There has been "blanket coverage" of the Commonwealths for years. Nothing new this time.
As for them meaning nothing to countries outside of the Commonwealth, well of course not as they cannot compete. That's like saying the European Athletics Championship means nothing to countries outside of Europe.
As an international sporting event, I'd put the CG third behind the Olympics and World Cup.
I would put the Pan America Games, Winter Olympic, European Championship Soccer and Asian Games as possibly third largest sports event, depending on the basis you measure Cricket World Cup or Rugby Union World Cup are high on the list.
In multi sports events I would rank
Olympic Games
Winter Olympics
Asian Games (think China AND India)
I would put the Pan America Games, Winter Olympic, European Championship Soccer and Asian Games as possibly third largest sports event, depending on the basis you measure Cricket World Cup or Rugby Union World Cup are high on the list.
Fair point. I wasn't using any objective measure. It just annoys me that some people belittle the Commonwealth Games as an insignificant and unimportant event.
Anyway, the cricket and rugby world cups are predominately Commonwealth events.
I think you will find that the European championships are of far more interest to people outside Europe than the CG is outside the Commonwealth. Or do you believe that nobody outside Europe watches European football, or nobody outside England watches English football. This is about having world class athletes, and the CG does not rate that highly with most athletes.
The Americans are notorious for not even being interested in Olympic events if there are no Americans taking part or likely to win Gold so it is hardly a surprise if they don't watch the Commonwealth Games and probably don't watch the European championships.
Because with the Germans, French, Russian, Americans, Italians, and Chinese not taking part, the UK stands a chance of winning more medals than in the OIympics.
Next year the Germans, French, Russians, Italians and Spanish will be taking on GB&NI in the Euro Games, lucky them.
The Americans are notorious for not even being interested in Olympic events if there are no Americans taking part or likely to win Gold so it is hardly a surprise if they don't watch the Commonwealth Games and probably don't watch the European championships.
CBS Sports Network has two hours highlights every day of the games.
Will BT or Sky have the Pan American games next year? Or we not interested as it does not involve us Brits?
Agreed - pandering to ratings and to unrepresentative online forums/social media to the extent of keeping such a soap on BBC one at the expense of a multi-discipline/multi-interest event such as the CG could be classed as the ultimate in dumbing down or the complete opposite of what a PSB should be doing
The CG is NOT a major event for crying out loud! It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again. Even the English cities can't be bothered to bid for it anymore. And no, showing regular programming on BBC1 in peak time would not be considered by anyone other than yourself and a few staunch BBC supporters as dumbing down. It would be seen as catering for the majority because the CG would still be shown.
And, for you and others who say "the BBC has four channels so there should be something to watch" are missing the point. BBC1 caters to an audience who like its programming. BBC2, 3 and 4 cater for different audiences. It's about balance. It is not fair for those who like BBC1 to be expected to put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them on other channels. It's not about perspective either. It's about having an opinion on a TV discussion forum.
CBS Sports Network has two hours highlights every day of the games.
Will BT or Sky have the Pan American games next year? Or we not interested as it does not involve us Brits?
Of course the Brits won't be interested. And why should they be? The Americans don't give a damn about the CG btw. A lot of them don't even know what they are!
The CG is NOT a major event for crying out loud! It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again. Even the English cities can't be bothered to bid for it anymore. And no, showing regular programming on BBC1 in peak time would not be considered by anyone other than yourself and a few staunch BBC supporters as dumbing down. It would be seen as catering for the majority because the CG would still be shown.
And, for you and others who say "the BBC has four channels so there should be something to watch" are missing the point. BBC1 caters to an audience who like its programming. BBC2, 3 and 4 cater for different audiences. It's about balance. It is not fair for those who like BBC1 to be expected to put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them on other channels. It's not about perspective either. It's about having an opinion on a TV discussion forum.
On that basis, only the Olympics should be shown on TV.
Someone mentioned the Asian Games, I can't remember that ever being televised on mainstream channels. India and China were mentioned but India does not have a great record in most athletic events so presume it is dominated by China.
Can we also get rid of all football on TV and just have the World Cup every four years as it seems nothing else is significant?
On that basis, only the Olympics should be shown on TV.
Someone mentioned the Asian Games, I can't remember that ever being televised on mainstream channels. India and China were mentioned but India does not have a great record in most athletic events so presume it is dominated by China.
Can we also get rid of all football on TV and just have the World Cup every four years as it seems nothing else is significant?
lol sky would love that they could share ALL the football except the World Cup with BT!
The CG is NOT a major event for crying out loud! It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again. Even the English cities can't be bothered to bid for it any more.
Watch your blood pressure - it's only telly. As for bidding, check your facts first - it comes down to two words: cost and politics, as well as choosing your year carefully:
Cardiff
Cardiff was previously interested in bidding for the 2022 games, with some events to be held in Newport and Swansea, however Cardiff City Council announced they are instead in discussions for a bid for the 2026 games.
Birmingham
The Birmingham Post reported in 2009 that Birmingham was considering a bid for the 2022 or 2026 Commonwealth Games, but in September 2013 the city council ceased pursuing to host the games, citing a lack of funds to do so.
Bristol
Bristol Mayor candidate Marvin Rees pledged to bid for either the 2022 or 2026 Games if elected in the Bristol mayoral election, 2012. Bristol's two professional football sides Bristol City and Bristol Rovers backed the proposal, with both sides proposed stadiums (Bristol City Stadium and UWE Stadium) expected to be part of the bid. Bristol Rugby have also endorsed the bid. However Rees lost the election to independent George Ferguson
London
The BBC reported on 18 March 2013 that London is considering a bid for the 2022 Commonwealth Games, on the back of its hosting the 2012 Summer Olympics. However, in October later that year there were doubts over whether the bid would continue to go ahead. Mayor of London Boris Johnson expressed concerns that the city would not be able to afford the estimated £1 billion budget. In the same timeline the city will also be hosting the 2017 World Championships in Athletics and the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
And no, showing regular programming on BBC1 in peak time would not be considered by anyone other than yourself and a few staunch BBC supporters as dumbing down.
Erm, my comment was aimed purely at Eastenders , which had been the subject of the posts (driven by Mark. posting "Anyone who is "annoyed" by a soap opera changing channels for a few days really needs to get a sense of perspective."), not "regular programming" (which would, I assume, encompass ALL programming on BBC one).
And, for you and others who say "the BBC has four channels so there should be something to watch" are missing the point. BBC1 caters to an audience who like its programming. BBC2, 3 and 4 cater for different audiences. It's about balance. It is not fair for those who like BBC1 to be expected to put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them on other channels. It's not about perspective either. It's about having an opinion on a TV discussion forum.
I think that this has been mentioned already, but I am pretty sure that much of the popular BBC one programming such as Eastenders and Holby City will transfer across to BBC Two. Even Songs of Praise is there. So there shouldn't be much of an issue with having to "put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them".
A number of other programmes such as Celebrity Masterchef and The One Show (which always goes on a summer break to be replaced by a series of highlights programmes) have reached the end of their run, and some programmes were only two or three episodes anyway, they were slotted into to the schedule as filler, so there would be likely to be a break in new programming anyway (replaced by some low-budget repeats or throwaway filler material no doubt, as normally happens)
The CG is NOT a major event for crying out loud! It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again.
And isn't the reason for many "non first world" countries not bidding is simply down to cost (even more so as they are less likely to have the funding available anyway)?
And isn't the reason for many "non first world" countries not bidding is simply down to cost (even more so as they are less likely to have the funding available anyway)?
That is indeed the case. The CG organisers are considering reducing the amount of sports events and the length of time the Games go on for in order to attract bids from "non-first world" countries. (A phrase used by the CG Organising committe themselves). They are concerned that it seems to alternate now between Canada, the UK, Australia and richer nations like Malaysia. The future of the CG is itself questionable if other Commonwealth countries are reluctant to bid. The fact that in 2022 it is virtually obvious that an African country will host it for the first time in its history says a lot about the CG and its escalating costs of recent years.
That is indeed the case. The CG organisers are considering reducing the amount of sports events and the length of time the Games go on for in order to attract bids from "non-first world" countries. (A phrase used by the CG Organising committe themselves). They are concerned that it seems to alternate now between Canada, the UK, Australia and richer nations like Malaysia. The future of the CG is itself questionable if other Commonwealth countries are reluctant to bid. The fact that in 2022 it is virtually obvious that an African country will host it for the first time in its history says a lot about the CG and its escalating costs of recent years.
So it's nothing to do with it having to be "less hyped" then (to use your words). Nor is it anything to do with a lack of interest in the Games per se.
Easy to answer, there's a vote in Scotland coming up.
THANK YOU!!!!
I have not ever had an issue with the CG being covered. But never before has it been as hyped up and made out to be bigger than it is. The BBC are severely orgasmic over it. It's like they have put Scotland upon their lap and are stroking its tummy! The CG is worthy enough to be shown and followed, but we should not have to endure the BBC's OTT gushing, swooning and glorification of it just because it's in Scotland. Even the Commonwealth Wonders documentary on Sunday focused on the UK but went to - surprise surprise, Scotland! Everything is Scotland this, Scotland that. The CG are suddenly going to be "the biggest and best ever!" which is insulting to those countries who are due to host and have hosted. London's Olympics weren't described as the "best ever". They were described as "among the most commercially successful" of all time, which is how it should be. I have nothing against Scotland by the way. I very much hope it remains part of the UK, it is in an incredibly beautiful country. I just think the way the BBC are acting towards it is embarrassing.
So it's nothing to do with it having to be "less hyped" then (to use your words). Nor is it anything to do with a lack of interest in the Games per se.
The BBC are the ones guilty of the hype. Before, the CG were celebrated as a chance for the Commonwealth to unite. They regarded it as just that. This time around it's almost as if the BBC are acting like it's The Olympics and it's a much bigger affair than it really is.
It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again.
So maybe the CG powers that be need to have a word with the likes of the BBC then?
Or maybe they are more than happy as things stand, and what you posted there was merely a personal opinion?
It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again.
So maybe the CG powers that be need to have a word with the likes of the BBC then?
Or maybe they are more than happy as things stand, and what you posted there was merely a personal opinion?
No It isn't a personal opinion. The info is widely available throughout the cyberspace!. Perhaps "less hyped" was a wrong choice of wording. They (the CG executives) believe the Games need to go back to its core value and roots, which is in effect a simpler affair. Hyping it up the way the media (particularly the BBC) are is making it less accessible for poorer countries because expectations and therefore costs will be higher.
Lots of tin foil hat theories on this thread about why its getting blanket coverage, anyone who actually thinks it has anything to do with the independence vote needs their head examining.
Lots of tin foil hat theories on this thread about why its getting blanket coverage, anyone who actually thinks it has anything to do with the independence vote needs their head examining.
Or, maybe the propoganda of life and politics have made some of us cynical?
Fair point. I wasn't using any objective measure. It just annoys me that some people belittle the Commonwealth Games as an insignificant and unimportant event.
Anyway, the cricket and rugby world cups are predominately Commonwealth events.
Depends how one measures it. Just about every sport's world cups have the best international teams in that sport participating. The Commonwealth games doesn't, it's just a selection of teams which in 2014 is almost arbitrary, and even those teams don't have many of their best competitors entering. No one in continental Europe cares, no one in the US, Japan, China, Russia, S. America, etc.
From a global sporting persective, it's borderline meaningless.
No It isn't a personal opinion. The info is widely available throughout the cyberspace!. Perhaps "less hyped" was a wrong choice of wording. They (the CG executives) believe the Games need to go back to its core value and roots, which is in effect a simpler affair.
Ah, yes, "less hyped" was indeed totally the wrong choice of wording - "returning to basics" or "going back to basics" would have been far better and would have conveyed the correct meaning.
Hyping it up the way the media (particularly the BBC) are is making it less accessible for poorer countries because expectations and therefore costs will be higher.
The only things that seem to have a bearing on cost is the grandiose (and sometimes purpose-built) arenas and sports villages, the aspirational plans to be better than what has gone before in terms of Games presentation by the host nation, and the Opening/Closing ceremonies. The broadcasters have little to do with that.
I simply do not accept that how the BBC promotes its coverage to its UK viewers has any major effect on those costs, or the plans of any prospective promoters. If anything, the broadcasters will be following the host nation agenda and promotion rather than setting it.
Comments
I would put the Pan America Games, Winter Olympic, European Championship Soccer and Asian Games as possibly third largest sports event, depending on the basis you measure Cricket World Cup or Rugby Union World Cup are high on the list.
In multi sports events I would rank
Olympic Games
Winter Olympics
Asian Games (think China AND India)
Fair point. I wasn't using any objective measure. It just annoys me that some people belittle the Commonwealth Games as an insignificant and unimportant event.
Anyway, the cricket and rugby world cups are predominately Commonwealth events.
The Americans are notorious for not even being interested in Olympic events if there are no Americans taking part or likely to win Gold so it is hardly a surprise if they don't watch the Commonwealth Games and probably don't watch the European championships.
Next year the Germans, French, Russians, Italians and Spanish will be taking on GB&NI in the Euro Games, lucky them.
Can't similar be said for the 220 (?) in the Olympics.
CBS Sports Network has two hours highlights every day of the games.
Will BT or Sky have the Pan American games next year? Or we not interested as it does not involve us Brits?
The CG is NOT a major event for crying out loud! It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again. Even the English cities can't be bothered to bid for it anymore. And no, showing regular programming on BBC1 in peak time would not be considered by anyone other than yourself and a few staunch BBC supporters as dumbing down. It would be seen as catering for the majority because the CG would still be shown.
And, for you and others who say "the BBC has four channels so there should be something to watch" are missing the point. BBC1 caters to an audience who like its programming. BBC2, 3 and 4 cater for different audiences. It's about balance. It is not fair for those who like BBC1 to be expected to put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them on other channels. It's not about perspective either. It's about having an opinion on a TV discussion forum.
Of course the Brits won't be interested. And why should they be? The Americans don't give a damn about the CG btw. A lot of them don't even know what they are!
On that basis, only the Olympics should be shown on TV.
Someone mentioned the Asian Games, I can't remember that ever being televised on mainstream channels. India and China were mentioned but India does not have a great record in most athletic events so presume it is dominated by China.
Can we also get rid of all football on TV and just have the World Cup every four years as it seems nothing else is significant?
lol sky would love that they could share ALL the football except the World Cup with BT!
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Commonwealth_Games
Erm, my comment was aimed purely at Eastenders , which had been the subject of the posts (driven by Mark. posting "Anyone who is "annoyed" by a soap opera changing channels for a few days really needs to get a sense of perspective."), not "regular programming" (which would, I assume, encompass ALL programming on BBC one).
I think that this has been mentioned already, but I am pretty sure that much of the popular BBC one programming such as Eastenders and Holby City will transfer across to BBC Two. Even Songs of Praise is there. So there shouldn't be much of an issue with having to "put up with programming that doesn't appeal to them".
A number of other programmes such as Celebrity Masterchef and The One Show (which always goes on a summer break to be replaced by a series of highlights programmes) have reached the end of their run, and some programmes were only two or three episodes anyway, they were slotted into to the schedule as filler, so there would be likely to be a break in new programming anyway (replaced by some low-budget repeats or throwaway filler material no doubt, as normally happens)
"Non-first world"? Does that include Scotland?
That is indeed the case. The CG organisers are considering reducing the amount of sports events and the length of time the Games go on for in order to attract bids from "non-first world" countries. (A phrase used by the CG Organising committe themselves). They are concerned that it seems to alternate now between Canada, the UK, Australia and richer nations like Malaysia. The future of the CG is itself questionable if other Commonwealth countries are reluctant to bid. The fact that in 2022 it is virtually obvious that an African country will host it for the first time in its history says a lot about the CG and its escalating costs of recent years.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/hosting-the-commonwealth-games-may-soon-become-more-trouble-than-its-worth.23993277
THANK YOU!!!!
I have not ever had an issue with the CG being covered. But never before has it been as hyped up and made out to be bigger than it is. The BBC are severely orgasmic over it. It's like they have put Scotland upon their lap and are stroking its tummy! The CG is worthy enough to be shown and followed, but we should not have to endure the BBC's OTT gushing, swooning and glorification of it just because it's in Scotland. Even the Commonwealth Wonders documentary on Sunday focused on the UK but went to - surprise surprise, Scotland! Everything is Scotland this, Scotland that. The CG are suddenly going to be "the biggest and best ever!" which is insulting to those countries who are due to host and have hosted. London's Olympics weren't described as the "best ever". They were described as "among the most commercially successful" of all time, which is how it should be. I have nothing against Scotland by the way. I very much hope it remains part of the UK, it is in an incredibly beautiful country. I just think the way the BBC are acting towards it is embarrassing.
The BBC are the ones guilty of the hype. Before, the CG were celebrated as a chance for the Commonwealth to unite. They regarded it as just that. This time around it's almost as if the BBC are acting like it's The Olympics and it's a much bigger affair than it really is.
It is a piss poor Olympic imitation that even recognises itself that it has to get smaller and less hyped so that non-first world countries can start bidding to host it again.
So maybe the CG powers that be need to have a word with the likes of the BBC then?
Or maybe they are more than happy as things stand, and what you posted there was merely a personal opinion?
No It isn't a personal opinion. The info is widely available throughout the cyberspace!. Perhaps "less hyped" was a wrong choice of wording. They (the CG executives) believe the Games need to go back to its core value and roots, which is in effect a simpler affair. Hyping it up the way the media (particularly the BBC) are is making it less accessible for poorer countries because expectations and therefore costs will be higher.
Or, maybe the propoganda of life and politics have made some of us cynical?
Depends how one measures it. Just about every sport's world cups have the best international teams in that sport participating. The Commonwealth games doesn't, it's just a selection of teams which in 2014 is almost arbitrary, and even those teams don't have many of their best competitors entering. No one in continental Europe cares, no one in the US, Japan, China, Russia, S. America, etc.
From a global sporting persective, it's borderline meaningless.
The only things that seem to have a bearing on cost is the grandiose (and sometimes purpose-built) arenas and sports villages, the aspirational plans to be better than what has gone before in terms of Games presentation by the host nation, and the Opening/Closing ceremonies. The broadcasters have little to do with that.
I simply do not accept that how the BBC promotes its coverage to its UK viewers has any major effect on those costs, or the plans of any prospective promoters. If anything, the broadcasters will be following the host nation agenda and promotion rather than setting it.