The Great Derby Paradox

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

It wouldn't be the first time that some people didn't pay attention to part of a television broadcast, but you might be surprised how many in a captive audience might have their attention grabbed.

Once again, I completely disagree with this mentality. In fact, I basically base my professional life, which every day seems to be more of my entire life, on this concept. If we want people to become more interested in our game we need to at least offer them the opportunity to understand it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It wouldn't be the first time that some people didn't pay attention to part of a television broadcast, but you might be surprised how many in a captive audience might have their attention grabbed.

Once again, I completely disagree with this mentality. In fact, I basically base my professional life, which every day seems to be more of my entire life, on this concept. If we want people to become more interested in our game we need to at least offer them the opportunity to understand it.

I agree that the television audience is smarter than the network thinks; the catch is that the thrill of horse racing is gambling. Unfortunately, the average viewer is not going to set up an online betting account and play along. Horse racing doesn't get to benefit from the tribalism that being a fan of a team gives; the lure is making a pick and being right. If a network was unafraid to encourage that they'd set up a mock online betting thing on their own website so people watching could play along with pretend money and see how they do.

The other big challenge is that a horse race is only 2 minutes long, while a casual fan has a fair amount of time to watch a football, basketball or baseball game and get the hang of the sport. So yeah, more and better segments on understanding the race would go a long way toward making the race exciting for a non-racing fan. I think ten minutes is long for a single segment, but say, 5 two-minute segments, each on a different bit of information, could hold an audience (and keep them watching the entire broadcast). So that then if the first quarter then goes in 22 and change, they know what that means.

I haven't watched the full NBC broadcast yet, but I know a lot of my friends really liked the bit about which horses might run well in the mud, because it made them feel a bit smarter about the race. Doug's post on here about Derby races that give the illusion of a can't-lose horse was really interesting and that kind of thing could make for a great discussion in post-race analysis, and get an audience eager to come back for the Preakness.

[Calzone Lord]

I thought the NBC coverage was good.

The Human interest stories weren't annoying like they sometimes are. The girl who interviewed celebs and talked about fashion wasn't annoying. Her piece with Itsmyluckyday, Oxbow, and Lines Of Battle was cute.

The coverage by Randy Moss and Bailey was good.

Some of their announcers weren't on top of their game ... Rosie Naprovnik didn't give Bob Costas a pass when he told her she "would be riding Mylute in a race for the first time"

Bob Costas has huge prestige, but he always seems to bring his F game to the Derby telecast. Other than that, I think they did a fine job.

Donna Barton had a few good moments. They showed all of the right replays after the race. I'm not sure you could have asked for a lot better.