Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

71–80 of 115 posts

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

#71
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…

I get that you don't like football and you don't like television, which is fine.

As someone who's been analyzing video content industry trends for a few decades now, I just want to let you know you've reached some incomplete or misleading conclusions based a variety of category errors and assumptions. Traditional living room televisions are just one way of consuming video content. And "over-the-air broadcast" is just one way of distributing video content. Assuming broadcast television viewership shrinking also means less video is being created and consumed is like assuming music consumption is down because CD sales are down or the printed word is dying because fax machine sales are down.

The reality is quite the opposite. Video content creation, distribution and consumption are all growing at very high rates and have been for a long time. The industry puts a lot of effort into reproducible, audited measurement and has developed deep understanding of how viewership has shifted and multiplied across video consumption platforms, consumption modes, and distribution channels - ranging from streaming long-form to social snacking. While it's true that broadcast television is shrinking and traditional living room TV sales are down, far more video content is being created, distributed and consumed today than ever before, and not by a little - the growth trends are explosive regardless of how we count: viewers, views, hours, titles, revenue or reach. All the metrics measured across the entire video content lifecycle reflect the same incredible growth.

I suggest you focus on the myriad ways video content can be bad, is getting worse or has negative effects on kids, culture or human progress. But arguing video isn't growing is neither accurate nor necessary to support your point.

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

#72
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.

Cricket is another where the radio broadcast was always better, as you could have the TV on in the background but listen to the radio, only looking up when something happens.

The commentators, particularly for the Aus/England Ashes series were always better with the likes of Agnew and the now retired Blofeld providing much better commentary.

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

#73
There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes.

Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame.

Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey), constant action, and the ball can move 50+ metres up/down or across the field in a few seconds so you need to see the player movements off the ball. There's also something about a very large arena with 100,000+ spectators and a constant murmur of sound that can erupt in a moment.

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

#74
post #61

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 t…

Live football far exceeds football on TV for watching play development and execution. TV can't resist the closeup, which precludes you from seeing tne entire field of play, the defense being run, the matchups...you're missing a lot on TV. That being said, I don't live in a city having an NFL team so I have to travel. Add in elevated ticket prices and I don't typically make it to more than one game per year.

In case you didn't know, the NFL releases game video on their website which can be downloaded as part of their basic NFL+ subscription ($7.99/mo). It's not the broadcast feed, it's the "all-22" views where you can see all the players on the field from above and each end zone. This is the same footage you see on many game analysis videos by football YouTubers.

Now that every NFL player wears a tracking beacon between their shoulder pads, there's an unbelievable amount of automated metadata available from a variety of third-party data services. The data can include breakdowns segmented per team, unit, player, drive, down-and-distance, etc and the costs can be quite reasonable depending the depth and sophistication of analysis. There is also some data available free on ad-supported sites or on free-to-join sites, including on fantasy football and sports betting sites who use the free data to attract sign-ups.

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

#75
Related but tangential to the article's thesis, I just want to add a technical perspective about NFL football broadcasts from someone with a background in professional live broadcast television production. Due to the massive popularity of televised NFL football (they're >95 of the top 100 most watched programs on television every year), the production budgets for broadcasting games are equally massive.

The result is that NFL game broadcasts are generally the most technically sophisticated live, multi-camera broadcasts in existence. What they manage to do in real-time in front of a live global audience is remarkable, requiring orchestrating a complex ballet of split-second hand-offs between over a hundred production professionals each coordinating their contribution to the broadcast in perfect sync.

From a pure IT perspective, a Super Bowl broadcast relies on a terabit scale, high-reliability IP and power distribution infrastructure that would impress even the most jaded big data center architect - and it's all installed, tested and working on-site in about a week - including fail-over backup generators and multiple data feeds to off-site backup production locations. In the past two years they've even reached the level of switching the entire broadcast from an off-site backup location in the event of a catastrophic failure of the main production truck. That means every raw HD camera feed from wireless sideline handhelds, to pylon cams to multiple Skycams all arriving in sync at 60 fps hundreds of miles away (last year's game used >160 on-site cameras),

Even if you think of the Super Bowl as just some kind of weird 'sport ball thing', it can be interesting to meta-watch how the production is being composed. Every year the Super Bowl is where the best new innovations in live broadcast technology show up first. Every vendor is vying to have their latest toys strutting their new visual magic on the planet's biggest live stage. Last year an obvious standout was 3 new $150,000 Canon 122X zoom lenses (that's insane zoom) with a special new optical block allowing instant switching between normal zoom and film-like shallow depth-of-field.

Those 3 units were the only samples then in existence, hand carried by their engineers from Japan just for the Super Bowl. And I knew the instant one of them popped on the screen because it created a super telephoto zoom showing a quarterback's forehead-to-chin face so close you could see every crease and bead of sweat - from ~100 yds away(!) - all with the beautiful shallow depth of field that is, in any other live broadcast zoom lens, simply impossible. You either get the insane zoom or you get the depth-of-field but not both at once, at the same f-stop. Magic indeed. I have no idea what new, never-seen-before tricks await us in ~10 days, maybe some new Skycam motion control wizardry, or an impossibly small wireless camera giving us a new viewpoint or some new GPU-rendered live CGI incorporating real-time position data from the wireless trackers now in the shoulder pads of all 22 players - but I'm excited to find out!

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

#76

>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 observabl…

Unfortunately, the author confuses the broadcast Skycam with the All-22 views. They aren't the same thing and the All-22 cameras aren't even controlled by the television production (although they are available to it).

Per NFL league rules it is the responsibility of the home team to supply the All-22 camera feeds to the league. They are usually operated by the home team's stadium video crew. The All-22 viewpoints are from directly overhead and from each end zone and their purpose is purely documentary not creative - so they are the most complete, yet boring views. These cameras are also the source of the still frames sent wirelessly to the sideline tablets you see players and coaches referring to during games (by rule, there is no motion video or real-time imagery sent to these tablets, just two time-delayed stills for each play, showing the moment the ball is snapped and the moment the whistle is blown ending the play).

The Skycam(s) are sophisticated 'flying' remote cameras operated by the broadcast production and suspended on four wires. They are usually moving around, panning and zooming - which the All-22 cameras never do. Skycams can drop to within 10 feet of the field (although low use during games is strictly limited to behind the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped). They can also accelerate to over 20mph and in the hands of a skilled two-person pilot team, can track with a fast player running the length of the field. Here's arguably the greatest Skycam shot of all time (https://www.nfl.com/videos/skycam-pilot-alex-milton-narrates...). There are sometimes two Skycams in major playoff games and the Super Bowl (high and low).

In the last year the NFL has added 32 4K and 8K fixed-view cameras to each league stadium to support enhanced replay review by referees. They provide fixed views down each sideline from either end and across the goal-line from each side. Their replay feeds are viewable by the replay referee who sits in a sky box above the field, as well as sent to the league's NYC broadcast center in real-time. They are also made available to the broadcast production team and used for the new virtual measurement system and for skeletal tracking data which you may see in CGI replays during a game (https://www.sportsvideo.org/2025/11/20/nfl-deep-dive-how-32-...).

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

#77
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.

Football is so unique in that the way it’s presented makes it almost impossible to understand what’s going on. There are a million rules, which even die-hard fans don’t understand. And the broadcast doesn’t even make an attempt to explain or even show the offensive or defensive formations and plays being chosen.

It feels like what we’re shown on tv is a very narrow slice of what’s going on. We see the ball moving down the field but have no idea what the coach or quarterback is doing. Somehow it’s still an incredible watch though.

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

#78

>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 observabl…

Unfortunately, the author confuses the broadcast Skycam with the All-22 views. They aren't the same thing and the All-22 cameras aren't even controlled by the television production (although they are available to it). Per NFL league rules it is the responsibility of the home team to supply the All-22 camera feeds to the league. They are usually operated by the home team's stadium video crew. The All-22 viewpoints are…

> There can be two Skycams in major playoff games or the Super Bowl (high and low).

There can be more depending on how you block out the cables, I have seen 5. The two Skycam limit is based on two independent systems that do not do cable avoidance in software, you just block out the allowed altitudes on each system.

There also other cable suspended systems in use to move on a line strung between two points and sometimes a track suspended under the stadium roof.

Fun fact: The Skycam was invented by Steadicam inventor Garret Brown and uses some of the same principals for stabilization.

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

#80
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the author confuses the broadcast Skycam with the All-22 views. They aren't the same thing and the All-22 cameras aren't even controlled by the television production (although they are available to it). Per NFL league rules it is the responsibility of the home team to supply the All-22 camera feeds to the league. They are usually operated by the home team's stadium video crew. The All-22 viewpoints are…

> There can be two Skycams in major playoff games or the Super Bowl (high and low). There can be more depending on how you block out the cables, I have seen 5. The two Skycam limit is based on two independent systems that do not do cable avoidance in software, you just block out the allowed altitudes on each system. There also other cable suspended systems in use to move on a line strung between two points and someti…

Interesting, I've never seen more than two 4-wire Skycams used in an NFL broadcast (at least that I knew of). Given the need for flexible endzone to endzone coverage of NFL games, I'd imagine sectioned arrangements might be better suited for concerts, etc. The gratuitous two Skycams tracking each other shot is always fun. Just saw another one in recent weeks as they were discussing the retirement of a long-time Skycam operator.

I was going to mention the linear point-to-point 'Sidecams' but I haven't seen them used much the last season and was wondering if they've fallen out of favor. I'd guessed they might get in the sight lines of the primary cameras in many stadiums.

I actually got to briefly meet Garret at a long-ago NAB show. As not only the inventor but the operator on so many incredible film shots, the dude's a legend. IIRC correctly he did the Rocky on the steps and The Shining maze shots himself.

Post reply on HN