Message To ESPN (3 Viewers)

[Rat]

1. The coverage was great with the actual racing, but way to much back track, at some points last night I felt like I was watching the same thing over.

2. Why do we interview the guys that lost the round. Chris Magaha never even got an interview. Let me expand on guys who did not but won the round: Kurt Johnson, Brandon Bernstein, Melanie Troxel, Bob Vandergriff, Jon Capps! This was just round 1. Round 2 came these guys still never got an interview! Who got it: Larry Dixon, Del Worsham Tony Schumacher, Jack Beckman, and these guys LOST, yet the hard luck and budget winner NEVER EVEN GET THE INTERVIEW! It's disgraceful and not helping there sponsors. STOP WITH THE DRIVERS YOU INTERVIEW WIN OR LOSE AND START WITH THE WINNERS AND HARD LUCK TEAMS! That has to change immediately.

 

[TR]

1. The coverage was great with the actual racing, but way to much back track, at some points last night I felt like I was watching the same thing over.

2. Why do we interview the guys that lost the round. Chris Magaha never even got an interview. Let me expand on guys who did not but won the round: Kurt Johnson, Brandon Bernstein, Melanie Troxel, Bob Vandergriff, Jon Capps! This was just round 1. Round 2 came these guys still never got an interview! Who got it: Larry Dixon, Del Worsham Tony Schumacher, Jack Beckman, and these guys LOST, yet the hard luck and budget winner NEVER EVEN GET THE INTERVIEW! It's disgraceful and not helping there sponsors. STOP WITH THE DRIVERS YOU INTERVIEW WIN OR LOSE AND START WITH THE WINNERS AND HARD LUCK TEAMS! That has to change immediately.

Sad but true. Good post.

 

[FC138fan]

As I posted in another thread:

... but with all Alexis's coverage of not qualifying, I did not catch the guy's name - nor see more then background coverage of the guy in the other lane who did qualify in session 4...

I saw later on here it was Todd Simpson. I don't know if he is sponsored, but I bet it would be difficult to explain the logic to sponsors that you got less TV coverage qualifying then someone who didn't qualify. I guess ESPN will decide for us what we want to watch.

 

[paoldtimer]

1. The coverage was great with the actual racing, but way to much back track, at some points last night I felt like I was watching the same thing over.

2. Why do we interview the guys that lost the round. Chris Magaha never even got an interview. Let me expand on guys who did not but won the round: Kurt Johnson, Brandon Bernstein, Melanie Troxel, Bob Vandergriff, Jon Capps! This was just round 1. Round 2 came these guys still never got an interview! Who got it: Larry Dixon, Del Worsham Tony Schumacher, Jack Beckman, and these guys LOST, yet the hard luck and budget winner NEVER EVEN GET THE INTERVIEW! It's disgraceful and not helping there sponsors. STOP WITH THE DRIVERS YOU INTERVIEW WIN OR LOSE AND START WITH THE WINNERS AND HARD LUCK TEAMS! That has to change immediately.

Thank you!! I was thinking the same thing. Man, give these guys some exposure that they can use to possibly get some additional sponsorships, if needed.

 

[Larry]

Even Handed I believe its called ! To The Winner belong the spoils !
Not a happy camper about the Red Eye Pro Qualifying viewing time !
Id druther it came on at 10:00 Sunday !
On the road and can't always record it !

 

[Ro]

Amen!

 

[joe fuchita]

For the qualifying show, I would like to see ALL the cars that attempted a qualifying run. Low budget team needs coverage too. I am tired of seeing the high lights of only the top team in each category.

 

[mick]

not speaking for the sportsmen but for the pros, especially now during
the 'playoffs', your top ten teams are the storylines.
- greg anderson's loss is more newsworthy than the Magaha with the upset
- the losers interviewed have a stake in the their respective
championships more so than whoever beat them.

 

[S&M]

not speaking for the sportsmen but for the pros, especially now during
the 'playoffs', your top ten teams are the storylines.
- greg anderson's loss is more newsworthy than the Magaha with the upset
- the losers interviewed have a stake in the their respective
championships more so than whoever beat them.

That is the problem with this manufactured championship deal.

Just make whomever wins the last race of the season the champ. That way NHRA is happy because all of the champions are always crown at the last race.

 

[mick]

look, interviews with losers happened before the countdown (which is
not manufactured by the way) and they happen now.

before the countdown, anyone in contention during last few races was
targeted for an interview whether they won or lost a given round or race;
the interview has merit in victory or defeat.

it's the storyline and who are the characters as the season winds down;
no different now than prior to countdown; if anything the countdown provides
more characters than prior to it... which is healthy for the sport.

want to define 'before countdown' as in 4+ years ago when the entire
season was a points total determining champions.

 

[jackass]

you also have to remember.. alot of the interviews and storys are also driven by the fact of who suports the NHRA and the ESPN broadcasts....

or in Alexis's case while her first NHRA nitro Funny car event is news worthy...they want Patron and Paul Mitchel (sp) ads to run or show suport for the NHRA...

all of this while worthy of air time takes away from the lower budgeted teams that need air time to have something to show to potential sponsors... round wins are nice..but how much tv time did it get them?

 

[Bullard Anderson]

Mcgaha knocked off the stud Greg Anderson and nothing. That's a joke.
Yep, GA's interview in utter saddness was great. But give a guy 30 seconds.

 

[Buns]

Come on, guys...

This is TV we're talking about. TV, radio, print, etc.. will always go after the stories and figures that pertain to the stars. This is nothing new and has been around as long as the media itself.

Media coverage is a perk exclusive to those who are newsworthy. Whether that's someone winning their third race in a row or a heavy-hitter going out in the first round.

What's the bigger story given the context in which it happened: a newcomer taking out Greg that isn't in the points race or one of the best cars and driver in the class that is chasing a championship? The newcomer winning is a cool story but not newsworthy compared to one of the favorites going out in the first round.

As fun a story as Jon Capps is, Robert Hight continuing to be mired in mediocrity will gather more attention because it's the story that will have the farthest reaching appeal. More people know Robert and JFR and will be interested in seeing/hearing/reading about his struggle to win a round in the Countdown.

Media coverage is also fickle. We see it in everyday life and racing is certainly no different. When the Chris McGaha's and Jon Capps of the racing world become a big story by winning or otherwise, the media attention will follow and be taken away, to a certain degree, from the John Force's and Matt Hagan's of the world. Media isn't discriminatory -- it will follow the story.

If you want the media attention, do what it takes to garner that status. If you can't do that, you won't get covered. It's a cold fact but a very true one and we all know it.

It would be nice if all the 'little guys' were able to get the attention that they deserve through their perseverance and hard work, but that's not the way it works. Become a story that catches peoples attention, has far-reaching appeal and the media will follow. It's a simple but tough formula.

 

[Rat]

Come on, guys...

This is TV we're talking about. TV, radio, print, etc.. will always go after the stories and figures that pertain to the stars. This is nothing new and has been around as long as the media itself.

Media coverage is a perk exclusive to those who are newsworthy. Whether that's someone winning their third race in a row or a heavy-hitter going out in the first round.

What's the bigger story given the context in which it happened: a newcomer taking out Greg that isn't in the points race or one of the best cars and driver in the class that is chasing a championship? The newcomer winning is a cool story but not newsworthy compared to one of the favorites going out in the first round.

As fun a story as Jon Capps is, Robert Hight continuing to be mired in mediocrity will gather more attention because it's the story that will have the farthest reaching appeal. More people know Robert and JFR and will be interested in seeing/hearing/reading about his struggle to win a round in the Countdown.

Media coverage is also fickle. We see it in everyday life and racing is certainly no different. When the Chris McGaha's and Jon Capps of the racing world become a big story by winning or otherwise, the media attention will follow and be taken away, to a certain degree, from the John Force's and Matt Hagan's of the world. Media isn't discriminatory -- it will follow the story.

If you want the media attention, do what it takes to garner that status. If you can't do that, you won't get covered. It's a cold fact but a very true one and we all know it.

It would be nice if all the 'little guys' were able to get the attention that they deserve through their perseverance and hard work, but that's not the way it works. Become a story that catches peoples attention, has far-reaching appeal and the media will follow. It's a simple but tough formula.

Ok so let's say I buy your answer 100%. Then my idea on why there are sometimes less cars than 16 or just 16 can be related to your post. My point is there not helping the sport grow. Supposedly the NHRA is a great investment for a sponsor, but how? Not on tv, maybe at the track where I bet Alan actually does his job and does not ignore any winner.

 

[Buns]

Ok so let's say I buy your answer 100%. Then my idea on why there are sometimes less cars than 16 or just 16 can be related to your post. My point is there not helping the sport grow. Supposedly the NHRA is a great investment for a sponsor, but how? Not on tv, maybe at the track where I bet Alan actually does his job and does not ignore any winner.

Possibly but ESPN's interest in the sport isn't to grow it -- it's to make money off of it and cover the stories that they think fans want to see/hear/read about.

I don't believe that ESPN is concerned about covering the grassroots appeal of racing and the 'little guys'. Their objective is to cover the major stories.

ESPN will leave it up to the individual racer to grow their own operation, and therefore the sport, and when you become newsworthy, they will cover you.

As far as sponsorships, that places the onus on teams to perform at a high level worthy of extended media coverage. If a team routinely goes out in the first round, they don't have the added bonus of interviews and such on top of the time they're on-camera during the race.

Just like ESPN isn't going to interview a bench player that scores two points before halftime in-lieu of Kobe Bryant that scored 30 points in two quarters. People don't care about the bench warmer, even if he is trying hard. Just the way it is.

Media coverage is a luxury, not a right. And ESPN, along with any other media outlet, will always go after the Kobe Bryant's of the world. Go from being a Troy Buff to a Larry Dixon, and you'll get the same treatment.

 

[.]

The newcomer winning is a cool story but not newsworthy compared to one of the favorites going out in the first round.

As fun a story as Jon Capps is, Robert Hight continuing to be mired in mediocrity will gather more attention because it's the story that will have the farthest reaching appeal.

Wrong. The are worthy.

Also, ESPN doesn't care. They already got paid.

 

[Buns]

Wrong. The are worthy.

Also, ESPN doesn't care. They already got paid.

They obviously aren't in ESPN's eyes and that's the scope of this thread.

And ESPN still has a product to produce and reputation to maintain. 99.9% of fans don't know about the fact that ESPN has already been paid. ESPN can't throw crap out because they've been paid. Their reputation as a broadcasting company is on the line with every show, paid or not.

 

[Rat]

They obviously aren't in ESPN's eyes and that's the scope of this thread.

And ESPN still has a product to produce and reputation to maintain. 99.9% of fans don't know about the fact that ESPN has already been paid. ESPN can't throw crap out because they've been paid. Their reputation as a broadcasting company is on the line with every show, paid or not.

Well now if it's their rep it's horrible because they are airing a show that is only 50% show at the time it's supposed to be on at 50% are cases where eastern time they play qualifying from NC at 1:15 AM or this week's at 12:30. ESPN does not give 2 craps, I bet they are itchin to just put NHRA on espn3 exclusively and take it off the tv. As a fan, I support that!

 

[clwill]

The qualifying show next Saturday night (actually Sunday morning) is on at 12:30 am Eastern, and follows the Mississippi vs Fresno State football game. I'm guessing the combined total of living alumni from both of those schools is about, what 200,000 people? You KNOW ESPN is going to run that game long and blow out the NHRA telecast.

 

[clwill]

I bet they are itchin to just put NHRA on espn3 exclusively and take it off the tv. As a fan, I support that!

Easy for you to say. I'm on a rinky-dink cable company for internet and can't get it.