The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Broccolidwarf said:So NBC doesn't want a producer and camera crew that know what they are doing?
Ok then......
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Logic-is-your-friend said:You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.
I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
Very good sign for cycling, it looks to me like cycling is cleaning itself up.RedheadDane said:Here are a few fun facts:
1. This was the first time since 2011 with no repeat stage winners. One guy won a stage in both of those editions, that guy was - of course - Peter Sagan.
B. Peter Sagan was - at 29 - the only stage winner over the age of 24. The other stage winners being; Asgreen (24), Cavagna (23), Jakobsen (22), Garcia, (23), Pogačar (20), and Bol (23).
III None of the (major) jerseys were won by anyone over 24. With the green and the polka-dot jersey both being won by 24-year-olds (Asgreen and Ballerini, respectively), while the yellow - and thus also the white - was won by a 20-year-old (Pogačar).
Koronin said:Logic-is-your-friend said:You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.
I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.
The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.
It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
Logic-is-your-friend said:Koronin said:Logic-is-your-friend said:You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.
I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.
The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.
It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.
I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.
Koronin said:Logic-is-your-friend said:Koronin said:Logic-is-your-friend said:You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.
I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.
The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.
It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.
I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.
Oh, I agree or heck just hire a fan and they'd have a better broadcast. The problem here is US broadcast TV. I'm not entirely sure they care. For sports the networks here make their money on the NFL and NASCAR. The ad buy time for a 30 second commercial for the Super Bowl is insane. The NBA is a bit off from that. You can tell the difference in broadcast quality between the NFL and say the NHL which is well below the other major sports. Cycling is well below that. Yesterday and today just trying to watch Indy qualifying was an issue. Today was qualifying for the final 3 spots and they go to commercial when a car is getting ready to start it's run and come back after it's run 1-2 of the 4 laps. That is not fan friendly. I doubt that's something they are thinking about. It's more like well we have to do something with this so here you go. Would it help them sell more to Euro TV sure, but not sure the execs at NBC (or any other major network) would understand that. I think a lot of that is due to how cycling is looked at over here. Remember they will cut the Tour de France coverage as soon as a stage ends if it's gone over the allotted time for pre game stuff or pre race stuff for NASCAR.
As for US laws, those would be the work Visa laws. That entire part of our system is a mess and needs a major overhaul.
Philipsen’s third-place finish helped him secure the best young rider jersey, while Asgreen won the points jersey as the top sprinter and Ballerini secured the king of the mountains jersey.
Broccolidwarf said:Koronin said:Koronin said:Logic-is-your-friend said:You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.Koronin said:Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.
I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.
The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.
It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.
I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.
Oh, I agree or heck just hire a fan and they'd have a better broadcast. The problem here is US broadcast TV. I'm not entirely sure they care. For sports the networks here make their money on the NFL and NASCAR. The ad buy time for a 30 second commercial for the Super Bowl is insane. The NBA is a bit off from that. You can tell the difference in broadcast quality between the NFL and say the NHL which is well below the other major sports. Cycling is well below that. Yesterday and today just trying to watch Indy qualifying was an issue. Today was qualifying for the final 3 spots and they go to commercial when a car is getting ready to start it's run and come back after it's run 1-2 of the 4 laps. That is not fan friendly. I doubt that's something they are thinking about. It's more like well we have to do something with this so here you go. Would it help them sell more to Euro TV sure, but not sure the execs at NBC (or any other major network) would understand that. I think a lot of that is due to how cycling is looked at over here. Remember they will cut the Tour de France coverage as soon as a stage ends if it's gone over the allotted time for pre game stuff or pre race stuff for NASCAR.
As for US laws, those would be the work Visa laws. That entire part of our system is a mess and needs a major overhaul.
Oh yeah, the equal races for women? I’d forgotten about that. If that turns out to be a factor, it’ll be a real backward step.WOW. Although with the new laws California passed I was wondering if this would happen.
Oh yeah, the equal races for women? I’d forgotten about that. If that turns out to be a factor, it’ll be a real backward step.
I misremembered slightly. California passed a law that says any sporting event using public lands (ie, having a bicycle race on public streets) has to have equal pay for men and women.Wait, what? California passed a law that there has to be an equal race for women? (And where did the Confused emoji go?)
I hope the law wasn’t a major sticking point, because if it was, it’ll just be ammunition for the wingnut anti-progressive “Title 9 killed my son’s football team” types to rally behind.
If it was a problem, though, I hope the organizers come out and say it, and make it clear to those who pushed the law through that it was an overreach whose time had not yet come, and all they’ve done is eliminate one of the races that was actually showing signs of moving in the right direction.
Right, even if it isn't because of the equality law, it would still be rather cool if the organisers use this hiatus to actually make equal races for the men and the women. One thing I've noticed is that quite often when there is a woman's race at the same day as a men's race (same race, not like... the Giro Rosa overlapping with the Tour de France) the women's race will be treated almost as a "warm up" event before the "main race". However, why not switch it up a little? Have them take turns for who starts first.
As for the ITT - if such is held - does it even need to be "first the women and then the men" (or the other way)? If the stages before are completely identical, surely it'd be possible to make an "overall GC" for both, then send them off according to that.