i agree with the last observation and I live in a town where it’s been made a more obvious reality than perhaps any other market.
Dallas. The home of the Cowboys (in Arlington). The site of Jerry World, or as we call it here, “The Death Star.”
I believe that football should be played on grass under open skies. People who live in markets who still support this should relish it at ever occasion. Me? I’ve always had to deal with the hole in the roof, and haven’t had real grass on my field since forever, so these are tenets of the game I’ve missed and lamented for for some time now.
But I love my Boys. Texas Stadium was a shithole, and it had been for years—Jerry had been allowing it to dilapidate so we’d all clamor for a new stadium, which we did, although it ended up in the wrong city (Jerry tried to get it in Dallas but city politics prevented it—I blame him for a lot but he’s not to blame for that).
So Jerry got his billion dollar stadium in Arlington and it is a thing of wonder—an incredible structure whether you’re a fan of sport or not. There’s a quarter-mile long track that allows the roof to be opened that is an engineering marvel, there are windows at each far end and along the rim that allow for some excellent light to come in at certain hours, there are cages for nookie girls to dance in, and there is the largest TV screen in the history of humanity hanging above the action.
There’s the rub. Everyone who’s been to the stadium admits the same thing—they don;t watch the game on the field, they watch the damn TV screen. Jerry, in trying to construct the most perfect stadium in the world, has missed the absolute perfect reason that any stadium should exist—to enhance the spectator’s experience in a way that supports home field advantage.
There is no home field advantage at The Death Star. Who can concentrate on the field with all this distraction? Dallas fans are already notoriously fair-weather, but now the ticket prices (in addition to the parking fees) are outrageous and prohibitive to the game being a family event anymore. It’s corporate licenses, and the seat-fillers aren’t die-hards, so while the home audience was never really a twelfth man, it’s much worse now, with fans who have no idea when you’re supposed to get loud and when to shut up.
They;re all too busy buying a beer, and watching the big screen.
The Death Star is the worst thing to happen to football since Quincy Carter. At least.
I’ve seen the stadium, but I have no desire to pay to see a game there.
@HoL
Everyone who’s been to the stadium admits the same thing—they don;t watch the game on the field, they watch the damn TV screen.
I’ve heard people say this. I’m curious to know if the screen shows the same think that people see on TV (e.g., cut aways to close-ups; shots of the sideline reporter, etc.), or does the screen just show a side view of every play? In any event, this is great example of what the article mentions.
Jazz—It’s not the broadcast. It’s a separate feed from the stadium’s cameras, and there aren’t any stats or graphics displayed.
This doesn’t surprise me, but wouldn’t the best approach be to have both approaches? The narrative-driven approach for casual fans and the all-22 footage for the experts who are more interested in strategy?
@HoL
Thanks for the clarification.
I wonder if we can draw any conclusions from this? For example, can we conclude that people prefer visual experience via an electronic screen than a “natural” visual experience? Does this suggest that there is something incredibly compelling about an electronic screen—to the point where words like “addiction” might not be inappropriate?
On the other hand, perhaps, people look at the screen primarily because the screen allows more clarity and a better angle?
@Jirin
The narrative-driven approach for casual fans and the all-22 footage for the experts who are more interested in strategy?
The problem is the expert fan would promulgate their views (via the web, etc.), which would undermine the narratives promulgated by the league and networks. Think about how this might effect promotions of games, game time analysis and even post-game analysis—or even the perception of the league, team and players for posterity. Wouldn’t the league and the networks lose control over all of this?
On the other hand, has this happened for the NBA? In the case of basketball, as long as you have access to the games, you can basically see everything on the court. (On the other hand, game footage isn’t readily available as far as I know.)
On a related note, have you guys ever watched those programs that recap a championship game or series? Often when I watch these programs, I feel like they leave out a lot of details that I thought were pertinent—spinning the story for a particular narrative.
Along the same lines, I feel the same way about current events—except in that case, journalists, pundits and historians are doing the spinning.
Oh, yeah, I think there’s no question that the increasingly “cinematic” nature of NFL broadcasts (the demands of covering a larger number of players in a much larger playing area) is a big part of why the sport has become more popular than professional baseball and basketball.
You could do an “all 18” broadcast of a baseball game, and you might be able to see the bench coach repositioning the outfielders when Prince Fielder came up to bat or whatever, but most of the time it would be boring as hell. Or in basketball you could have access to footage of an aging Kareem perpetually trailing behind Lakers’ fast breaks . . .
“On a related note, have you guys ever watched those programs that recap a championship game or series? Often when I watch these programs, I feel like they leave out a lot of details that I thought were pertinent—spinning the story for a particular narrative.”
Definitely. Any time you’re editing, you’re imposing a sort of narrative.
@Matt
Oh, yeah, I think there’s no question that the increasingly “cinematic” nature of NFL broadcasts (the demands of covering a larger number of players in a much larger playing area) is a big part of why the sport has become more popular than professional baseball and basketball.
I wouldn’t doubt this, but I’d be interested in exploring this a little more. What are the crucial broadcasting/filmmaking differences that make the NFL more popular than the other sports?
Btw, I should also point out that the “filmmaking” during a game is different from the NFL films’ post-game productions. I would say the latter is probably closer to movie making than the former.
(Did you see the episode about the filmmaking of NFL films? It was really interesting. I remember them talking about the innovation of focusing on the ball—not from the side angle, but facing the QB. Once the ball was released, the camera would just stay with the ball, even to the point where only the ball could be seen (usually this is in slow motion). I grew up watching this type of shot on NFL films (it’s never shown in the actual games), and I never realized how novel and counter-intuitive it is—yet, it is effective.)
You could do an “all 18” broadcast of a baseball game, and you might be able to see the bench coach repositioning the outfielders when Prince Fielder came up to bat or whatever, but most of the time it would be boring as hell.
Right, but it might be cool to see the shifts when it occurs—especially if the commentators can explain the reasons for the shifts. Baseball is much more static and “stationary” compared to basketball, football or most other sports, so the “All 18” footage wouldn’t be important. However, the tiny details regarding player tendencies and injuries, field and weather conditions, etc. are really important and make the game interesting. But the sportscasters often aren’t privy to this information—and if they are, they can explain it via language versus visuals. That’s my sense anyway.
Definitely. Any time you’re editing, you’re imposing a sort of narrative.
Right, but my sense is that the league wants a particular angle—one that will provide the most appealing and entertaining narrative; or maybe glorify or exclude certain players. That’s very different from attempting to give the most accurate picture of what happened in the game—which would include highlighting the most important details that helped a team win or lose. I think that’s the type of information and understanding I’m look for when I watch a game. You could say that’s the narrative that is most interesting and entertaining to me.
Btw, would you agree that the average fan is less interested in these type of details? They may not be interested in an entertaining narrative as much as seeing a game that is exciting (i.e., close score, with an exciting finish).
Not showing any “all 22” as part of the regular broadcast is something I can understand even if it is annoying. But I’ve long been puzzled by this attitude that such footage is some sort of super secret that must be kept out of public view even after the game. I guess it makes some sense if you think that what the NFL is doing is creating a particular sort of narrative that has a distinctive visual style. They are branding their look. “All 22” is bad because it degrades the brand.
That’s a common story in my life—I don’t want the brand that is being advertised at me.
“I wouldn’t doubt this, but I’d be interested in exploring this a little more. What are the crucial broadcasting/filmmaking differences that make the NFL more popular than the other sports?”
Well, for starters, just look at the Sabol family’s NFL films. There’s really no equivalent in any other sport.
If you look at film of sporting events before that, it’s pretty drab, and for example there isn’t even any film of Chamberlin’s 100 point game at all (which, coincidentally occurred in 1962, the same year NFL films was founded).
“But the sportscasters often aren’t privy to this information—and if they are, they can explain it via language versus visuals. That’s my sense anyway.”
Right, and that’s a good point, and I think it’s analogous in football in some ways, you have a play-by-by guy who is basically narrating what the camera is following, and then you should also have a good analyst whose purpose it should be to “fill-in” some of the things you could see if you had access to the “all 22” but don’t see because the main cameras are basically following the ball. Then of course depending on the flow of the game you may have time to cut to replays for illustrations of details that didn’t appear in the “follow-the-ball” shots.
“Right, but my sense is that the league wants a particular angle”
Right, that’s what I mean by imposing a narrative on the game . . . except I think the article you referenced goes a bit far in hinting that it’s an ideological matter, when most likely it’s mostly a matter of making the “story” of the game as coherent as possible for as many people as possible.
" would you agree that the average fan is less interested in these type of details?"
Yeah, but I also would argue (as someone who knows the game a little bit) that even the well-versed fan would not want “all 22” all the time, any more than we would want to see all modern films shot entirely in master shots. When it comes down to it, if you have to choose, you want to see this this way:
not like this:
Thanks Jazz, this is very interesting.
@Polaris
Would that undermine viewership at all? I don’t think it would. People who never played football would still prefer the narrative version, and people who did will understand what’s going on and get more out of it.
@Jirin
Would that undermine viewership at all? I don’t think it would. People who never played football would still prefer the narrative version, and people who did will understand what’s going on and get more out of it.
Yeah, I tend to feel like releasing All 22 wouldn’t really hurt viewership, although I’m not so sure. Think about the way the league and networks promote games or teams. If intelligent fans had access of all 22 and blogged about the reason certain games wouldn’t be worth watching or the reason some teams had no chance to win, that might have some negative economic impact. Then again, maybe not. What is certain is that the league and networks wouldn’t have complete control over shaping promotion, game time analysis and post-game perceptions. Whether this would ultimately hurt the bottom line or not, I’m not sure.
Btw, I think we should look at this issue in three segments:
1. Pre-game (which would involve creating narratives that promote the games and players)
2. Game time (which would involve narratives for the actual game)
3. Post game (which would involve narratives involving legacies, crowing of heroes and villains, etc.)
Releasing All 22 footage would allow other people outside of the league and networks to influence these aspects of the game.
@Matt
Well, for starters, just look at the Sabol family’s NFL films. There’s really no equivalent in any other sport.
I think we should distinguish between filming during a game and post-game filmmaking. Your example qualifies as the latter. Now, I tend to agree that these “films” are better than the post-game films in other sports. But what makes them better, if that is true? Is nostalgia part of this(e.g., hearing Harry Callas’ voice with a specific type of music elicits positive feeling from my childhood)?
Right, and that’s a good point, and I think it’s analogous in football in some ways, you have a play-by-by guy who is basically narrating what the camera is following, and then you should also have a good analyst whose purpose it should be to “fill-in” some of the things you could see if you had access to the “all 22” but don’t see because the main cameras are basically following the ball.
Right, but the problem here is the goals of the sportscasters: are they primarily trying to tell the most compelling story or are they trying to help the viewer get the best understanding of events? I think these two goals often conflict with each other. What might provide more understanding might undermine a compelling narrative. Btw, this is really the same thing in documentaries or journalism in general, imo.
Right, that’s what I mean by imposing a narrative on the game . . . except I think the article you referenced goes a bit far in hinting that it’s an ideological matter, when most likely it’s mostly a matter of making the “story” of the game as coherent as possible for as many people as possible.
I don’t think coherence is the only objective. One could present a coherent framework that ignored or undermined potentially dramatic storylines (e.g., certain player match-ups, using backstory of players, etc.) The sportscasters want to create compelling drama—if giving a better understanding of the game helps that, then fine, but if it doesn’t, then that’s a problem. Me, I prefer understanding—over a juicy story.
Yeah, but I also would argue (as someone who knows the game a little bit) that even the well-versed fan would not want “all 22” all the time,…
You’re right. I’d prefer to see the game shot the way they do now. HOWEVER, I’d love to get access of the All 22 footage, too.
So it’s not even really about profit, it’s about brand micromanagement. Control for the sake of control.
@Jirin
So it’s not even really about profit, it’s about brand micromanagement. Control for the sake of control.
Well, I’m not sure that profit wouldn’t be affected to some degree. If you can’t control your brand, that could affect the bottom line, couldn’t it? The players and the game are the product, so the desire for complete control is understandable, imo.
But think of some other problems: maybe rules and officiating would open to more criticism. That might not affect profits, but it could be a nuisance for the league.
“I think we should distinguish between filming during a game and post-game filmmaking. Your example qualifies as the latter. "
Yeah, but it’s not just a matter of the finished “NFL Films Presents” features, but that, very quickly, the kind of things NFL Films was doing started feeding back into the broadcasts and actually shaping how the games were presented, so you started to see things like telephoto lenses being widely used, sideline cameras, players and coaches being mic’ed, slow-motion replays, etc.
“but the problem here is the goals of the sportscasters: are they primarily trying to tell the most compelling story or are they trying to help the viewer get the best understanding of events? I think these two goals often conflict with each other”
Subjectives, subjectives, subjectives.
“I don’t think coherence is the only objective. One could present a coherent framework that ignored or undermined potentially dramatic storylines”
Well, yeah, you could play the game without keeping score, too. Is a coherent framework that accounts for all 22 players on the field plus coaches and coordinators going to be all that coherent?
“You’re right. I’d prefer to see the game shot the way they do now. HOWEVER, I’d love to get access of the All 22 footage, too”
Yeah, for those who would love to geek out over that sort of stuff, that would be the best solution.
“So it’s not even really about profit, it’s about brand micromanagement. Control for the sake of control.”
There’s an element of that—policing the minutia of the way players where their uniforms and such—but also, if we’re going to frame the discussion that way, we should also point out “the limits of control” so to speak. The league controls a lot of aspects of the game, but we should also consider that there are television networks who are actually broadcast the games, and these networks have a more direct role in shaping what we actually see of the game, so it’s not monolithic, there’s a certain tension between what the networks want you to see and what the league wants you to see. Look at how long it took even for the things like the NFL Network, NFL Sunday Ticket, the two “Red Zone” channels, and look at how much of a difference in the “look” of the game Monday Night Football, Fox doing NFL games, and ESPN getting the Sunday Night game.
Yeah, but it’s not just a matter of the finished “NFL Films Presents” features, but that, very quickly, the kind of things NFL Films was doing started feeding back into the broadcasts…
Yeah, I think you’re right. In fact, I noticed some of this in the clip of Welker’s drop that you posted in the NFL thread. The clip starts with a side view; there’s a cut to ta close-up of Brady barking commands; cut to side view; when the ball is snapped, the camera zooms back a bit and when Brady throws the ball, we the camera zooms in just a little. I’m so used to these things now, that I don’t even notice them.
On the other hand, I think similar things happen with basketball and baseball games, too.
Subjectives, subjectives, subjectives.
Are you saying that telling a compelling story versus trying to give the viewer understanding is subjective? I think these objectives are subjective, but I also think there is a real tension. If we had a really knowledgeable coach or player just analyze each play—without any interest in attracting and keeping viewers—I think there would be a noticeable differences from what broadcasters do and say.
Well, yeah, you could play the game without keeping score, too. Is a coherent framework that accounts for all 22 players on the field plus coaches and coordinators going to be all that coherent?
If the objective is understanding the game, then coherence is going to be important—and, no, I don’t think showing all 22 will be coherent or intelligible—so using it exclusively wouldn’t help the viewer understand or make sense of what’s going on. But, again, if viewers had access to the footage after—or if they could control seeing the footage during the game (e.g., having the ability to switch views during the course of a game)—then I think that could definitely give help them understand what’s going on.
Yeah, for those who would love to geek out over that sort of stuff,…
(Raising my hand. :)
“Are you saying that telling a compelling story versus trying to give the viewer understanding is subjective? I think these objectives are subjective, but I also think there is a real tension. If we had a really knowledgeable coach or player just analyze each play—without any interest in attracting and keeping viewers—I think there would be a noticeable differences from what broadcasters do and say.”
To some extent I think you’re right here. One way of looking at it, I think, would be to think about the play-by-play aspect of the broadcast as in many ways primarily a tradition held over an honored part of the game from the days when radio broadcasting was the primary means of consumption, so it’s vestigial and somewhat redundant on television, where we can see a large part of the game for ourselves (as you said earlier, this is a bit more limited in football than in other sports). I think this is why, although there’s still a big emphasis on play-by-play, you’ve seen a gradual increase in focus on analysts in the booth as technology allows more and more “space” for analysis within the flow of the game (with telephoto, multicamera, super slow-mo, that camera that hangs on a wire over the middle of the field, etc.). It would be nice to see technology advance to the point where you could toggle between views of a play though, wouldn’t it.
But play-by-play is so ingrained at this point, will you ever be able to ween a significant portion of people off of it enough for their to be widespread interest in “all 22”? Not sure.
“Are you saying that telling a compelling story versus trying to give the viewer understanding is subjective?”
It’s the “compelling” part that’s going to always be subjective, and also the “understanding” part. Really understanding football is incredible complex, so even if I had access to the “all 22” for my team, I’d still have to make some decisions about what I was actually going to pay attention to. The “all 22” would give me the “what”, but I’d still need a narrative to understand the “why” of what happens. And that understand would be pretty labor-intensive to acquire.
Also, I think it would be with the explanations of the “whys” where you would start to get into some institutional reluctance to share. The coaches who really understand this stuff are going to tend to view the finer points of their offensive and defensive systems as intellectual property, so you’re only going to get so much out of them.
By the way, if anybody’s interested in a pretty solid primer for that sort of thing, Tim Layden’s Sports Illustrated Blood, Sweat and Chalk: The Ultimate Football Playbook: How the Great Coaches Built Today’s Game is a really good starting point.
Jazzaloha
Apropos of tomorrow’s Superbowl, I thought I’d mention an interesting Atlantic article about football— What the NFL Won’t Show You . The piece discusses All 22 footage and the reason the NFL won’t release this (If you like more intellectual sports writing, I’d recommend checking out the article.) All 22 footage is the footage of films that shows all twenty-two players during a play at the same time, which is the only way to fully understand what’s happening in the game. (I’m one of those who wished I had access to this footage.) The author, Dave Zweig, offers a few reasons, but finally chooses one:
Here is the main reason they don’t release the All 22: The NFL and the networks don’t want us to experience football as a game, but as a hyper-real production of a game, in the way war movies are hyper-real versions of war. In a (non-documentary) war or military movie, while there may be a few establishing shots of the battle-field, more often than not the camera is tight on the soldiers’ faces, on the guns, or there are medium shots of a handful or less of men. Can you imagine watching a ten-minute battle scene all done from a zoomed-out fixed camera on a crane? No. It’s not done because what tends to really grip us as viewers are the people and individual, easily observable physical acts and dramas. Pearl Harbor, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan: not one of these blockbusters would work without all those tight shots on the leading men’s faces and close or medium shots of the action in the sea, on the field or in the air.
The broad context that the All 22 provides would detract from the narrative created by the shot choices and cuts chosen by the director of the televised coverage. Like their movie biz cousins, the network executives know that the most engaging entertainment for the vast majority of the audience is one centered not on strategy but on basic narrative – following the ball; spectacle—in your face hits and athletic prowess; and human connection—closeups on the players’, coaches’, even the fans’ faces, none of which is aided by complexity. TV coverage takes another page from the movies playbook – special effects. From John Madden’s introduction of thetelestrator in the 80s to the yellow virtual first-down line, while effects like these ostensibly are there to aid the viewer in understanding and following more of the game, ultimately they dazzle us with their technology, which is less about knowledge and more about amplifying the spectacle.
Later Zweig suggests that movie making has not infiltrated football games and how we experience them, but life in general:
It’s not unreasonable to think of football primarily as a mediated event, and secondarily as a live event for fans in the stands. In fact, this is how more of our lives are experienced now. Nearly all big events today that ostensibly exist as a live event are actually shows put on for a mediated audience. This of course is true for televised sporting events, but also for personal events like a child’s play or the opening of presents Christmas morning. If the dad spends the whole time watching through the viewfinder or on LCD screen on the back of his camera, that is his experience the event. The children are reduced to actors in dad’s production. Think not? What about when he asks his son to “repeat what you just said” or “do that again—I didn’t get it on camera”? With cameras on phones that are always with us, and every mundane action a potential tweet or Facebook update, our lives are increasingly lived in service to the recorded versions of them. The fans in the audience of a football game are there experiencing the event, but they are also actors for the show. It’s not an accident that a group of people staring blankly at the field or eating a hot dog or texting someone immediately smile and wave or belt out “We’re number one!” if they notice the camera is on them. Intentioned or not, when you shell out $100 to sit in the stands you are paying to be an actor playing a fan. The next time you’re at a game note how many people are watching the jumbo screens rather than the live action on the field itself. Fans at live games recognize the power of the close-ups and focused on-the-ball narrative the televised version offers. It’s that version, that document, that feels more engaging, more real than the physical people on the field in front of them.
What do people make of this last observation? For me, it rings true, and I find this a little disturbing.
(Btw, NFL films did a feature on the innovations and pioneers of filmming NFL games. It was a really good feature, and if you can find it, I recommend checking it out—if you like football and movies, anyway.)
(Edit: Here’s a link to Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL films. In this clip, he discusses filmmaking in relation to NFL films. It’s not the episode I’m thinking of, but it’s worth watching. With that in mind, I want to discuss the filming of NFL games. Can we consider what the NFL films does as a part of filmmaking? Can we call it art? Why or why not?)