Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 143

Thread: 2005 world championships

  1. #1
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    7,720
    Blog Entries
    1182

    2005 world championships

    some of us might enjoy following the world championships

    you can find worlds results at
    http://www.omegatiming.com/

    first click on
    "XI FINA WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS"

    then click on
    "Swimming"
    on the top middle of the page


    July 24 Day 8

    Preliminaries
    SESSION 1 09:30
    100 m Butterfly (W)
    400 m Free (M)
    200 m IM (W)
    50 m Butterfly (M)
    400 m Free (W)
    100 m Breast (M)
    4x100 m Free (W)
    4x100 mFree (M)

    Finals
    SESSION 2 18:00 - 20:00
    100 m Butterfly (W) Semi
    400 m Free (M)
    200 m IM (W) Semi
    50 m Butterfly (M) Semi
    400 m Free (W)
    100 m Breast (M) Semi
    4x100 m Free (W)
    4x100 m Free (M)


    July 25 Day 9

    Preliminaries
    SESSION 3 09:30
    100 m Back (W)
    200 m Free (M)
    100 m Breast (W)
    100 m Back (M)
    1500 m Free (W)

    Finals
    SESSION 4 18:00 - 20:00
    50 m Butterfly (M)
    100 m Breast (W) Semi
    100 m Breast (M)
    100 m Butterfly (W)
    200 m Free (M) Semi
    100 m Back (W) Semi
    100 m Back (M) Semi
    200 m IM (W)


    July 26 Day 10

    Preliminaries
    SESSION 5 09:30
    50 m Breast (M)
    200 m Butterfly (M)
    200 m Free (W)
    800 m Free (M)

    Finals
    SESSION 6 18:00 - 20:10
    1500 m Free (W)
    50 m Breast (M) Semi
    100 m Back (W)
    200 m Butterfly (M) Semi
    100 m Breast (W)
    100 m Back (M)
    200 m Free (W) Semi
    200 m Free (M)


    July 27 Day 11
    Preliminaries
    SESSION 7 09:30
    50 m Back (W)
    100 m Free (M)
    200 m Butterfly (W)
    200 m IM (M)

    Finals
    SESSION 8 18:00 - 20:00
    100 m Free (M) Semi
    50 m Back (W) Semi
    50 m Breast (M)
    200 m Free (W)
    200 m Butterfly (M)
    200 m Butterfly (W) Semi
    200 m IM (M) Semi
    800 m Free (M)

    July 28 Day 12
    Preliminaries
    SESSION 9 09:30
    100 m Free (W)
    200 m Back (M)
    200 m Breast (W)
    200 m Breast (M)
    4x200 m Free (W)

    Finals
    SESSION 10 18:00 - 20:10
    100 m Free (W) Semi
    200 m Breast (M) Semi
    50 m Back (W)
    100 m Free (M)
    200 m Butterfly (W)
    200 m Back (M) Semi
    200 m Breast (W) Semi
    200 m IM (M)
    4x200 m Free (W)

    July 29 Day 13

    Preliminaries
    SESSION 11 09:30
    50 m Butterfly (W)
    50 m Free (M)
    800 m Free (W)
    100 m Butterfly (M)
    200 m Back (W)
    4x200 m Free (M)

    Finals
    SESSION 12 18:00 - 20:10
    100 m Free (W)
    200 m Back (M)
    200 m Back (W) Semi
    50 m Free (M) Semi
    200 m Breast (W)
    100 m Butterfly (M) Semi
    50 m Butterfly (W) Semi
    200 m Breast (M)
    4x200 m Free (M)


    July 30 Day 14

    Preliminaries
    SESSION 13 09:30
    50 m Free (W)
    50 m Back (M)
    50 m Breast (W)
    1500 m Free (M)
    4x100 m Medley (W)

    Finals
    SESSION 14 18:00 - 20:10
    50 m Butterfly (W)
    50 m Free (M)
    200 m Back (W)
    100 m Butterfly (M)
    50 m Breast (W) Semi
    50 m Free (W) Semi
    50 m Back (M) Semi
    800 m Free (W)
    4x100 m Medley (W)

    July 31 Day 15
    Preliminaries
    SESSION 15 09:30
    400 m IM (M)
    400 m IM (W)
    4x100 m Medley (M)

    Finals
    SESSION 16 18:00 - 20:10
    50 m Back (M)
    50 m Breast (W)
    400 m IM (M)
    50 m Free (W)
    1500 m Free (M)
    400 m IM (W)
    4x100 m Medley (M)

    CLOSING CEREMONY
    Last edited by ande; July 25th, 2005 at 04:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Very Active Member Seagurl51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,640
    Does anybody know if any American broadcast companies are showing them? I remember reading in the other thread that the Canadian Broadcast Company is showing them, but it made no mention about like ESPN or FOX. Anybody know?

  3. #3
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    1,200
    On the FOX Sports Network website last week they had listed that they will provide coverage of the meet but they had not announced further details of the coverage. This week they announced that it will be covered on Fox College Sports TV, which is not the FOX network that provided the 1998 FINA World Championships. So if you don't have this as part of your cable package, you are out of luck unless you can pick up CBC.

    FOX College Sports will provide coverage starting Sunday, July 24, 2005 from 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM ET. It will be shown for the next 7 days at the same time everyday ending Sunday, July 31, 2005. The coverage is for aquatic sports, so the 16 hours has all of the other disciplines and swimming will be part of the coverage everyday. FOX College Sports has 3 regions and I am pretty sure it will be shown in all 3 regions.
    Skip Thompson

  4. #4
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Galesburg, IL
    Posts
    1,635
    Isn't NBC going to show highlights onthe 6th & 7th of August?

  5. #5
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    1,200
    Craiglll:

    NBC is showing Duel in the Pool, which is Team USA vs. Team Australia. It will be shown on August 6 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM ET and on August 7 from 1:00 to 2:30 PM ET. If you want to know more about the details of that meet go to the USA swimming site at www.usaswimming.org which has a link to this site also in the links section. It has a story about the meet, the type of events in dual meet format and the swimmers that will be swimming in the meet.
    Skip Thompson

  6. #6
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Galesburg, IL
    Posts
    1,635
    Thank you. I don't know where I got the idea that it was highlights for worlds.

    Does any one think that Duel in the Pool will be as exciting as worlds looks like it might be? I knid of thought that the Duel in the Pool in Indy didn't live up to all of the hype.

  7. #7
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    813
    There are financial incentives for athletes to break world records. And it's national pride.

    Coming right off worlds, there might be some good performances.

    But I expected more individual world records in Athens, so you never know how a meet will pan out. Just watch and enjoy.

  8. #8
    Very Active Member nkace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    101

    Thumbs up

    I am so glad to find out about this! Awesome!

  9. #9
    Very Active Member knelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,315
    Blog Entries
    537
    According to the CBC website they will have coverage Sunday afternoon, then weeknights from 7:00-8:00. Good news for those of us who get CBC!

  10. #10
    Very Active Member scyfreestyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    3,316
    The more I think about this event not being covered by a major network, the more it irks me. For crying out loud, the NCAA swimming championships were covered on ESPN. If NCAA is important then a WORLD championship sure as hell should be. It's hard to believe that people would rather watch a bunch of rerun amateur boxing matches on ESPN than the fastest swimmers in the world giving their all.

  11. #11
    Very Active Member Sam Perry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ.
    Posts
    647
    I hear you, but like it or not, they would show it if they could sell space. Ratings are all that matter, believe me if they thought they could get better ratings NOT showing boxing reruns or whatever they would.

    I think the only sport on the networks that is there in spite of bad ratings, is the WNBA. They show that b/c the NBA subsidizes the sport. Nothing against woman's basketball, I actually think women are better pure shooters than men for the most part.

    I guess if we could get some sort of major league to subsidize swimming we could get airtime.

  12. #12
    Very Active Member scyfreestyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    3,316
    Originally posted by Sam Perry
    I hear you, but like it or not, they would show it if they could sell space. Ratings are all that matter, believe me if they thought they could get better ratings NOT showing boxing reruns or whatever they would.

    I think the only sport on the networks that is there in spite of bad ratings, is the WNBA. They show that b/c the NBA subsidizes the sport. Nothing against woman's basketball, I actually think women are better pure shooters than men for the most part.

    I guess if we could get some sort of major league to subsidize swimming we could get airtime.
    You speak the truth Sam. I suppose I should look at it as belonging to some sort of rare sport that few people GET to watch and even fewer know how to do correctly. Matt

  13. #13
    Very Active Member Seagurl51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,640
    Just out of curiosity how many people here get either FSN Northwest or FSN Detriot? I know someone who works for the company and am always trying to tell him that swimming is a bigger market than he thinks. If enough people show enough support in it, I think we could get our sport covered more. Feel free to PM or e-mail with comments.

  14. #14
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    813
    I remember the 1991 World Championships being shown on network TV. It was pretty much the whole meet crammed into two hours, but still worth it.

    With the huge mass appeal of Michael Phelps and Natalie Coughlin, airing worlds on a network would be a no-brainer. But oh well.

  15. #15
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    1,200
    I agree with what everyone is saying and I will add some more information as to why I don't think a major network is providing the World Championships. ESPN and ESPN2 were very successful in carrying the 2003 Championships from Spain and they had at least 12 hours of aquatic coverage. Rumor has it that they had a contract for this meet but it was cancelled when FINA pulled the Montreal bid and for a while the meet was uncertain as to where it was going to be, if it would be held at all. Cities like Athens, Berlin, and Moscow were interested and were going to put bids together for the meet.

    Then some strange things happen like the head organizer for Montreal was found dead of an apparent sucide and then a couple of weeks later FINA announced that the meet was going back to Montreal and the financial woes have apppartently been straigthten out. Because of this uncertainty, I am convinced that the major networks did not want to get caught holding the bag so to speak, so none of them bid on the meet.

    FOX Sports announced on there website that they would carry the meet but were very vague until this week when they announced that College Sports Net would provide the coverage.
    In 2001, when the championships were in Japan, I don't believe there was any coverage, even tape delay. The 1998 Perth and 1994 Rome Championships were covered tape delay.

    Swimming has been very succesful in the last 2 years and I really feel that if the meet was not originally dropped by FINA, you would have the same coverage that was provided by Spain in 2003. I am lucky because I can pick up CBC real well. Also today my cable company was having a special to add stations and for $4.95 per month I get all these sports stations including FOX College Sports Net. I am in the Eastern division which is one of the 3 regions they will show the coverage. I plan on watching and taping both coverages as I have done in the past.
    Skip Thompson

  16. #16
    Very Active Member Matt S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Gurnee, IL
    Posts
    597

    Other Agendas

    My own, personal conspiracy (sort of) theory: TV airs programming that it expects to generate revenue, BUT network decisions influence what we think we want to see.

    Put another way, if networks are willing to put a lot of hype, publicity, and broadcasting production into covering an event, more people will watch it. So, what events will they choose to back with these kinds of resources? The ones that the executives believe will benefit the most from publicity and/or ones that will generate advertising revenue. Because American football is so popular with such a large percentage of the population, it pays more to flak relentlessly for a lousy, meaningless exhibition game than it does for the most compelling synchronized swimming competition in the history of the sport. However, because executives are human beings and not omniscient, often times their judgments will be unimaginative, risk-adverse, appealing to the crassest lowest common denominator, or simply ignorant to the opportunities of an off-beat sport.

    How many times have you channel-surfed past ESPN2, and seen yet another replay of some idiotic "World's Strongest Man" competition. Oh yes, I want to watch Olaf Larson carry a small Nordic village on his back for a 100m, one more time. Does ANYONE actually watch this drivel? Ever? Wouldn't seeing it one less time, and instead watching FINA World Championships, with recognizable U.S. stars like Michael Phelps in the competition, make some sense? So, how does this make any sense from any perspective? Well, assume some guy who knows this stuff has shown before, and figures advertisers are used to it and will pony up some minimal dollars to run it, and he couldn't tell the difference between FINA Worlds, and the local YMCA region championships and suddenly it makes sense.

    So, I read alot of apologia from various folks about how TV networks follow the money, and we have to build up the fan base for swimming so there will be more money in it for advertisers, yada, yada, yada. This is all true to a certain extent. However, there are factors other than sheer fan base that go into these kinds of decisions, and they tend to create inertia for seeing more of precisely what we have seen in the past, regardless of how dreary or tiresome it has become.

    Also, I think Skip has made a very valid point about FINA scaring away networks and advertisers with the off-again, on-again championship meet. Given the possibilities for building on the Athens Olympic swimming competition, this has to go down as a major lost opportunity.

    Matt

  17. #17
    Very Active Member Peter Cruise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    1,967

    Lightbulb

    Judging by the last Olympic coverage, if Amanda Beard were competing NBC would be covering the story "from all possible angles" "blanket coverage" "more as this story unfolds" "up close and personal"....

  18. #18
    Very Active Member aquageek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,624
    Blog Entries
    588
    There is one factor and one factor only driving what to put on TV - money. Let me say it again - money. The CBC is different given the 93% tax rate they have up there that subsidizes everything.

    If swimming, not a new sport, was interesting and appealing to the masses, it would have long, long ago been a major televised sport. Swim meets are boring, even as a participant. The sport is hard pressed to meet a logical TV format. 2 minutes of swimming, 3 minutes of waiting, 2 minutes of swimming, etc. All you want to see, for the most part, unless you are an avid swimmer like we are, is the final heat. That leavs hours of boredom where the stars do merely enough to advance.

    And, let's compare this Worlds Strongest Man rerun argument. The production costs for that are basically zero. Pop in the tape, you are done. Televising a major sporting event is expensive. Let's say it costs $1m to televise the swimming championships. You have to then sell ad space to support that. Swimming doesn't generate revenue cause no one watches it. So, it's a losing proposition.

  19. #19
    Very Active Member Matt S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Gurnee, IL
    Posts
    597

    Violently Agreeing?

    Aquageek,

    I think we may be in violent agreement. Let's review the salient points:

    1) TV is about making money. Oh yes, I am 100% in agreement with you on that one. I also happen to believe that sometimes networks make choices out of ignorance because they don't know every sport as well as its fans know it, and they take a pass on opportunities.

    2) Swimming is a boring spectator sport; the production required to make it interesting takes work and money. I'm down with you on this point too. The one quibble I have is that you seem to think FINA and US Swimming have sole responsibility to sex up the meets and make them more spectator friendly, and only then will TV come. I happen to believe that TV coverage can take a swim meet as it is currently run, and with good editing and commentary, make it compelling TV viewing. I believe this because they do so, every 4 years, for the Olympic competition. The lost opportunity is that the networks don't see and/or choose not to make other meets into media events. But, this is where your point is very well taken. Why should they when FINA and US Swimming won't do anything to liven things up? You or I could explain to a TV network exec why the FINA World Championships are not just another meet, and describe to them the opportunities, but you or I are not going to get five minutes with a TV network exec.

    3) Rerunning a tape of the World's Strongest Man has zero production cost. OOPS, you got me. I had not observed closely enough to tell that these were reruns of a finite number of competitions. However, this is true for rerunning a tape that already exists for ANY athletic competition. The production value is decidedly NOT zero when you make the tape for the first time it will run. So, why was this drivel so much more compelling the first time around?

    Back to my original point. TV can create demand for the sporting events it choses to televise. So, the question is why do they chose to create demand for some sports, and not others? An existing fan base is a big factor (hence the reason why basketball is seen more than water polo, despite the fact they have about the same level of watchability, because hey, they are practically the same dang sport). In some other "new" sports, like bikini beach volleyball, the initial hook is obvious.

    The difference between our opinions is small. Does it matter? I think it does in this respect. You think TV will never come if we do anything the way we have done it in the past, and we have to change everything to get them to notice. I think we are closer to being a money making proposition for them than you think. With a few strategically selected changes, and a little effective advocacy to point out the opportunities, I think they will come.

    Matt

  20. #20
    Distance Man tjrpatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Delaware Valley(Philly), PA
    Posts
    1,793
    Blog Entries
    1445
    I am so annoyed that Fox sports is covering and not ESPN. I don't get the Fox college Sports on my cable. I think that it is extra for that and my bill is high enough as it is. Oh well. What was ESPN 2 thinking. I am sure that they can make more money off Worlds than softball or whatever they will have on.

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •