Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#41

Post by derektank »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #23
vessenes wrote: post #4

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.

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 reaso…

>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.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#42

Post by WorldMaker »

sidrag22 wrote: post #32

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…

> 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.

CBS Paramount directly explored that space a bit. They experimented with showing the same games on CBS or CBS Sports and on Nickelodeon. The Nickelodeon version would include things like "slime cams" and silly sound effects, you know for kids. (Or for adults watching a playoff game with less interest in who won and more interest in background viewing and distractions from other party topics like politics.) It was an interesting experiment. Possibly something to replicate, but also certainly with as many channels involved in Sports as serious business not something that will be easily replicated.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#43

Post by vessenes »

bobro wrote: post #28
vessenes wrote: post #4

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.

What’s the sport for short form video?

I wish it were chess boxing. I love chess boxing.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#44

Post by mabster »

j4cobgarby wrote: post #3

It wasn't until he mentioned 'soccer' that I realised football meant American football.

I guessed American when it was compared to Hockey, Baseball and Basketball.

In Melbourne, Australia, Football is again another sport (but it not being called Footy gives it a way).

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#45

Post by andrepd »

> Soccer is exclusively about atmosphere and identity, so the experience of being in the crowd and the experience of the game itself are only nominally associated, in the same way going to see the Grateful Dead in the late 1980s was only nominally about music.

This man has absolutely no idea what he's talking about x)

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#46

Post by shuntress »

vessenes wrote: post #4

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.

Baseball is killer in-person but it's also pretty nice to just have on TV. There is nothing else like the tension of a critical at-bat.

Football is actually really really weird for a spectator sport and, I think, is generally presented very poorly. 80% of the game is deciphering opposing formations to determine what they each are predicting the opposing formation is about to try to do.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#47

Post by vessenes »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #23
vessenes wrote: post #4

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.

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 reaso…

Hmmm. NFL revenue continues to grow, with something like half of it from media licensing. So, I think you’re wrong. My son watches NFL on his laptop, but there’s little to distinguish how he watches it from the experience he would have on a Samsung tv - he’s not like in some chat group trying to get Ochocinco to write his name on a jersey - he’s passively consuming an edited video feed of a football game with commentary.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#48

Post by shuntress »

andrepd wrote: post #45

> Soccer is exclusively about atmosphere and identity, so the experience of being in the crowd and the experience of the game itself are only nominally associated, in the same way going to see the Grateful Dead in the late 1980s was only nominally about music. This man has absolutely no idea what he's talking about x)

Ah yes, of course, The Beautiful Game is clearly not at all about the actual game...

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#49

Post by mabster »

llm_nerd wrote: post #21
j4cobgarby wrote: post #3

It wasn't until he mentioned 'soccer' that I realised football meant American football.

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 sour…

Unless LA stood for Latin America haha.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#50

Post by alamortsubite »

_--__--__ wrote: post #29
macleginn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Soccer fans also miss out on an hour of commercials each game (it's easy to skip the ones at halftime).
Post reply on HN