shot being played
back to LIVE action on the same hole.
Personally, I prefer it when they don't say it happened a moment ago.
Because usually when they do, it signals to me that something special
happened even before they show it. Why else would they be cutting to a hole
to show us a shot by some guy who's not in contention, unless he hit one
close (or in).
Randy
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:51:32
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
long&left wrote:
> OK, I betcha $25 bucks that there wasn't more than 40 minutes of golf in
> that totaL telecast...I don't have any basis for my bet other than
> having to suffer through the commercials. Anyone have the last round on
> tape so we can decide the winner??
Me too....on Tivo. BTW, all you guys bitching about commercials ever
heard of a VCR? It's a great thing...you go out and play golf during
the day, and come home and watch your "3 hours of golf" in about an
hour and 45 minutes.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:18:35
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
Bingo! We have a winner!
Randy
"newellsatwsu" <newellatwsu@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:1157658692.388301.176750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> long&left wrote:
>> OK, I betcha $25 bucks that there wasn't more than 40 minutes of golf in
>> that totaL telecast...I don't have any basis for my bet other than
>> having to suffer through the commercials. Anyone have the last round on
>> tape so we can decide the winner??
>
> Me too....on Tivo. BTW, all you guys bitching about commercials ever
> heard of a VCR? It's a great thing...you go out and play golf during
> the day, and come home and watch your "3 hours of golf" in about an
> hour and 45 minutes.
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:56:16
From: Dene
Subject: Re: The true measure of a single digit hdcp
|
newellsatwsu wrote:
> No....no lies here. There was no ceremony. Sure there is a list, but
> it's used exactly as I described in my prior post. You were on it when
> you were an valued participant of RSGNW...now you're not. Simple.
And yet you got on RSG in May and said the ceremony occurred. That was
a lie.
Today, you got on RSG and stated clearly that I was ousted from the
RSG-NW mailing list.
Again....another lie.
> > I wish you could have seen the smile on my face when I read your last
> > statement. You act as though your two bit tournament is a monumental
> > event. I'm certain it's the highlight of your life. For me, it was
> > just a tournament, one of many I've attended, whose worth to me was
> > ebbing as the years went by. This is precisely why we didn't attend,
> > May of 2005. It just wasn't important to us anymore. When are you
> > going to understand this?
>
> I recall you flipped back & forth - opting in and out of RSGNW -- about
> 2-3 different times in 2005 all the way up until the end of
> April...citing that you really wanted to come, but had problems with
> the ex-wife and getting someone to watch the kids on your weekend. You
> didn't mention anything to me about a disinterest in the event. Could
> it be another case of Greg not showing his true colors?
Had RSG-NW been a priority, as it was in 2004, when we hustled to
Canyon Lakes but still missed the practice round; we could have covered
our bases by having my 16 year old stepdaughter watch the kids. But
alas, your event wasn't a priority.
Koenig vs. Pitts was part of it too. My wife met both men. She really
liked Ken. Had hinky feelings about Koenig. When she read Mark's
unprovoked, awful comments about Ken, it confirmed her gut feelings
about the.........individual.
> For something that's not important in your life you sure do like to
> talk, lie, smear, defend your actions and throw dung around here about
> it. I find that rather hard to believe.
I don't like lies or liars.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 11:41:38
From: Mister Hand
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
long&left wrote:
> "R&B" wrote:
> > "long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote
> >> true, but that was way over the top. Watch two shots,
> >> 5 minutes of commercials, watch three shots, 5 minutes
> >> of commercials. I'll betcha there wasn't 40 minutes
> >> of actual golf in that 3 hour telecast
> >
> >
> > I'll take that bet.
> >
> (snip lots of boring shit)
>
> OK, I betcha $25 bucks that there wasn't more than 40 minutes of golf in
> that totaL telecast...I don't have any basis for my bet other than
> having to suffer through the commercials. Anyone have the last round on
> tape so we can decide the winner??
> Dave
I have the final round Tivo'd. I have not yet deleted it. So what
constitutes 'golf'. Is it any times spent not in a commercial? Do
those incessant show promos they do count as not golf? Human interest
stuff? Showing the on-air color talking about the round? Give me a
criteria and I'll see how much golf we actually got.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:17:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"Mister Hand" <mister-hand@hotmail.com > wrote
>
> I have the final round Tivo'd. I have not yet deleted it. So what
> constitutes 'golf'. Is it any times spent not in a commercial? Do
> those incessant show promos they do count as not golf? Human interest
> stuff? Showing the on-air color talking about the round? Give me a
> criteria and I'll see how much golf we actually got.
I would clock two things:
1. How many commercial minutes per hour (includes any program matter not
originating from the golf course -- commercials, recorded promos for ABC
shows, etc.)
2. How much time per hour spent with a camera that is focused on players
(or the ball)
The two numbers won't add up to 60 minutes, because of all the various
features and shots of the anchors at 18 yakking it up. But I think those
two numbers will be most revealing. And the amount of time differential
between the total of the two numbers and 60 will be revealing of just how
much time the network spends telecasting FROM THE EVENT of things other than
covering players play.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 10:37:53
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Mister Hand" <mister-hand@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> I have the final round Tivo'd. I have not yet deleted it. So what
>> constitutes 'golf'. Is it any times spent not in a commercial? Do
>> those incessant show promos they do count as not golf? Human interest
>> stuff? Showing the on-air color talking about the round? Give me a
>> criteria and I'll see how much golf we actually got.
>
>
> I would clock two things:
>
> 1. How many commercial minutes per hour (includes any program matter not
> originating from the golf course -- commercials, recorded promos for ABC
> shows, etc.)
> 2. How much time per hour spent with a camera that is focused on players
> (or the ball)
>
> The two numbers won't add up to 60 minutes, because of all the various
> features and shots of the anchors at 18 yakking it up. But I think those
> two numbers will be most revealing. And the amount of time differential
> between the total of the two numbers and 60 will be revealing of just how
> much time the network spends telecasting FROM THE EVENT of things other
> than covering players play.
I thought there was a rule down there about how many commercials could be
run per hour. Does that only apply during certain times?
Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 13:06:13
From: multi
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
On 7 Sep 2006 11:41:38 -0700, "Mister Hand" <mister-hand@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>I have the final round Tivo'd. I have not yet deleted it. So what
>constitutes 'golf'.
Showing the players either preparing to hit, hitting, or reacting to
the shot. Not walking down the fairway, not walking to the next hole,
and not the announcers gabbing about anything other than the current
round.
> Is it any times spent not in a commercial?
No.
> Do
>those incessant show promos they do count as not golf?
Of course they're not golf. Nor are the ads that are thinly disguised
as golf, like when they have a giant, screen-filling company logo for
the shot of the day or whatever for ten seconds, and the actual shot
for two seconds.
> Human interest
>stuff?
No.
> Showing the on-air color talking about the round?
Today's round, but not last week's, and not next week's.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 11:33:40
From: Mister Hand
Subject: Re: TV Coverage
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> Hey, don't know if you're watching ABC's marathon of commercials right
> now, but every once in a while they show taped coverage of Singh and
> Woods. They put both players' drives on the screen at one time, and
> then it's anybody's guess what happens until the commercials end and we
> get to see Andy Bean standing by someone's ball. Then commercials.
>
> Then some putts. Then the commercials.
>
> Ed
That two tee shots at the same times was idiotic. They could have come
out of commercial and shown each player tee off, on delay, one after
the other. The splitscreen thing was lame.
Thank God I have a Tivo. It took me about thirty minutes to watch all
the coverage.
|
|
