Touched on above. It wasn't played during primetime, but was aired during prime time. NBC had no pull in getting the game time moved.
The men's final has usually been played at a good time. Ten A.M. local time is a terrible time, and ruins the TV audience for Europe. Two A.M. U.S. time is the worst possible slot. Burying it this shallow grave will not help soccer become more popular. You have to be able to see it for it to become more popular.
Well, NBC didn't have any pull, either. Do you think if you just keep repeating this like a mantra, that it's going to make a difference? Do you think the hardcores in Europe will be watching at 10AM? I'd say they will. Do you think Europeans need more "new" fans? Really? And, again, whether you see it live or see it on tape, the NEW fans you seem to be running a crusade for will see it, most likely on NBC's prime-time coverage, but I guess that's not good enough for you. More specifically, why don't you get down off the cross and wait until you see what (a) the US, which has yet to qualify for the Olympics, and (b) NBC, which has yet to be presented with US teams in the final, do?
If the U.S. does not make the finals you can bet NBC will not show any men's soccer, so hardly anyone will see the final on U.S. television. If we do make the final the content will be 14 hours old and less attractive than events that occurred in teh afternoon. As to European audiences, sure the hardcore UK fans will be up at 8 A.M. to watch. But less dedicated fans will sleep in and give it a pass. Nine P.M. is a better time unless you really do want to discourage people from watching men's soccer.
Many soccer games are broadcast in the US at 7 PM or so. Nearly all of these games get ratings around 1 or less. US v Germany was broadcast at 7:30 AM and got a 4 share. I beleive that NBC is trying to improve the ratings even more by going for the 2 AM time slot. Most sports fans prefer to watch games in the middle of the night. Just my opinion.
If an event at 10AM and an event at 4PM are not shown live but on tape delay in the same block in primetime, why would one be more or less attractive than the other? Keep in mind that the 4x100 relay finals in swimming or the gold medal match in wrestling back in 2000 were half a day old before NBC showed them, they wasn't any less attractive then. And if the Olympic gold medal final in soccer does not feature the US, count me out, I don't want to see it, live or tape. Just show me track and field in primetime, I'll be happy. Please start making sense.
If the US does not make the finals, it would be in NBC's business interest to show the final because.......oh, right, because you think they should be altruistic and do something for the good of the game in this country? Dream on. You're daft. If we make the final, the people you've been carrying the torch for, the so-called "new" fans (most of whom became fans for about two weeks last June and haven't really kept with it), will find it just as "attractive" because (a) they won't know any better and (b) everybody's used to the Olympics being tape-delayed now. First off, NBC doesn't have any control over what European audiences see, does it? Isn't that kind of up to the rightsholders in whatever country they live? And it's our responsibility as Americans to help those less dedicated fans see the light because..... And those "less dedicated fans" are going to help the cause how, exactly? Which I'm sure is what they want to do. They spend so much time thinking about how they can keep the sport from spreading any further in the world, they can hardly think about anything else. Grow up.
I guess you ignored the links that showed numerous daytime kickoffs for the final in the past, eh?[/b][/quote] I see you are completely unaware of how NBC does the Olympics. Pretty much most sports that the U.S. does not make the final in get no publicity. This has little to do with the sport itself and everything to do with Dick Ebersol's jingoistic coverage. Or it will give them the opportunity to show it THREE times. Not everyone is sitting inside watching TV and sticking pins in their Julie Foudy doll. In the end of August, some people might have lives and not get the pportunity to see what's going on until the prime time coverage. Stop projecting your own sad existance on others. Nine p.m. is a better time, if nothing else is going on and if the stadium intended for the final is available. I pity you for having such narcissism that you can't look beyond the boundries of your own little anti-female feifdom there to see the myriad reasons for things like this.
The older the content, the less appealing it is for TV broadcast. TV content is like bread; it gets stale very quickly. As stated 3 times, FIFA has an incentive to keep Olympic soccer in check. Nothing should threaten the World Cup in terms of appeal. NBC has an incentive to bury the men's final so it will not detract from the endless hype over women's sports, including soccer. So men's soccer gets relegated to Telemundo and the final gets buried at 2 A.M. Pretty tight lid if you ask me.
Says you. Says you. Says you. Like the Olympics could do that anyway. Quickly, who won the men's gold in 1996? 1992? Now who won the last two World Cups? Endless hype to watch women's soccer, which got fewer broadcasts and comparable timeslots in Sydney? (sigh) If they refuse to listen, there's only so much you can do. "They have ears, but they hear not"
"Welcome to Burger King, may I have your order?" "Yes, I'll have a whopper and fries, please." "Would you like some fries with that?" "Yeah, I just said I wanted fries." "How about a whopper to go with that?" "(shouting)One whopper, one fries, please!" "Welcome to Burger King, may I have your order?"
Women's soccer was hyped to the high heavens in Sydney, while men's soccer was not hyped at all. Only Big Soccer people would argue about whether FIFA wants to keep Olympic soccer in check. FIFA and the IOC have agreed to limit the participatiion in men's Olympic soccer to U-23s plus 3 "overage" players. That way, the World Cup cannot be challenged and its profits are secure. I think Nigeria won the gold medal in 1996. http://espn.go.com/oly/summer00/news/2000/0927/784173.html "Starting in '95, we were saying that this is the best kept secret out there, market us and let the kids see us," Foudy said. "And then in '96 the Olympics was one of the coming out ceremonies, and in '99 we just took it to another level." Having worked so hard to market the sport to make last year's World Cup succeed, these Olympics have been one for the players. All they've really had to do is show up and play. The publicity is already guaranteed, interviews or not. "In '99 everything was like, `We've got to do it because we've got to sell tickets. We've got to do it because the sport needs it,' Now, we're doing it because we want to do it," Foudy said. "We're doing it because we laid the foundation, and now we want to reap the rewards of that. Boy, did NBC market it!
One thing for sure, the publicity is not guaranteed for men's soccer in the U.S. "I didn't even know we had a men's team." A few months ago, a friend on the train who is a big sports nut told me: "I see men are starting to play soccer in the U.S. too." No wonder Landon Donavan feels the way he does.
In other words, the defending World and Olympic Champions, who happened to be American, were promoted, while their perennial underachieving male counterparts were not. It also spares FIFA the expense of having to put on a U-23 tournament while, at the same time, give the opportunity for worldwide viewers to see a few players they might know. Correct. Now who won in 1992? I don't know either. She is, of course, referring to the "coming-out ceremony" that was not even televised by NBC.
I just asked someone in my office if they knew the US had a men's soccer team. They did. Does that cancel out your neighbor? I'd question the intelligence of your friends. Then again, maybe not. PS - tell your friend that women are allowed to vote now, too.
Let me try to understand this. Men's soccer will be shown on Telemundo and women's soccer will be shown on either MSNBC or CNBC, correct? Now, in Sydney, the games on MSNBC/CNBC were chopped to bits by editors and interspersed with commercials, showing about 50-60 minutes of the actual action. Plus, we were faced with the horror that was Andres Cantor trying to broadcast a game in English. Will it be safe to assume that Telemundo will show the games (men's) in their entirety, while the MSNBC/CNBC broadcasts will not? Women: 67% of the game shown Men: 100% of the game shown I can see why you're threatened.
Hey, Tom. If you're such a "soccer activist," why haven't your friends and neighbors already known about the men's team? I would like to think that a true "soccer activist" would have tried to convert them upon meeting them.
Why do we care that you hang out with non-soccer fans? If you were any of us talking soccer to a friend who doesn't follow soccer, he would've _known_ from you that there's a U.S. men's team and how well they're doing. Some fan you are. Sykotyk