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

(No spoilers please!)

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.

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".

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

Nah. A one time purchase of a 77" TV with surround sound was absolutely the better option.

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)

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_venues_by_capac...

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

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.

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.

This excerpt isn't really about football per se, so if you take it only that way you might be missing his point.

I like Klosterman. I can't write as well.

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!

A hypothetical is set up where a woman gets to see one great play close up, but the rest of the game happens nowhere near her seat. If your thesis was that "football is better on TV because you get all these unique angles and instant replays that you can't get from the one seat's position", this would be a solid argument. But the thesis is that "we all imagine the TVs camera angle in our heads", and at the end of this hypothetical, you simply assert that this is what she's doing the rest of the game. "It must be true because it must be true", this is just a circular argument.

There is a bit about how every game in modern day is being recorded on cell phones, which is truly irrelevant. That games are being recorded by audience members is a. true of all sports and b. unrelated to what each person is thinking about in their heads in the moment, whether they are or are not the ones doing the recording. That recording, after all, is only from the perspective of the one seat, their present view of the game is unaltered by the presence of cameras in the audience.

There's another point, perhaps meant to follow from the previous irrelevant point, about memories of a party vs a video recording of a party. The idea is that if you watch the recording for a month, that recording will be the only thing you remember, but it's extremely unclear in what way this is meant to relate to the thesis. What you supposedly imagine in your head in the perceptual present has nothing to do with what you remember a month later, and it's not remotely surprising that reinforcing the memory of a recording over the course of a month will cause it to be more easily recalled than memories from the event itself. It's common knowledge that the human brain does not commit every detail and every moment to memory, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this is true: simply attempt to remember what color shirt you wore last Wednesday. There is interesting psychology here, but its simply not related to the premise in any way.

Then there's the throwaway comment about it being "fascism", where you seem to reduce the definition to just "mild behavioral conditioning". This is both based on your premise, which you have not provided proof for, and goes nowhere. It doesn't lead to any further point or conclusion, it's just an aside, "by the way I think that means it's fascism because I think that word means mind control". Even if we assume your premise is true, its more than a little bit of a stretch to say that counts as "mind control". All you've done is dilute the meaning of the word to the point of banality.

but I don't give a shit about team sports

“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?