![]() |
|||
| Members | |||
|
#1 |
||
I am wondering if this was The Commercial 500 or The Indianapolis 500. It sure appeared to be aimed more toward the commercials than the actual race. Nice touch runnint commercial and race side-by-side but I thing the format took advantage and lost sight of the actual reason people watch The Indianopolis 500... We want to See the Race! We were watching a commercial whenever there was any "action." We ended up seeing re-runs rather than watching real-time action. Very, very disappointing! The color analyst was medocre at best but the play-by-play announcer lacked enthusiasm. He was "blah." For all of the race-enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and talented broadcasters in the field my question....Where did they find this guy? Why didn't they select someone who has a talent for the sport like the Nascar Commentators? ABC could take a lesson from Fox Sports on how to produce a major Auto Race. We will be listening to the radio if this is an example of how ABC is going to produce the Indi Series races. |
|
#2 |
|
I grew up listening to Sid Collins call the race on the IMS Radio Network in the 60's long before there was any TV coverage. I remember when you could buy tickets to the race to see it on closed circuit at a movie theater. And then it went to same day taped delay with live coverage less than 20 years old. All of you "newcomers" that are bitching about ABC's coverage ought to find a tape of a few years ago and do some comparison. Any auto race has to have sponsors. If it didn't, it couldn't get on the air. Do you think the Super Bowl is free? The difference is there can't be "TV timeouts" in auto racing, so you have to do something. At least the "side-by-side"format keeps you in the action. If there weren't any commercials, there'd be no coverage. Simple as that. And I would much rather have side-by-side than none at all! |