Olympics Broadcasting Thread

[AriX 8]

Anyone notice the font of the NBC logo on the olympics bug in the top right? Appears to be the same font as the "NBC" text in the new WCAU logo, and in the older WNBC logo. (See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/WCAU-TV_logo_2012.png)

[ED2 144]

Some breaking Canadian Olympics TV news...

 

CBC/Radio-Canada has won the rights to broadcast the 2014 Winter and 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

 

CBC and Bell Media originally submitted a joint bid, which was later rejected by the IOC.

 

Details about how much the CBC bid for the Olympic broadcast rights have not been revealed.

[Jess 1110]

The question is when people remeber back to why they like the Olympic coverage so much when it was on ABC was it becuase of the presentation, or was it becuase of Howard Cosell who pretty much was ABC Sports.

I think their greatness is because ABC, under Roone Arledge, practically invented modern sports coverage. Instant Replay, Slow Motion, Bugler's Dream, yes, even tape delay - those were all Roone. And yes, he was the one who found - or at least made stars out of - Jeff McKay, Chris Schenkel, and yes, Cosell.

 

And I wouldn't exactly call Cosell "popular". In fact, I don't think you can find a more polarizing media personality than Cosell (with the possible exception of, say, Howard Stern.) There were as many people who liked him as there were people shouting at the TV, "STOP TALKING YOU BUM!"

 

I think part of it is nostalgia, too. I tend to think of nostalgia as fondness for the past just because it isn't what they do today, not necessarily because it's better. Granted, in some ways, ABC was better. I mean, there were sports televised on there that simply don't seem to get shown these days because of our obsession with the big pro leagues. I mean, here:

 

 

It's one thing to have bowling on Saturday afternoons. But this level of commentary is unheard of. Chris Schenkel is a commentary GOD, Nelson Burton Jr. is one of the best color guys ever, but few commentary duos have that easy rapport between each other. (Summerall/Madden, Kalas/Ashburn, and probably Michaels/Madden are the only three I can think of.)

 

Doesn't NBC have the Olympics through 2020 or 2022 or something like that? At the least?

 

Yes, they have all games through 2020. Take with some solace that the 2016 games in Rio are just an hour ahead of us.

 

Anyone notice the font of the NBC logo on the olympics bug in the top right? Appears to be the same font as the "NBC" text in the new WCAU logo, and in the older WNBC logo. (See http://upload.wikime...V_logo_2012.png)

 

That's been the NBC olympics logo since Sydney 2000, though they modified it a bit. The NBC font has been a bit different for the last few games - you'll notice it on their logos for each games - which almost always look a hell of a lot better than the official ones. It's not 100% the same, though.

 

What bugs me is that they're not using the official Peacock/NBC/Rings layout or - even better - just doing the rings and getting rid of "NBC". The current solution is better than anything they tried to do with the old 10NBC logo...

[Jess 1110]

Some breaking Canadian Olympics TV news...

 

CBC/Radio-Canada has won the rights to broadcast the 2014 Winter and 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

 

CBC and Bell Media originally submitted a joint bid, which was later rejected by the IOC.

 

Details about how much the CBC bid for the Olympic broadcast rights have not been revealed.

Interesting! I have to say I like the coverage they've been doing on CTV. They seem to have really good announcers and their studio coverage has been quite good. I think their afternoon hosts are great - Catriona Le May Doan is doing a great job being amazingly hot as a studio host - considering she is a novice broadcaster, she's really proving to have some chops. And she's working well with her co-host David Randorf.

 

I'll try and do a compare/contrast between NBC, CTV, and BBC. I need to go through my massive recordings of NBC to do a three-way comparison, and that might take a bit...

[Jess 1110]

Fun read here. I knew a LOT of NBC's announcers are actually broadcasting out of 30 Rock. I didn't know the announcing setup is in Studio 8H!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/04/london-2012-olympics-new-york_n_1741910.html?utm_hp_ref=media

[MidwestTV 1174]

So if they HAD to give the Olympics to another network in let's say 2022, who do you think would be best fitted to carry them and why?

[Viper550 268]

So if they HAD to give the Olympics to another network in let's say 2022, who do you think would be best fitted to carry them and why?

 

ESPN/ABC.

 

They probably have one of the best digital presences of any of the major sports divisions (WatchESPN, ESPN3.com, the ESPN Xbox app, etc.) so they could handle streaming quite well (they'd probably still require authentication though, since they were one of the effective innovators of that silliness), they've hinted in previous attempts to get the contract that they would not use as much tape delay as NBC, and quite a few of the major Summer Olympics sports are already broadcast by ESPN in some way (i.e. tennis, soccer, basketball, golf about 4-5 times a year, etc.) so they could make use of their resources well.

[MidwestTV 1174]

Ok so I'm curious now about to things:

 

A/1) Why don't the four big networks here in the country pull a Super Bowl (save ABC of course obviously) and just rotate coverage of the games every four years like they do with the Super Bowl like I said? Granted yes, that would mean that if NBC showed the games "for the last time" in 2020, they wouldn't get them again until 2028, but wouldn't that sort of be "fair" not only to the other networks, but towards we the viewers as well?

 

B/2) (as it sort of ties in with my question above) do we know if NBC plans to bid for the games again after 2020, or do they sort of plan to just "stop it" after then and let another network have them? NBC, being the kind of greedy bishes that they are, I would imagine would once again bid, even if not as much, just to say that they did and just to see if another network would even be willing to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to have them.

[Mrtraveler01 737]

Ok so I'm curious now about to things:

 

A/1) Why don't the four big networks here in the country pull a Super Bowl (save ABC of course obviously) and just rotate coverage of the games every four years like they do with the Super Bowl like I said? Granted yes, that would mean that if NBC showed the games "for the last time" in 2020, they wouldn't get them again until 2028, but wouldn't that sort of be "fair" not only to the other networks, but towards we the viewers as well?

 

The IOC won't get those $1 billion TV contracts that way so they would never be on board with it. Just look at how unpopular a CTV/CBC joint bid was for them.

[MidwestTV 1174]

The IOC won't get those $1 billion TV contracts that way so they would never be on board with it. Just look at how unpopular a CTV/CBC joint bid was for them.

 

I don't understand...explain please?

 

---

 

Ohhhhh never mind never mind never mind. I was thinking of my second question when I was reading that, I get it now. But I still don't understand what went on with CTV/CBC.

[bhratbrat 423]

 

B/2) (as it sort of ties in with my question above) do we know if NBC plans to bid for the games again after 2020, or do they sort of plan to just "stop it" after then and let another network have them? NBC, being the kind of greedy bishes that they are, I would imagine would once again bid, even if not as much, just to say that they did and just to see if another network would even be willing to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to have them.

 

I would assume that everyone will know in 4 years what NBC's and the rest of the plans for bidding on the games will happen. Its very early right now and for us to even speculate who will get the bid in 8 years we won't know. I will assume NBC will go ahead and put a bid in (certainly with COMCAST in charge). I will probably assume as well that the other networks will also put it bids but there is problems with the other three networks.

 

I think the network that will have the biggest problem unless they get a good partnership from either Turner or there sisters in Viacom is CBS

[MidwestTV 1174]

^ Why CBS?

[bhratbrat 423]

^ Why CBS?

 

they need to get a good partnership in order with TNT/TBS and Turner's properties to be able ot get a further reach for cable purposes.

[MidwestTV 1174]

Here's something just for laughs and kicks; a woman posted on my local NBC addiliate's page absolutely blasting them and saying they were changing channels because they have "continually ignored what your viewers want."

 

What's she blabbering about? She's mad that NBC is essentially broadcasting the Olympics nonstop there on the mother network, and this woman seems to think that our station has personally chosen to broadcast as much as they have. Sort of funny too when you consider the fact that the station just ignores her lmao. It ain't the first time she's complained about the "decision" my local affiliate gas made to broadcast as much as they are.

[Action Newsroom 1151]

Here's something just for laughs and kicks; a woman posted on my local NBC addiliate's page absolutely blasting them and saying they were changing channels because they have "continually ignored what your viewers want."

 

What's she blabbering about? She's mad that NBC is essentially broadcasting the Olympics nonstop there on the mother network, and this woman seems to think that our station has personally chosen to broadcast as much as they have. Sort of funny too when you consider the fact that the station just ignores her lmao. It ain't the first time she's complained about the "decision" my local affiliate gas made to broadcast as much as they are.

I don't know why this women is wasting her time. She should be glad that she's still alive to watch the Olympics. And the station should not care anyway. They got the ratings they had wanted and they'll be gong to the bank when all's said and done.

[Mrtraveler01 737]

I don't understand...explain please?

 

---

 

Ohhhhh never mind never mind never mind. I was thinking of my second question when I was reading that, I get it now. But I still don't understand what went on with CTV/CBC.

 

CTV and CBC, 2 of Canada's largest broadcasters teamed up for a joint bid for the 2014 and 2016 olympics.

 

The IOC rejected the bid.

[PelicanGuy 117]

My only beef with primetime coverage is that they show too many commercials.

[Jess 1110]

So... last day of the Olympics.

 

You know, I've been tolerating NBC's coverage - I don't think it's as bad as some people say it is, because I include the cable channels and overall the cable channels were fine - but primetime has been just beyond horrible. Like just now, when they cut the closing ceremony short (they'll be back in an hour) to run a preview of that really really horrible looking monkey sitcom they've been promoting like crazy the past two weeks.

 

I'm not surprised, because especially in this last week they've been pulling some really, really annoying stuff. For example. My Tivo says that night's episode of The Olympics going to begin at 8pm. When I turn on the TV or turn on the recording, I expect to see The Olympics. That would be the logical thing, right?

 

But no, this is NBC, so they run the opening but, wait, we'll get to the action in an hour, here's a Dream Team documentary. Or a friggin' TOM BROKAW WORLD WAR II DOCUMENTARY. If you're going to do that, it'd be nice, to, y'know, tell me. But sadly, this is NBC, where logic goes to die (although, yes, I see the logic in what they've been pulling - you don't have to count the first hour, and thus the ratings go up)

 

I know this is pulling in record ratings, and I know that in 2016 they're going to pull this crap again and get away with it, but seriously there are more and more places where I'm seeing comments like "I gave up on NBC, I found some way to see the BBC and/or the CTV coverage."

 

I know a lot of you guys think NBC is a good broadcaster of the games. But if you were able to watch the BBC, or at least watch CTV, you'd know what you were missing. The BBC coverage was exceptional.

[bixpchiphead 105]

So... last day of the Olympics.

 

You know, I've been tolerating NBC's coverage - I don't think it's as bad as some people say it is, because I include the cable channels and overall the cable channels were fine - but primetime has been just beyond horrible. Like just now, when they cut the closing ceremony short (they'll be back in an hour) to run a preview of that really really horrible looking monkey sitcom they've been promoting like crazy the past two weeks.

 

I'm not surprised, because especially in this last week they've been pulling some really, really annoying stuff. For example. My Tivo says that night's episode of The Olympics going to begin at 8pm. When I turn on the TV or turn on the recording, I expect to see The Olympics. That would be the logical thing, right?

 

But no, this is NBC, so they run the opening but, wait, we'll get to the action in an hour, here's a Dream Team documentary. Or a friggin' TOM BROKAW WORLD WAR II DOCUMENTARY. If you're going to do that, it'd be nice, to, y'know, tell me. But sadly, this is NBC, where logic goes to die (although, yes, I see the logic in what they've been pulling - you don't have to count the first hour, and thus the ratings go up)

 

I know this is pulling in record ratings, and I know that in 2016 they're going to pull this crap again and get away with it, but seriously there are more and more places where I'm seeing comments like "I gave up on NBC, I found some way to see the BBC and/or the CTV coverage."

 

I know a lot of you guys think NBC is a good broadcaster of the games. But if you were able to watch the BBC, or at least watch CTV, you'd know what you were missing. The BBC coverage was exceptional.

 

A friendly note for those in the UK (and those with 'cough, cough' vpn or proxies),

from The BBC:

"And all our Olympics video content will be able to watch online on the BBC Sport website until January 13th."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/08/digital_olympics_reach_stream_stats.html

[skbl17 188]

Bump for Sochi! This thread should be in the Speculatron, but seeing as it was created when the Speculatron didn't exist...

 

Okay, now that we know that ComcastUniversal (aka NBC) will hold the rights in the U.S. through 2020, my question still remains: who is the likely contender to get the Olympic broadcasting rights post-2020? NBC? ESPN/ABC? FOX? What about Spanish language broadcasts; will they stay with Telemundo or go to Univision? Will there be changes in the way such rights are awarded? Will U.S. broadcasters follow Canada's lead and form some kind of joint venture for Olympics broadcasts? Will the public broadcaster PBS finally get a chance? Okay, probably not the last one.

 

Also, #nbcfail and the many NBC mock accounts on Twitter are back in force, especially after the ring debacle during the opening ceremony and the annoying (as usual) commentary and primetime tape delays.

 

On the streaming side, the BBC and CBC* have brought their A-game, especially the CBC*, while users are reporting more issues with NBC's Live Extra compared to 2012. VPNs and proxies are becoming more prevalent among American users due to the perceived incompetence of NBC's Olympic broadcasts.

 

Finally, here's a nifty chart showing how, once again, NBC fails compared to some of our peers and CBC* owns everyone else:

 

 

* By "CBC," I'm referring to CBC/Radio-Canada, Sportsnet, TSN, RDS, and TVA.

[Samantha 2878]

...I don't think we'd ever see a group of broadcasters take on the Olympics or non-cable-required streams. The reasons why are mostly related to American television culture:

 

#1. Of the six countries in the chart, the US is the only one where there is no public broadcaster involved. (And frankly, PBS would not be suited to the Olympics; it does not have the same model as the public broadcasters of other countries, especially with one stream nationwide. It'd be beyond expensive, and not every market has a PBS member station. Producing a more traditional public broadcaster would be a massive undertaking, one that would be politically sour to corporate America [i.e. not happening] and would require hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in federal-level capital expenses [i.e. not happening]. Imagine being in 2017 trying to buy spectrum to build a new television transmitter in a market like Los Angeles—that will be next to impossible.)

 

#2. Each of the four major networks has its own sports service. A collaboration between ESPN and NBC Sports, for instance, would be pretty much unprecedented. The NFL is able to parcel out the pieces of its package in such a way that they don't conflict. That isn't as possible here. Nor is there the oligarchical competitive climate that Canada has (notice how each of Canada's media giants has a piece of the pie). The Olympics on all four networks would not be workable because you couldn't get all four networks around the table.

 

#3. Because of #1, there is a desire to want to tie everything to TV Everywhere. Even if Fox or ESPN/ABC had the Olympics this would be an issue. Notice how Fox branded its Super Bowl stream as being a "free trial" of Fox Sports Go without the authentication. CBS might be the only one to really do it right.

 

I really don't know if Fox or today's ESPN/ABC would handle the Olympics well. ESPN/ABC would not come close to ABC Sports in the 80s (and hype the Olympics a lot through their Big Bristol media machine). Fox would feel awkward and overstretched producing one. CBS has done it before and doesn't seem to be as hype-based, and something tells me they wouldn't put everything on a playout server.

[Jess 1110]

I wrote this on the shoutbox and my blog, I'm repeating it here.

 

1. The Olympic games begin. If the games aren't in a US time zone, NBC doesn't show them until primetime.
   
2. While NBC doesn't show them until primetime, other countries do show the events live, which means event results get spoiled.
   
3. Which leads to epic complaints about NBC not showing the events live and #NBCFail trending on twitter.
   
4. And, of course, people watch the coverage anyway, which leads to huge ratings despite all the bitching.
   
5. And the cycle continues.
   

I get the blame towards NBC, yet I have to give them the ultimate pass now after they took over the Premier League from Fox and Bristol. Their coverage of a soccer league from Europe is just as good, hell, better, than other networks' coverage of domestic leagues (*cough*Baseball on Fox*cough*). And they took over from a channel dedicated to soccer.

 

Also, since 2012, I began to realize something about how the Olympics are presented here. An awful announcing article noted it, and now it makes sense in my brain.

 

In our country, the Olympics aren't sports.

 

They're sports entertainment.

 

Yes, I realize I am invoking the WWE here but that's kind of the point. The other networks, as well as NBC's cable network coverage, cover the games as sporting events. NBC focuses on the drama, the human competition, the thrill of victory and that guy who I'm surprised is still alive after that ski jump. They cover storylines, athlete biographies. The statistics and nuts-and-bolts don't necessarily matter. It is, in a sense, like pro wrestling in that the storylines matter more than the in-ring stuff. (I don't think it's a coincidence that Dick Ebersol was very close with Vince McMahon - Ebersol produced the first Wrestlemania.)

 

And this is a formula that has worked, time in, time out. Not just with NBC, but CBS and ABC as well. There are things that carry over from olympiad to olympiad. Cozy fireplace sets, aerial footage set to Bugler's Dream, John Williams music, etc. It's a formula you don't see on the other broadcasters but you absolutely see it on the US broadcasts. There are always going to be vocal complaints but as long as this gets monster ratings - and sports are the few things these days that are DVR-proof - they're gonna keep doing it.

 

Anyway, I haven't had problems with Live Extra, mostly because I've been using it heavily to begin with (Premier League). That said, I haven't been able to get my VPN working properly, and I do want to see what they're doing. (Does Catriona Le May Doan have a role with CBC? Because she was really hot good in 2012.) Especially given the amount of hours they're giving to it... holy crap.

[Breaking News 805]

When it comes down to brass tracks it all depends on how much the network is willing to spend on the amount of $$$. Now NBC for the last 20 yrs has been very successful with showing the Olympics on television and off course 20 yrs ago it was a different world vs today media platforms.

 

Now all (3) networks have had the Olympics on their networks and have provided a good source of revenue for their parents company. I did read that ESPN was very much interested in showing the Olympics games on their network. As one person stated that ESPN has multiple channels they would probably use them. However I think NBC will come and place the bid and continue to show them.

[skbl17 188]

I still can't wrap my head around the 1,000+ hours the Canadian Consortium is putting into this...

 

In all honesty, NBC doesn't have too much to clean up. If they broadcast the opening ceremony live and uncut on one of their cable properties (no ridiculous, excessive commentary and no interviews during the ceremony) and/or the internet for the diehards, and then again in primetime on NBC itself with all of the features, that would solve most of the complaints. Another big complaint is shown right there in the chart, the requirement of a cable/satellite subscription, something you don't see in any other country airing the games, not even Canada, where the cable/telco market is just as bad as it is here. Of course, that's more of a sign of our culture, not necessarily NBC itself. Of course, I had those exact concerns in 2012, and nothing's changed, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

...I don't think we'd ever see a group of broadcasters take on the Olympics or non-cable-required streams. The reasons why are mostly related to American television culture:

 

#1. Of the six countries in the chart, the US is the only one where there is no public broadcaster involved. (And frankly, PBS would not be suited to the Olympics; it does not have the same model as the public broadcasters of other countries, especially with one stream nationwide. It'd be beyond expensive, and not every market has a PBS member station. Producing a more traditional public broadcaster would be a massive undertaking, one that would be politically sour to corporate America [i.e. not happening] and would require hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in federal-level capital expenses [i.e. not happening]. Imagine being in 2017 trying to buy spectrum to build a new television transmitter in a market like Los Angeles—that will be next to impossible.)

 

#2. Each of the four major networks has its own sports service. A collaboration between ESPN and NBC Sports, for instance, would be pretty much unprecedented. The NFL is able to parcel out the pieces of its package in such a way that they don't conflict. That isn't as possible here. Nor is there the oligarchical competitive climate that Canada has (notice how each of Canada's media giants has a piece of the pie). The Olympics on all four networks would not be workable because you couldn't get all four networks around the table.

 

#3. Because of #1, there is a desire to want to tie everything to TV Everywhere. Even if Fox or ESPN/ABC had the Olympics this would be an issue. Notice how Fox branded its Super Bowl stream as being a "free trial" of Fox Sports Go without the authentication. CBS might be the only one to really do it right.

 

I really don't know if Fox or today's ESPN/ABC would handle the Olympics well. ESPN/ABC would not come close to ABC Sports in the 80s (and hype the Olympics a lot through their Big Bristol media machine). Fox would feel awkward and overstretched producing one. CBS has done it before and doesn't seem to be as hype-based, and something tells me they wouldn't put everything on a playout server.

 

(It would be nice if TVNT had a "What If?" subforum for those hypothetical moments, like..."What if the U.S. television market was organized more like Europe's?" and "What if PBS was the only broadcaster until ~1970?")

 

I'm inclined to agree with you on PBS, CBS, and Fox, but I'm not so sure about ESPN/ABC though. ESPN's already hosting a huge international event (the World Cup) with Univision, and they didn't seem to have many problems; the games in 2010 were broadcast commercial free even! We'll see what happens with them come this summer, but ESPN, imo, would be well suited for broadcasting the Olympics: they've got ABC, ABC Family, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, and ESPN Deportes, ESPN3/WatchESPN for online streaming, and the ESPN Radio stations. That's at least eight TV streams, one radio stream, and the potential for much more online through ESPN3! Now, obviously, culture and finances would be a problem, but they have the broadcast infrastructure for the Olympics.

 

CBS would be an interesting case. They have the experience, and (to a lesser extent) the infrastructure, assuming that they can get together with Turner again to form a CBS-TruTV-TBS-TNT Olympic partnership. If not, they still have CBS, CBS Sports Network, and (50%) The CW, along with any live streams they can muster up online. Of course, we don't know if The CW will still be around come 2020. They'd definitely be stretched broadcasting-wise compared to NBC, ESPN/ABC, and even Fox; it would be interesting to see how they would make up for it.

 

PBS/NPR is, sadly, wishful thinking. They would never enter a consortium with other broadcasters. Not only that, but the infrastructure and finances necessary are lacking. The only thing they have going for them is commercial-free broadcasting, but even that trick can be pulled by commercial broadcasters when the time comes (ESPN in 2010, anyone?).

 

Fox isn't quite wishful thinking, but it would be a bit of a stretch before they could pull off broadcasting the Olympics. Infrastructure-wise, they're getting there: they have Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, FX, FXX, Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the regional FSN stations, and "Fox Sports Go". Now, of course, a lot can change come 2020, but if Fox decided to bid, they would be quite the contender. I wouldn't be too concerned about finances and infrastructure.

 

In the end, I think that NBC will probably retain the rights, but ESPN/ABC and Fox could be strong contenders if they choose to bid. The biggest obstacle would definitely be the money, NBC put in $1.5 billion just for 2012-2020. By 2020, that could jump to $2.5 billion. Golly...

 

EDIT: Of course, I can ever get enough of the themes NBC uses on their Olympic telecasts. You wouldn't believe how bummed I was that "Roundball Rock" didn't return for basketball coverage in 2012.

[Jess 1110]

I shudder at the prospect of a Bristol-produced Olympics.

 

You know how NBC hyped Michael Phelps to death? That would be nothing compared to what Bristol would have done. It would make their fetish-like focus on Tim Tebow seem tame. I do not trust Bristol executive producers, managers, and talent. The result would be a far, far worse olympics than anything NBC has produced. At least NBC has more event-focused coverage over on cable.

 

I think if we see a single-bidder, aside from Bristol, Fox would work. You'd have four channels to work with - Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, and FX. And they have Rupert Murdoch. Fox would be a bit more sports-focused, but they also do their dumb entertainment stuff as well. Plus, you may want to ask yourself - do you REALLY want Joe Buck as primetime Olympics host?

 

CBS would almost certainly have to do a joint bid with Turner, but if they did I can see it being pulled off. Both of them do a great job with March Madness, and I can see things working out that way.

 

As for TV Everywhere... *sigh*. Yes. I hate TV Everywhere to death. I think it's ridiculous that I have to subscribe to cable in order to see a mobile live stream of a television station that I can receive, for free, over the air (WATCH ABC). But the broadcasters are relying increasingly on those retrans fees, so yeah. This issue will have to be coming to a head soon, however.

 

(Plus, technically, the BBC isn't "free" like Canada is, either. To watch TV in the UK, you have to pay a license fee.)