Passing the torch

I mentioned in a blog two years ago an issue about the Olympics that I should cover at some point down the road. We've reached that point, now that the Games of London are underway as proclaimed by the skydiving monarch of the United Kingdom.

I understand the interest in the Olympics as a concept. It's downright romantic. The entire world's best athletes gather together in one place every four years for peaceful sporting competition. The storylines are usually remarkable. Everyone once in a while, someone from your hometown makes it to the national team, adding to the drama. The flag, the oath, the torch, the flame.

And we watch them. The television ratings are truly huge, especially when applied to a global scale.

Here's the question, then: Where is the carryover effect for Olympic sports? Why don't we care much unless there are Olympic rings involved?

You want examples? I've got a bunch of high-profile ones.

Michael Phelps is by any definition a great, great athlete. He certainly is one of the best swimmers ever, if not the best. Winning eight gold medals in one Olympics in 2008 was remarkable, squared.

Did anyone pay much attention to what he's been doing in the last four years? (Note: This doesn't not include out-of-the-water activities.) Seen much swimming on television lately? Didn't think so.

Usain Bolt is a marketer's dream. He's as dynamic a performer as we've had in track and field in a long time, a sprinter you'd pay to see. Throw in the fact that he's a big kid at heart with a great personality, and a name that's just made for his sport, and we should be drowning in him in person or on television.

Nope. You've got to look hard to just find track on TV or staged at a high level in this country.

I would think gymnastics probably fits into the same class. We've been paying attention to women's gymnastics since Olga Korbut in 1972. A few break through into the public eye for a while after the game, but not many. If the Americans do well, they make some money right after the Games on a tour at an arena near you, and then we spectators get ready for the next NFL game.

Swimming, track and gymnastics -- those are three of the biggest attractions in the summer games. There's not much carryover in attention.

Some sports that use professional stars do well in the Olympics, but it's the stars that are driving the attention. LeBron James, Roger Federer and Serena Williams were superstars before they got to London this week. They will leave the same way, no matter what happens. (Tangent: The NHL's best players are in the same class for hockey, but the Olympics have become a world championship for all concerned, drawing attention to the game. The NHL still can't figure out a way to make this work out for it.)

Admittedly, NBC is trying to change that a bit. Now that is has its own sports network in NBCSN, it has some space on the electromagnetic spectrum to promote some of Olympic events. Track and swimming popped up quite a bit earlier this year when the Trials were held. It's a natural first step.

But changing habits in the sporting world by viewers and spectators isn't easy. It's a crowded schedule, and we're well trained to think that the Olympics, and only the Olympics, belong on the personal calendar for watching some sports. Keep an eye out for breakthroughs in the next 16 days, but don't hold your breath.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB,

Left out of the discussion

Here I am, out on the island again. All alone in an unpopular viewpoint.

That is, to say, I'm just not very enthusiastic about the Olympics. Especially the winter version.

I know, I know. Everyone else in North America is always glued to the TV set when the Olympics come on. But there are a couple of reasons why I have trouble generating enthusiasm.

The first is the lineup of sports in the Winter Games. Mostly, it consists of a bunch of sports that I never even see on television, or care much about, the other three years and 50 weeks of the four-year period.

That's not to say I don't have admiration for every single athlete there. They are very talented, and many of them risk great danger in every competition (a point that was driven home just before the Games began on the luge course). Heck, you could ice skate down the ski slopes at times because they are so icy and fast. Many of the athletes can't make a living at their specialty, so they are practically amateurs doing it truly for the love of the sport. Not much of that around any more, and it's admirable. Plus, many of the sports are fun to watch on a basic level.

But it's difficult to become emotionally involved without some sort of historical context. Sure I'm rooting for the Western New Yorker, Steve Mesler, who is competing in the bobsled. He even writes a blog for our newspaper, which alone makes him one of my all-time favorites. (He's pretty good at the writing stuff, too.) And I'll probably record the medal rounds of hockey if I can't watch it in person. Otherwise, though, it's tough for me to generate enthusiasm for many of the sports. Who is the greatest practitioner of the biathlon in history, anyway?

Then there's the matter of NBC's coverage. With these Games in North America, at least a relatively good-sized percentage can be shown live in prime time (not that I can usually watch then, but that's another story). In other years, the results have been flashed throughout the media before anyone gets a chance to see the competition on tape delay. You have to have a very strong interest to watch a sporting event when you know the outcome beforehand.

The prime-time shows are also put together for maximum ratings power, which means appealing to more women. That's understandable when the network will lose millions this year on the coverage, but still frustrating. If a figure skater has a skate sharpened, it gets three replays on NBC. Meanwhile, the U.S.-Canada preliminary hockey game will be shown on MSNBC.

Then there's the matter of highlights. NBC doesn't really allow them on other outlets. That network calls that protecting its investment. I wonder if it's short-sighted. Could a minute or two on local sportscasts on the other channels promote the NBC broadcast as a whole? It couldn't hurt, could it?

That point really hits home when it comes to ESPN. The SportsCenter shows rely on highlights of events, and still pictures and commentary on Olympic events just doesn't cut it for them. What's more, ESPN has a tendency toward self-promotion (there's the understatement of the day), often giving preference in news judgment to shows airing on ESPN or ABC.

So we have the odd split of having one channel calling an event the biggest news ever, while another pushing it aside. Come to think of it, it's like the way Fox News and everyone else covers Tea Party conventions.

Once again, then, I'll probably be missing out on most of what the world is coming to. It's a bit lonely, but I'll cope with it.

Delayed reaction

There have been many trees killed over and Internet space devoted to the start of the Olympics -- and I probably could write a long essay here about how funny it is that Americans care about gymnastics, swimming and track for about two weeks every four years -- but let's try an issue that doesn't come up much: delayed television coverage.

There are two parts to this story, and they both fit in to the discussion.

1. While NBC has tried to schedule as many events as possible for its prime-time hours (meaning morning in China), several others are held on tape delay until the 8 o'clock hour arrives.

2. NBC holds absolute rights to the images of the Games. It doesn't allow other outlets to broadcast anything, so you won't see highlights on CBS, ABC, ESPN, etc.

The question before the panel, then, is: Does this take some of the buzz out of the Olympics?

It just might.

While there is plenty of coverage at other times of day on a bunch of other "platforms," NBC would like everyone to sit down at 8 p.m. local time and watch three or four hours of coverage at night, for two weeks. I can't blame it; it has a lot of money invested. And time zones are always going to be a problem when the Games aren't in North America. I just wonder how easy it is for people to do that. People are, as they say, busy.

And if they miss an event, because they have to do something else with their family or whatever, they don't get a chance to make up for it. How many times have you seen David Tyree's catch (off his helmet) for the New York Giants in the Super Bowl from last January? A couple of dozen? It was great live, but it's become folklore now because of repeated viewings.

Can you picture some of the great Olympic moments of the past few years? I really can't. It might be a little more difficult than it used to be, and maybe this is a reason why.

Plus, there are a number of ways to get results these days from Olympic events that aren't live. All you have to do is watch the ESPN ticker, or go on line. We're not used to waiting around. It's tough to wait to see this stuff.

The Olympics are a wonderful event, filled with great storylines. It's easy to ask if there's a better way to present them, though.