TV Exposure Trade-off for Late Starts

[Jennifer]

Here's why OU/Tech got the later slot last night. Apparently, the "Stanford story" was more deserving of prime time.
DOesn't matter now, but I found the reasoning interesting.
http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=839355&pic=none&TP=getmarchmadness

So comes the tradeoff. To have exposure, the NCAA gives ESPN the freedom to schedule games when it deems best.

But the time assignments in the West Regional still don't make sense. OU and Texas Tech are playing a game that will be shown late throughout Big 12 country, which would seem to cut down on viewers. If Stanford and Colorado played in the late spot instead, it wouldn't be nearly as late in the West.

Aren't those more appropriate time slots? "That isn't necessarily our thinking," ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said. "One particular thing that stood out to us was the Stanford story."

A longtime power, Stanford hit a lull during the past few years but is a contender once more. Krulewitz said ESPN liked the national appeal that Stanford held, calling the Cardinal's story the driving force in the West Regional and putting it in the prime-time spot.

"We felt that was a pretty good story to tell," Krulewitz said.

[RaiderPower1]

Hmmm...sounds like another case of the "ESPN darlings syndrome" to me. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[swok34]

me, too.........though I think OU plays better when aren't in the spotlight..I'm kind of glad they are flying under the radar. Though the same could be said for Colorado; they get even less exposure than OU.

[dem]

Originally posted by Jennifer:


Aren't those more appropriate time slots? "That isn't necessarily our thinking," ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said. "One particular thing that stood out to us was the Stanford story."

A longtime power, Stanford hit a lull during the past few years but is a contender once more. Krulewitz said ESPN liked the national appeal that Stanford held, calling the Cardinal's story the driving force in the West Regional and putting it in the prime-time spot.

"We felt that was a pretty good story to tell," Krulewitz said.


Aha. That would account for the mournful atmosphere among the ESPN commentator group immediately after Colorado's win. You would have thought that UConn had gone down. Apparently, a dramatic last-second victory over the team recently ranked #2 in the country -- by the third-place team in the Big 12, thus guaranteeing the FIRST-EVER Final Four team by the nation's strongest conference -- was not considered a good story.

One thing that I've noticed on the infrequent occasions when I've watched the men's selection show and tournament coverage is that those guys treat it very seriously as a competitive sporting event, with detailed, careful analysis and equitable consideration of MANY teams, not just the #1 seeds. The tournament is not seen as primarily an opportunity for lots of "up-close-and-personal" features on a few selected stars.

I have nothing against "up-close-and-personal" except when it dominates the coverage. This is very similar to the way NBC sabotages their coverage of most sports at the Summer Olympics. Instead of focusing in-depth on the competition itself, most are treated as a "made-for-TV" movie, with gimmicky video, over-ripe musical backgrounds, and frothing-at-the-mouth commentary, overlaid by some brief excerpts from the competition. Events that are actually extremely dramatic and exciting for those with some background knowledge of the sport are shown briefly or not at all (Just one example: the women's 10,000 meter final at the 1992 Olympics, shown only on subscription cable.) Instead of attempting to provide the background that might promote deeper interest in and understanding of the sport, extensive amounts of time are devoted to human-interest features on a few selected performers.

This is all obviously done as a calculated marketing decision to best appeal to the intended target audience. It may or may not succeed in this, but I seriously doubt that it does a service to the sport itself. Ultimately, it is that deeper understanding and knowledge that can build a popular fan-base for a sport.

This is something of a tangent to our main topic, but maybe it isn't really. For instance, there is a tremendous potential story in the Big 12 conference, its history, the different teams, the coaches, the rivalry with the SEC, etc. This is the kind of thing that, with some time and effort, could be communicated effectively through TV coverage. I think that would be more likely to build widespread interest in WBB and the NCAA tournament itself than incessant focus on a few publicly prominent teams and players. If the ultimate goal is to be able to fill arenas on neutral sites with knowledgeable fans who are interested in seeing good competition, in-depth focus on the sport itself is more likely to succeed, I think.

Sorry for this long-winded excusion.




[This message has been edited by dem (edited 03-25-2002).]

[carolann]

Excellent post Dem.

I've noticed that some of the television analysts that I've enjoyed the most over the past year have been local analysts for teams not in the Big 12. These analysts knew little about the Big 12. They mispronounced some players' name. They were just people who knew basketball. Thus they just talked about what they were seeing w/o a lot of preconceived notions. I'm still learning about basketball so I particularly enjoy hearing good analysts.