Hacker News Reader

Comment by danharaj | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of strategy between plays. Because the action isn't continuous it has a different flavor from a continuously played game like the other football. It's sort of a hybrid between a real-time game and a turn-based game, which is cool. I think it would be much more interesting if there were more time on the field, but i'm sure the NFL and their advertising partners love all that time that can be filled up with ads.

I dislike the game because the players get horribly injured, either immediately, or decades later. The NFL is a company that makes money by encouraging degenerative brain disease in its employees.

View on HN

That doesn't explain the popularity, strategy is invisible to the viewer. Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

It's not invisible. i'm not a serious sports fan, but when i'm around them they notice a great deal more detail than i do. a seasoned football fan can identify a play rather quickly. they know the styles and predispositions of their favorite players and coaches very well. they understand how field conditions and the state of the game influence the decisions made. it's rather fun to watch with a knowledgeable friend.

having some sort of depth is required for popularity, even if it is not sufficient. chess is not a popular sport for other reasons, probably the lack of money and the sheer marathon that is a high level game. soccer has been gaining ground in the US because moneyed interests have been pushing the sport and trying to build the franchises for years. the level of investment required for a nationally popular sport is steep. no one's going to put that money into chess any time soon. like all things in our world, capital is often the difference between "is" and "isn't", but other ingredients are also required.

The strategy is far from invisible to an informed viewer; many viewers are very vocal of their opinions of the topic, too. The reason chess isn't a popular spectator sport has more to do with the fact that all of the moves are very clearly defined, bishop moves at angles; knight moves in L's, and has no correlation to feats of extreme athleticism, the knight can't suddenly move into an unexpected direction.

There's strategy, and in a broadcast (as opposed to attending a live event), there are commentators to explain it to the average viewer. There are also amazingly spectacular plays, which you can appreciate whether or not you understand the strategy.

That doesn't explain why it's more popular than, say, basketball, though...

The problem with basketball as a spectator sport is that the marginal importance of any particular small piece of the game is small, and predictable. There may be awesome feats of athleticism and skill, but they really don't count for a lot, and by the end of the game, you could remove any one (or more) of them and the result of the game would have been the same.

When you think about what makes, say, movies exciting, it's plot twists. And a basketball game has a very high change of having none -- the better team plays a bit better than the lesser team, and at the end of the game, they have a few more points.

For football, baseball, hockey, and soccer, there are far more plot twists.

Basketball gets its popularity from the fact that it is really easy for people to play it themselves (every recess in school has a few hoops in use continuously, and every other driveway has a hoop in it or above the garage).

And every city has plenty of public courts. Soccer in the US has always been more of an organized sport and less of a street/pickup sport. It's more "something you haul the suburban kids to" than "toss a couple objects on the ground, call them a goal, and kick the ball at it". Baseball used to be a street sport here, but really isn't anymore (but it is in the Caribbean).

I actually think the experience of watching basketball, hockey, and soccer are more similar to each other in having fast paced, flowing action.

Football and baseball are more punctuated, stop-start action.

Yeah, I just don't buy it. I don't buy that the typical football fan recognizes adjustments mid-game. I don't buy that they recognize very many different types of defense (probably the blitz and that's it). This minutiae of a game is things that enthusiasts notice but not the typical fan. I think some of the other explanations given, particular in regards to the social aspect, are more likely it.

> explain the popularity

Besides the hits,

1. The short season

You're always left wanting more.

There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL. And it's convenient - you can follow pro football and have most of the year off and, during the season, most of the week off.

2. The action

Yeah, the ball is only in play for a few minutes, but there are 60-70 plays per game - that's a lot of punctuated action compared to the snail's pace of baseball or the constant back and forth of the other sports. And the plays are more likely to be do-or-die drive or game changers than in the other sports. It's way more edge-of-your-seat.

Those two features are somewhat "drug-like," imo.

> There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL

Strongly agree. I've tried many a time to 'get into' baseball, but every day is just way too much. It also tends to increase the importance of each individual game, which (ignoring the quasi-nihilistic "it's just a sport, man") is another reason for the popularity.

> Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

ESPN made poker entertaining. I wish they would try with Chess. I would watch something with good commentators explaining the game as it unfolded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com