|
|
Post by Bruzer on Apr 15, 2010 21:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 15, 2010 21:54:06 GMT -5
to me it's all economics- what sells better advertising on the TV?
I think this makes a lot of sense actually. Too bad cycling doesn't make for better television (from the "masses" point of view).
Another sport that I really love is downhill skiing and the situation is much the same.
However, both could really be helped if we could get some half way intelligent analysts and a network with consistent good quality coverage.
In the end though- it seems that the movement is toward the "extreme" niche sports right now and I don't see much likelihood of the situation improving much (the kind of people who make these decisions are pretty slow moving).
so far as golf vs. cycling on a more competitive level- at least over here there are certainly more individuals trying to be the next great golfer than there are trying to be a competitive cyclist (or ski racer) so it sort of makes sense in that way too. The golfers are getting paid more for finding success at something that is harder to find success in (strictly due to the amount of competition). I don't have as much experience with "high end" cycling as I do with golf, but I'd be willing to bet there are 10 or 15x as many high school kids who dream of (and act on) becoming the next Phil Mickelson than the next Armstrong.
In the cases of both cycling and downhill skiing there ARE parts of the world where they are the top draw (or very close to it), but in smaller countries with less money to spend than the folks over here who clearly prefer golf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruzer on Apr 15, 2010 23:24:35 GMT -5
I will admit that golf gets more television viewers, but I am very confused about that. Watching golf on TV is like watching paint dry. Golf is more fun to play, until you screw up which happens quite often to most people. Why does this sport get so much air time (and therefore advertisement dollars)?
Now consider watching cycling on TV. You have people suffering on the saddles, violent crashes, breakaways, strategy and sometimes action packed sprints for the finish. What is not to love?
The Tour of Flanders and Paris-Roubaix were very exciting races to watch! All the top tier cyclists were at the front of the race together, you could see the top names of the race for most of the race. All of the jersey's full with sponsors and lots of TV "face time".
To me this seems backwards, but then again I am often wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 16, 2010 15:19:27 GMT -5
I somewhat agree- it can change if/when we continue to get better quality tv coverage of more of the events. that same thing would also eventually create more competition and more better athletes participating over here too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim Palmer on Apr 16, 2010 16:07:48 GMT -5
I'll throw in my 2 cents. I don't golf, but the way a golf torn. is televised, with coverage jumping from hole to hole, keeps things moving and interesting, even to someone like me.
I have a fair number of DVD's of races, and even most of the classics are pared down to 2.5 hours. Could you sit thru the first 4 hours? I'd rather stick a fork in one of my eyes, than have to watch 6.5 hours of any race on TV.
For single guys, that would be a sure way to make a date memerable!! ;D
|
|
