I'd be interested in what kind of eSports game is condusive to VR spectating.
I tried doing Dota spectating before, and rigged up a mod for Minecraft vlogging/spectating, and concluded it wasn't quite like being at a stadium, or watching it on Twitch in a way that was interesting.
I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv. Baseball is one for radio: baseball is almost always better over radio; there’s lots of space to do something else at the pace of most baseball games.
Lots of Olympic events seem well suited to the format. BMX racing, freestyle skiing, luge/skeleton, and a variety of track and field events all have runs that last for less than a couple of minutes. Not sure if there’s anything comparable in the realm of professional sports besides highlights
That's actually an interesting question. Table tennis, maybe? Each volley is the right length for a TikTok video, and some of them (certainly not all) have spectacular long-distance lob+smash plays.
Seems like it plays well with vertical video orientation too.
that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha.
football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. it's not dead, but where growth is measured, it is not good. the cultural thing this guy is talking about in the article, it's going away. fewer and fewer people every year value the aesthetic experience he is describing.
TV ownership? trending down. they've never been cheaper for a reason. trend for TV production since peak TV? down.
football as a gambling product? up. okay, do you see what i mean by bad growth? football mediated as betting stats on apps? up. draftkings, polymarket, ESPN fantasy app ARPPU? up. ESPN streaming app ARPU? down. comcast? hated, down, everyone is cheering for it to go down. do you see?
there is no way to talk about specific instances of football (and stadium sports') cultural weaknesses without sounding really cringe. maybe just, "who cares?"
Do you have sales or survey data to support this claim? I’m willing to believe individual households might be less likely to purchase TVs, but my understanding is that manufacturers are producing as many or even more screens than ever, though that might be for commercial or business use. Incidentally, it’s efficiency from this scale that allows manufacturers to sell televisions at such low prices, not a lack of demand.
Interesting, and I have also finished live football games thinking it would have been better to just watch it on TV at home.
However, his claim that a spectator would "automatically reframe what she saw into the way it would appear on television" is never supported other than him saying "trust me, it's true, if you don't believe me you are in the minority".
Whenever I think it might be worth it to finally go watch an NFL game live, and I start looking at those ticket prices, I start to question if it's worth it or not. Then I get to the seat view simulator and instantly close the tab because holy hell are the "affordable" NFL seats absolutely terrible to watch a game from. Can you even see the player numbers let alone the names? I guess you need to be a big enough fan to know all the players by number on offense, defense, special teams, and the full depth chart for every position in case there are injuries.
Nah. A one time purchase of a 77" TV with surround sound was absolutely the better option.
I went to go see a Broncos game once about 10 years ago, it was $400 for a single ticket. I was in the top section, 3 rows from the back, I needed a Sherpa to help me get to my seat. I could tell there was a game of football being played down below me, but that was about it. I couldn't see the ball, I couldn't read any of the players' numbers, I couldn't see the refs hand signals. A beer and a hotdog was $30, and there was a 10-minute wait for the trough urinal in the bathroom. I was just watching the game on the jumbotron, which based on the distance was comparatively smaller than the TV in my living room.
The atmosphere was great, cheering with 75,000 other fans is exhilarating, but I haven't felt the need to go again. Soccer, hockey, basketball, baseball, I've all been to multiple times, the Denver stadiums for them are great, and the tickets and concessions aren't too expensive. Football is the only sport I really follow, but I'll never go to another game. The local high school is within walking distance, and a ticket is $5.
>During the college football playoffs, ESPN’s family of networks will sometimes show the same game on multiple channels, with one channel broadcasting the whole affair from the Skycam camera. This is a remote camera hovering above and behind the line of scrimmage, replicating the perspective one sees in a video game. Coaches call this the “All‑22” view, because all 22 players on the field are simultaneously observable.
We watched some games last year on the all-22 (because it was the only way we could watch it on ESPN+).
You definitely lose a lot by not having the close-ups, the slow motion replay, etc. That said, you actually get to see many more of the little things that are kind of cool - what teams do to set up for a play, what coaches are doing between plays, how players and officials interact, etc.
I stumbled across an all-22 broadcast during this recent CFP and really liked it, however they didn't have any commentary at all. I do like to hear the color commentary from people who know how to analyze the game (usually former players).
I've never heard this called all-22, and I've been around a lot of football. I played from middle to high school, and my dad has filmed all but 1 high school game for the same school for 37 years. I've exclusively heard this referred to as "wide angle" by filmographers and coaches alike.
I kinda went into this article hoping he was gonna touch on a topic i find distasteful about modern televised football.
Years ago, TNT for NBA games had this annoying habit during live action where they would follow a player after they scored or whatever and cut back to broadcast view, but it was so late, you would lose considerable amounts of context into the next possession and the players would already be in their actions(sometimes the player being followed would be involved in this action to make it even more stark that you were missing important context).
the NFL, has this pretty much every single play, for a game where the setup matters a lot. they'll cut to the fans, the sidelines, a player's face... and then with a second before the ball is snapped, they'll show the broadcast view, and you'll have to make a quick read into what the offense/defense is showing.
Kinda kept hoping he'd lead there with the funny "fascism" statements, but it never really led to a criticism of the broadcast, and he just kept harping on the same point that anything besides broadcast view is trash, and how he assumes everyone forces broadcast view in their mind instead.
I'm pretty negative about the modern sports broadcast experience, so i guess i was pretty let down seeing an article with a title like this... and instead of it being a critique, it was a celebration of it.
He even kinda setup the point about important context with his skyview cam stuff, and just still comes back to the same point, that broadcast is best...
I also don't wanna pretend everyone would want the same experience I do, but that brings me to another issue i have with the broadcasts in general. The generalist broadcaster is the beloved announcer in modern broadcasts, but it just feels lazy.. why is there not 4 different broadcasts for major games that deliver products catered to casual viewers, enthusiasts, kids? The casual viewer would probably prefer to see a fan wearing a funny hat, but the enthusiast would prefer to see the formation 5 seconds sooner.
It's often pointed out that the ball is only live for about 18 minutes of every game. But what makes football so fascinating is that for every play there are 22 different jobs being executed at the same time. And the jobs change every play.
For something like baseball, you can basically see everything happening in frame the whole time. But for football, the game is so information dense that you can spend hours unpacking the game afterwards to see what was going on. That's why replays and highlights are so much more satisfying. And that's what makes it fun to analyze and or watch videos during the week - you can find all sort of unique or interesting aspects just watching the same play again and analyzing a different personnel group.
It also explains why cameras are everywhere (besides them being just flat out cheaper for high school games, etc). Film study is a crucial part of the game for players - more than in any other sport.
Maybe, but soccer doesn't have very many situations where there are ~14 players standing in spitting distance of each other and a 6 inch shift in the position of the ball or a single player has huge implications for the outcome of the game.
It's the LA Times, a clearly American newspaper, so of course the reader must assume football = "American" football. This is not contentious.
Further, the contention of the article is simply that there are many perspectives to a game like (American) football, and every perspective is limited in some way, not receiving the full information of everything happening simultaneously, and this also applies to any video source. Not sure how that relates to fascism, but somehow it apparently does. Regardless, the contention is just as applicable to soccer (aka the shortened name the brits made for Association Football)
Bit silly considering the scoreboard typically has a TV that shows the most important bits that would have been seen at home anyway. His argument may have made sense in 1980 before TVs were introduced in stadiums.
For an actually interesting topic worthy of your time, check out how 1st down markers are calculated and shown on screen at home. It’s much more complicated than you’d think.
The essay is a great example of a mindset that devalues the subjective and strives to rebrand it as objective. Paradoxically it shows insecurity. "My experience doesn't count unless it's The Truth."
You like a thing. That's fine. That's enough. There's no need to prove the worth of your own enjoyment by fantasizing that it conquers everyone else's brain too.
You're the adult now. You're allowed to like it just because you like it.
To me, this is the only real football game: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football.
(No spoilers please!)
Better on mobile browser.
I'd be interested in what kind of eSports game is condusive to VR spectating.
I tried doing Dota spectating before, and rigged up a mod for Minecraft vlogging/spectating, and concluded it wasn't quite like being at a stadium, or watching it on Twitch in a way that was interesting.
I’ve only ever seen Klosterman do friendly interviews. I think his work would improve if it was challenged more.
I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv. Baseball is one for radio: baseball is almost always better over radio; there’s lots of space to do something else at the pace of most baseball games.
I spent a summer building a car in a garage with baseball on the radio. That was the most I’ve enjoyed the game by far.
What’s the sport for short form video?
Lots of Olympic events seem well suited to the format. BMX racing, freestyle skiing, luge/skeleton, and a variety of track and field events all have runs that last for less than a couple of minutes. Not sure if there’s anything comparable in the realm of professional sports besides highlights
Basketball trick shots and single plays?
That's actually an interesting question. Table tennis, maybe? Each volley is the right length for a TikTok video, and some of them (certainly not all) have spectacular long-distance lob+smash plays.
Seems like it plays well with vertical video orientation too.
that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha.
football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. it's not dead, but where growth is measured, it is not good. the cultural thing this guy is talking about in the article, it's going away. fewer and fewer people every year value the aesthetic experience he is describing.
TV ownership? trending down. they've never been cheaper for a reason. trend for TV production since peak TV? down.
football as a gambling product? up. okay, do you see what i mean by bad growth? football mediated as betting stats on apps? up. draftkings, polymarket, ESPN fantasy app ARPPU? up. ESPN streaming app ARPU? down. comcast? hated, down, everyone is cheering for it to go down. do you see?
there is no way to talk about specific instances of football (and stadium sports') cultural weaknesses without sounding really cringe. maybe just, "who cares?"
>TV ownership? trending down.
Do you have sales or survey data to support this claim? I’m willing to believe individual households might be less likely to purchase TVs, but my understanding is that manufacturers are producing as many or even more screens than ever, though that might be for commercial or business use. Incidentally, it’s efficiency from this scale that allows manufacturers to sell televisions at such low prices, not a lack of demand.
Interesting, and I have also finished live football games thinking it would have been better to just watch it on TV at home.
However, his claim that a spectator would "automatically reframe what she saw into the way it would appear on television" is never supported other than him saying "trust me, it's true, if you don't believe me you are in the minority".
Whenever I think it might be worth it to finally go watch an NFL game live, and I start looking at those ticket prices, I start to question if it's worth it or not. Then I get to the seat view simulator and instantly close the tab because holy hell are the "affordable" NFL seats absolutely terrible to watch a game from. Can you even see the player numbers let alone the names? I guess you need to be a big enough fan to know all the players by number on offense, defense, special teams, and the full depth chart for every position in case there are injuries.
Nah. A one time purchase of a 77" TV with surround sound was absolutely the better option.
I went to go see a Broncos game once about 10 years ago, it was $400 for a single ticket. I was in the top section, 3 rows from the back, I needed a Sherpa to help me get to my seat. I could tell there was a game of football being played down below me, but that was about it. I couldn't see the ball, I couldn't read any of the players' numbers, I couldn't see the refs hand signals. A beer and a hotdog was $30, and there was a 10-minute wait for the trough urinal in the bathroom. I was just watching the game on the jumbotron, which based on the distance was comparatively smaller than the TV in my living room.
The atmosphere was great, cheering with 75,000 other fans is exhilarating, but I haven't felt the need to go again. Soccer, hockey, basketball, baseball, I've all been to multiple times, the Denver stadiums for them are great, and the tickets and concessions aren't too expensive. Football is the only sport I really follow, but I'll never go to another game. The local high school is within walking distance, and a ticket is $5.
One time purchase? How are you watching?
Since I would maintain an NFL+ subscription regardless of my attendance at a game or the purchase of a large TV, I don't factor it in.
I got the TV specifically with the money I redirected from an NFL tickets budget line.
Probably an OTA antenna and/or streaming
>During the college football playoffs, ESPN’s family of networks will sometimes show the same game on multiple channels, with one channel broadcasting the whole affair from the Skycam camera. This is a remote camera hovering above and behind the line of scrimmage, replicating the perspective one sees in a video game. Coaches call this the “All‑22” view, because all 22 players on the field are simultaneously observable.
I remember there being discussion here about coverage of when the NFL first made all-22 available for public viewing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4549832
We watched some games last year on the all-22 (because it was the only way we could watch it on ESPN+).
You definitely lose a lot by not having the close-ups, the slow motion replay, etc. That said, you actually get to see many more of the little things that are kind of cool - what teams do to set up for a play, what coaches are doing between plays, how players and officials interact, etc.
I stumbled across an all-22 broadcast during this recent CFP and really liked it, however they didn't have any commentary at all. I do like to hear the color commentary from people who know how to analyze the game (usually former players).
I've never heard this called all-22, and I've been around a lot of football. I played from middle to high school, and my dad has filmed all but 1 high school game for the same school for 37 years. I've exclusively heard this referred to as "wide angle" by filmographers and coaches alike.
Plenty of analysts call it the all-22, eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sp2sVfSAlM
It's colloquially the all-22.
I kinda went into this article hoping he was gonna touch on a topic i find distasteful about modern televised football.
Years ago, TNT for NBA games had this annoying habit during live action where they would follow a player after they scored or whatever and cut back to broadcast view, but it was so late, you would lose considerable amounts of context into the next possession and the players would already be in their actions(sometimes the player being followed would be involved in this action to make it even more stark that you were missing important context).
the NFL, has this pretty much every single play, for a game where the setup matters a lot. they'll cut to the fans, the sidelines, a player's face... and then with a second before the ball is snapped, they'll show the broadcast view, and you'll have to make a quick read into what the offense/defense is showing.
Kinda kept hoping he'd lead there with the funny "fascism" statements, but it never really led to a criticism of the broadcast, and he just kept harping on the same point that anything besides broadcast view is trash, and how he assumes everyone forces broadcast view in their mind instead.
I'm pretty negative about the modern sports broadcast experience, so i guess i was pretty let down seeing an article with a title like this... and instead of it being a critique, it was a celebration of it.
He even kinda setup the point about important context with his skyview cam stuff, and just still comes back to the same point, that broadcast is best...
I also don't wanna pretend everyone would want the same experience I do, but that brings me to another issue i have with the broadcasts in general. The generalist broadcaster is the beloved announcer in modern broadcasts, but it just feels lazy.. why is there not 4 different broadcasts for major games that deliver products catered to casual viewers, enthusiasts, kids? The casual viewer would probably prefer to see a fan wearing a funny hat, but the enthusiast would prefer to see the formation 5 seconds sooner.
It's often pointed out that the ball is only live for about 18 minutes of every game. But what makes football so fascinating is that for every play there are 22 different jobs being executed at the same time. And the jobs change every play.
For something like baseball, you can basically see everything happening in frame the whole time. But for football, the game is so information dense that you can spend hours unpacking the game afterwards to see what was going on. That's why replays and highlights are so much more satisfying. And that's what makes it fun to analyze and or watch videos during the week - you can find all sort of unique or interesting aspects just watching the same play again and analyzing a different personnel group.
It also explains why cameras are everywhere (besides them being just flat out cheaper for high school games, etc). Film study is a crucial part of the game for players - more than in any other sport.
reminds me of a friend of mine who turned his alabama football passion into a cameraman career
It wasn't until he mentioned 'soccer' that I realised football meant American football.
Surprisingly, the natively english speaking world is about evenly split on "soccer" vs "football".
Most of what he writes (including the part on the skycam) applies to soccer as well.
Maybe, but soccer doesn't have very many situations where there are ~14 players standing in spitting distance of each other and a 6 inch shift in the position of the ball or a single player has huge implications for the outcome of the game.
It's the LA Times, a clearly American newspaper, so of course the reader must assume football = "American" football. This is not contentious.
Further, the contention of the article is simply that there are many perspectives to a game like (American) football, and every perspective is limited in some way, not receiving the full information of everything happening simultaneously, and this also applies to any video source. Not sure how that relates to fascism, but somehow it apparently does. Regardless, the contention is just as applicable to soccer (aka the shortened name the brits made for Association Football)
i like thinking of tv as an art form, and football as the artist that perfected it
Bit silly considering the scoreboard typically has a TV that shows the most important bits that would have been seen at home anyway. His argument may have made sense in 1980 before TVs were introduced in stadiums.
For an actually interesting topic worthy of your time, check out how 1st down markers are calculated and shown on screen at home. It’s much more complicated than you’d think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_%26_Ten_(graphics_system)
The author keeps restating their thesis without offering much to support it. It's infuriating.
The article repeats itself several times without any new substance, and then drivels nonsense — TV is psychological fascism?
He uses the word "fascism" without any relationship to that word's meaning.
No evidence or supporting material, just continued insistence that the author is correct.
“I can’t crawl inside your skull and prove you wrong. But this is how it works for most people, including most who insist it does not.“
Consider this direct excerpt of 2 back to back sentences and how 1 contradicts the other.
You can’t crawl inside my skull, but you can crawl inside everyone else’s?
The essay is a great example of a mindset that devalues the subjective and strives to rebrand it as objective. Paradoxically it shows insecurity. "My experience doesn't count unless it's The Truth."
You like a thing. That's fine. That's enough. There's no need to prove the worth of your own enjoyment by fantasizing that it conquers everyone else's brain too.
You're the adult now. You're allowed to like it just because you like it.