Select to expand quote
Belly25 said..Chris249 said..
Some of the "personal bias and opinion" is actually driven by data such as rankings numbers in various types of sport, analysis of the numerical data on TV ratings as contained in the IOC OPC reports and stuff like that.
Many of the top rating sports are actually the "heritage" sports like running, swimming and gymnastics. The fact is that many more people watch people do 6 knots in a straight line down a flat water pool than watch skiffs or RSXs doing 20knots+ jumping over ocean swells. More people watch kayaks go in a straight line down flat water than watch kayaks go down the whitewater rapids. "Extreme" MTBing doesn't rate particularly well.
There is just no data that supports any belief that extreme Olympic sports attract more viewers. Most people want to watch people running or swimming on a flat surface in their lanes.
Does anyone watch swimming, gymnastics or running on TV outside of the Olympics or Commonwealth games coverage?
To suggest that these sports are what people want to watch on TV, on a weekly basis, is as inaccurate as suggesting that the Olympics offer extreme sports at all. Cross Country mountain biking is far from "Extreme".
You are nuts to believe that,
"Extreme" MTBing doesn't rate particularly well". Rather than using TV ratings you might want to dig a bit deeper at what people are actually looking at on other screens.
Local governments in Australia and abroad are investing heavily in world class mountain bike parks (inclusive of most mountain bike disciplines) due to the growing popularity of the sport and the huge potential for tourism $$$. Tasmania is a perfect example.
BTW - Best thing I've read on this thread so far;
also, just so you know; "not to sound narky but basing opinions on experience still counts for something once you leave kindy.
"sounds very snarky... I guess your grand-kids didn't tell you that. *not to be an asshole or anything*
.
Perfect
1- Who in the world suggested anyone was talking about what people are "watching on a weekly basis"? We are talking about an event that takes place once every four years.
2- The definition of "extreme" is arguable and irrelevant and I put into quotes for that reason. Many people, from broadcasters to academics and others, DO refer to Olympic-style MTB racing as an extreme sport. While XC is not like downhill, it is still newer and closer to an "extreme" sport than road cycling and probably as "extreme" as foil windsurfing or FW - and yet it doesn't rate particularly well.
3- I'm not nuts and it's not helpful to say silly things instead of being objective. We are talking about ratings at the OLYMPIC GAMES. The IOC OPC releases some figures every four years so we don't have to rely on opinion - we can use data. The data they provide on "appeal" is about the number of media who are accredited, the number of paid spectators, the number of website visits, etc. These figures show that "extreme" or new sports do NOT rate better.
Using cycling as an example, because it has four disciplines we can get information on, there were more spectators for road and track than MTB, with BMX (which claims to be a true "extreme" sport) trailing far behind. The same applies in the number of media people who attended each discipline. In kayaking, which also has a split between an "extreme" side (whitewater slalom) and flat-water racing, there were twice as many live spectators and media for the guys who race on flat water in a straight line than for the guys who bounce around in white water.
The IOC does seem to have stopped giving TV ratings figures broken down by discipline for recent Games. The last data I can find that breaks it down to individual disciplines indicates that track got the most viewers (32.8 mill on average), followed by road and BMX (23.8 and 23.2), with MTB well behind on 16.4. In kayaking the flat water straight-line stuff averaged 32 million spectators whereas bouncing down whitewater got 22 million. At the same Olympiad, people swimming at about 6 knots in a straight line got an average of almost 59 million viewers.
Again, the point is that the newer and "cooler" events do NOT get higher ratings in Olympic coverage. Yes, they may get viewers at other times - but the IOC doesn't really care about that. They don't get money from someone watching Youtube vids of someone getting huge air outside the OIympics. We are talking an Olympic sport here, the IOC is the customer.
Just to say it again - in the OLYMPICS, which is what we are talking about, there is NO trend for newer and more "extreme" disciplines or sports to get more watchers, so there is NO reason to think that dropping the RSX - a board I don't particularly like - will do anything to raise windsurfing's profile.