Is TV coverage too good ?

I went to the truck race last night. It was a mighty fine race. One of the best I've seen in years. With a "last lap" pass for a win. No phantom "debris" yellows. Just apleasurableevent. Then I came home.

Turned on the TV to catch the news, but the TV was already on Speed Channel and the race I'd been attending was being replayed. Of course, we started watching.

Now, this isn't a discussion on the personalities in the booth, or on pit road. Those topics are for other discussions by lovers / haters of the personalities the networks provide us. This discussion is about the TV technology that brings the race to us. On the replay I saw numerous things that I did not see during the actual eye witnessing of the event. Camera angles and long lenses give the TV viewer amazing close-ups of the action. Slow motion replays give the viewer multiple perspectives of happenings on the track, and so on.

The thought came to mind that sitting on my couch watching the replay was better than actually being there at the track, in as much as seeing the stuff on TV was allowing me to view things that I'd not seen during the actual race. Then again, sitting on the couch did not provide adequate sights, sounds and smells that only personally attending a race can provide. Plus, the inordinate amount of commercials the networks run give the viewer only about eighteen minutes of action for every hour of viewing. But - the discussion that progressed as we watched the replay turned toward the possibility that a big reason for the decline in race attendance might have something to do with the excellent views and close-up replays that today's TV technology can provide.

The question is, has the coverage gotten so good that it is cutting in to attendance ? Do people stay home and watch because they see more on the tube than they could hope to see by being there in person ?

What are everyone's thoughts about this ?

updated by @steve-struve: 12/05/16 04:04:08PM

Steve, while I no longer attend races in person due mostly to costs involved these days, I have to say that watching on television cannot compare to being there, as I'm sure you agree. While we see things on television we may have missed at the track, the sounds and smells of being there can't be replaced in the recliner or on the couch. While I will always regret that circumstances have delegated me to the recliner instead of the track, I sort of look at the technology of television with a jaded opinion. I still think Ken Squier calling the 1979 Daytona 500 last lap and Ned Jarrett calling his son home in the 500 as the BEST of television sports. The new camera angles, too many talking heads, and race buddies and rhodents do nothing for me. Nice post and I really appreciate you putting it here for consideration.

--
What a change! It's been awhile since I've checked in and I'm quite surprised. It may take me awhile to figure it our but first look it's really great.

Ratings. Very good point. Hadn't considered that. And truthfully, I enjoyed the "track time" again. Like Tim's reply, my personal appearances at "big" events are also limited, so when I do get the chance to attend, it's usually fantastic.

Like most of us, I grew up on short tracks and local weekend shows, and I still do enjoy those. One of the big things I had to learn when I moved west is that it's at least a five hour drive to anywhere. That makes going to a short track, other than your local one, a real journey. Wasn't that way back in Ohio or in the Carolina's - we had several choices every Friday orSaturdaynight. I miss that, for sure.

Side note - Isn't this a great place for everyone to discuss our sport ? I am so glad I stumbled upon this site a few years back. There is realintelligencehere - not like those Face Book & Twitter thingies whose real purpose is to flood your inbox with advertisement. Thanks, all.

Steve, there is no doubt that watching telecasts in the haze and smog and trying to pick out cars during the live telecasts from the old Ontario track are from a different technological age than the multiple camera shots I saw today of Matt Kenseth's truck arm problems at Dover and the accompanying aftermath.

I've never seen a race on television that I enjoyed more than one live at the track, however I'm in Tim's camp as far as the recliner, unfortunately. I don't miss the high ticket prices or the race traffic or the sunburn or freezer burn.

I do miss many other things. Perhaps today's product is inferior or perhaps age has tarnished my memory of how great I thought some of the things in my youth actually were.

Today, as I counted how many laps down Danica was each time she was passed by the leaders, I was forced to pinch myself and remember how far back Jody Ridley was in the Donlavey #90 at Dover when leader Cale expired and Jody won. I also had to remember races when Richard had a multiple lap lead at the end and only 25% or less of the field finished.

I do think I have some selective memories of how wonderful things were. However, I do believe that back in the day more drivers were recognized by a single name or nickname than today's vanilla TV bunch. Personally, I could use a little more drama and fireworks. I want to hear a driver call another a weenie and mean it.

--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

And they all answered, "AMEN!"

--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

The owners of ballparks and football stadiums have made the same argument, but they seem to do OK. I think the new baseball stadiums have fewer seats and the football ones are becoming larger. Racing on TV is at a disadvantage because you can't cover everything happening on the track. Stick & ball sports usually have concentrated pockets that the cameras can follow. So the argument that TV is detrimental to attendance is weaker for racing.What I find odd about seating at modern sports events is that more effort is being devoted to suites that are isolated from the noise and smells and farther from the action than the cheap seats. I don't know what these suites are an indicator of, but I think they're their to lubricate business. Much like the golf course, people don't care as less for the game than the opportunity to wheel and deal.My theory is this. Racing used to be concentrated in the South. Several tracks were within an hour's drive. People were more connected to the sport because they could attend more events, and because there was competition between tracks, you didn't have the levels of extortion that exist today by local businesses. As time went on, the races spread out across the country. People in more areas could see big NASCAR races, but only once or twice a year.

You hit on the advantage to attending versus TV...for me. A big one is the smell. I wasprivilegedonce to acquire suite tickets at Bristol...only to leave the suite and stand outside so I could get the "complete" experience.

I do enjoy watching a replay of a race I've seen in person just to see all things I missed at the track.

Great discussion topic!

--
Founder/Creator - RacersReunion®

At Talladega in the 80s, I had a Wrangler VIP Suite at the exit of pit road, just before turn 1. After the green flag, I always marched our 80 or so suite guests down to the fence, so they feel their clothes getting sucked off as the cars came by in the draft on lap two. No way to experience that in a suite.

--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"