Slightly off topic. If NHRA did not own the production with ESPN, will they have access to video? I would presume rebroadcast rights were included in the contract, but would be weird not to have flashbacks to last years event on the coverage.
For you sensitive fanboy types, stop reading now, lest your precious values are molested by my words and thoughts.
I understand that you like flashbacks. That's cool. You should be a very sated cowboy after years and years of it from ESPN. I believe though ABC/ESPN houses most of the footage of NHRA, the NHRA is free to use the archives as it is their sanctioning body and their racing, and it is the NHRA who licensed ESPN to show their sport in this latter era. The old Wide World of Sports is probably ABC/ESPN property, but again, if they were on the ball, the execs would have signed a contract saying they can use the images. If (unbelievably) that's not true, then chalk up another terrible business choice made by NHRA and it's incredible execs.
Actually, staying in the moment is what I want personally. I hated the frequency of flashbacks ESPN used.
Last weeks winners, two weeks previous winners, three weeks previous winners, last year's winners, 3 years ago winners....
ugh.
I'm all for showing true special moments in the sport, but replaying previous races and weeks and years past just because you have nothing to say is a
lazy media tool. All those flashbacks were useless to me, and to most anyone else. You either know the history, or you don't. You're either interested, or not. For those interested, there's many many ways to learn the history without having it spoon fed to viewers.
Basic Statistics.
Winning last year at (insert track here) has zero bearing on whether you win at (insert track here) this year. That's a fact. Running statistical analysis on something provides a measured correlation, but it's not always relevant to an outcome. Statistics rely on science, and science relies on experiments that prove a theory. Experiments run a matrix, changing each and every variable and measuring it's effect on the whole. Then, and only then can a statistic prove it's correct, or just a coincidence. Like the statistic that 100% of people that breathe air will eventually die. It's a true statement, there's a correlation, but it's hardly relevant to making a prediction.
I personally hope Fox, unlike ESPN, gives all that statistics junk a rest for once, and gets back to the business of televising a race.
I understand ESPN thought they would connect with all the stick and ball people if they crammed racing into a statistics based program much like ERA's RBI's etc. They were wrong.
When you become so enamored with statistics that you speak about them
while the two cars are roaring down the track, you need an intervention man.
I'm not speaking of the obligatory ET MPH and Reaction Time stats, that's a given. I speak of all the other useless stuff. Hey, it's interesting if these two racers head to head are lopsided...0-14. But letting us know that these two on the track are 3 and 7 in second round appearances, 5 and 11 in first round appearances, that Buddy Ray used to be married to Jimmy's Half Brother, and that two years ago, they met in a final round at a race that will happen in three weeks. Seriously. Give it a break.
Since most the ESPN crew is the new Fox crew, I don't have much faith that they will adopt the
Steve Evans/Dave McClelland school of drag racing video coverage. Let the cars tell the stories, know the sport, ask relevant questions, stand back and enjoy the race with the crowd.
Too many plate spinners and not enough Rolling Stones will kill your show.