Game lengths

The Ohio State - Alabama game took a full four hours. And there was no overtime, or unusual stoppages.

Shocker: whenever there is any sporting event with national interest, they flood the zone with TV commercials.

Particularly for late night games it gets very tedious. I like to have my glass of warm milk, take my medications, and be asleep by 9:30.

The NFL playoff games this weekend are gonna be more of the same. Baseball playoffs are unwatchable.

Younger people aren't going to put up with this shit. They have shorter attention spans. All entertainment should be done in two hours. That's why soccer works.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7zdGQbN7Ac/0.jpg

Easy solution: just watch the second half. Or the last fifteen minutes for that matter. College football has kind of gone the way of the NBA in that respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoosier

Easy solution: just watch the second half. Or the last fifteen minutes for that matter. College football has kind of gone the way of the NBA in that respect.

---

Ya, I've been doing a lot of that. But for a really compelling game, you kinda want to see the whole thing.

The concept works well for sex, too. Let your partner handle her own foreplay, then show up for the money shot. Leaves more time for football.

Both the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl went almost 4 hours. I'm not a fan...but it isn't going to change. Viewership for the playoff games will be significantly higher than recent BCS bowl game averages. The money raked in by all involved is not going to make them consider shortening anything.

College football could easily shave 8 minutes off by shortening the halftime to a reasonable time of 12 minutes. 20 minutes is just ridiculous. The second easy thing would be to stop stopping the clock after first downs. That doesn't even make sense. Those two alone would allow the game to be much closer to 3 hours as it should be. Oh and while they're at it, they can move the hash marks in to match that of the NFL. I know it's not time related, it's just stupid that they create such odd field goal angles.

Forget all this you geezers.

The most important thing about last night's games was that I discovered the 24/7 skycam angle (ESPN calls it the SpiderCam). ESPN has it and I am nearly certain NBC does for Sunday night games as well. You can watch the entire game on this thing if you use the App for the channel. Let me list a few of its key features:

1. No announcers.

2. GREAT view of the field from the QB and RB perspective. You want to know why a RB choose a certain hole or why the QB called in a protection switch? This view shows you. You want to see the QB see and feel the pass rush? This angle shows you. You want a presnap coverage view so you know what the defense wants to do? This angle does it for you. I also discovered that yes, there are safeties on the field even when the normal angle pretends they are not there.

3. No announcers.

4. Fewer commercials. There are still some, but because of timing, there are fewer and you get a nice, Muzak scored ESPN splash screen for a few blessed moments of peace before AllState tells you how much of your premium they are funneling back to college scholarships for teams that rake in billions.

5. No announcers.

6. Much fewer graphics.

7. No announcers.

8. Built in close ups and trailing coverage. If the offense runs wide, the skycam is fast enough to follow the flow of the play and let you see the blocking develop. Its great to watch a safety or LB filling a gap from this angle. You will be cringing before the hit.

9. No announcers.

10. Ball placement. Ever have doubts about how the ball is placed when the carrier is downed? This angle will make it clear they are (pretty accurate). By the end of the play, the skycap is hovering directly over the pile.

11. No announcers.


There are a couple of downsides. Only one of the games had the score plastered on the screen. And you have to mentally keep track of down and distance. I think it would work great with the radio broadcast.

No go back to yelling at people near your lawn.

I watched the Badger bowl game with the Skycam view, it was fantastic. Watching Melvin Gordon's 28 yd TD run through traffic was a thing of beauty. You could clearly see why he went where he did. Saw a few times where a RB chose incorrectly but you can totally see why the back did what he did. Sometimes those holes close up more quickly than you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

Younger people aren't going to put up with this shit. They have shorter attention spans. All entertainment should be done in two hours. That's why soccer works.

---

1) soccer doesn't work. 2) Do you know any young people. I know plenty, and I don't know any who sit back an watch a full game and tolerate commercials. They are all on social media, so at the very least, they are sitting there texting, surfing, tweeting, instagraming, posting to whatever social media they have. Many are watching recorded or delayed broadcast at their discretion, or just picking up bits and pieces, while doing something else. A good numbers are rolling multiple LCDs, gaming while 'watching,' multi-multi-tasking. Sure the networks are going to have to reconfigure to capture advertising dollars (ads on the field and players ala NASCAR), but young people don't care. They know how to work the tech and get around all the crap and pretty much watch what they want, when they want.

Time speeds up when you're watching a game and also actively participating in some official game day thread on some internet message board.

That's why I never participate in the Official Game Day thread when the Packers are on. I want Pack games to last forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Both the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl went almost 4 hours. I'm not a fan...but it isn't going to change. Viewership for the playoff games will be significantly higher than recent BCS bowl game averages. The money raked in by all involved is not going to make them consider shortening anything.

---

That's the bully pulpit that ESPN has since they purchased the rights to the game. Make back as much money from advertising as possible and don't worry about flow of the game. Is it a good TV product, though? I've only been to one Sunday Night Football game where NBC was doing the broadcast. It was Green Bay at Atlanta in 2011 and the play stoppages for the telecast were annoying as a fan sitting in the stands.

The only people who predict the (small scale) apocalypse because young people aren't paying attention are old people. It has been this way since the beginning of time. Or at least since baseball.

Its all a variation of "Won't someone think of the children?" when they are really just interested in themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

1) soccer doesn't work. 2) Do you know any young people. I know plenty, and I don't know any who sit back an watch a full game and tolerate commercials. They are all on social media, so at the very least, they are sitting there texting, surfing, tweeting, instagraming, posting to whatever social media they have. Many are watching recorded or delayed broadcast at their discretion, or just picking up bits and pieces, while doing something else. A good numbers are rolling multiple LCDs, gaming while 'watching,' multi-multi-tasking. Sure the networks are going to have to reconfigure to capture advertising dollars (ads on the field and players ala NASCAR), but young people don't care. They know how to work the tech and get around all the crap and pretty much watch what they want, when they want.

---

+1 almost exactly what I see, except not so much the recorded thing. Maybe a little VOD, but generally they have enough distractions that they ignore the parts of the show and/or commercials rather than work at avoiding them.

My recent observation: sitting on the couch texting about a picture on Imagur while 2 and half men was on TV, then suddenly getting up to go play street hockey when someone else texted him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Forget all this you geezers.

The most important thing about last night's games was that I discovered the 24/7 skycam angle (ESPN calls it the SpiderCam). ESPN has it and I am nearly certain NBC does for Sunday night games as well. You can watch the entire game on this thing if you use the App for the channel. Let me list a few of its key features:

---

How do you access it? NBC's website and a bit of google didn't get me any closer.

ESPN has an app you can download to a mobile device. Smart TVs have it as does AppleTV and maybe Roku or Chromecast. Not sure if FOX or CBS do this.

NBC runs a mutimedia access website during its games from their website. http://www.nbcsports.com/snf-all-acc...night-football
That is where the alternative camera views live for their games.

If its an app, you usually need to activate access by choosing your cable provider and entering in an access code to activate the device.

One sport that will have to change is baseball. The average age of viewers is up in 50s. They are going to have to pick up the pace somehow.

The slow football games at night are the worst. During the day, it is much easier to DVR and fast forward. Recording games to watch the next day is unappealing because you might hear the score somewhere, and somehow the DVR copy grows a little stale overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

The slow football games at night are the worst. Recording games to watch the next day is unappealing because you might hear the score somewhere, and somehow the DVR copy grows a little stale overnight.

---

true, but you can always watch during your morning soak in epsom salts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

ESPN has an app you can download to a mobile device. Smart TVs have it as does AppleTV and maybe Roku or Chromecast. Not sure if FOX or CBS do this.

NBC runs a mutimedia access website during its games from their website. http://www.nbcsports.com/snf-all-acc...night-football
That is where the alternative camera views live for their games.

If its an app, you usually need to activate access by choosing your cable provider and entering in an access code to activate the device.

---

Looks like ESPN has a chromecast app
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/apps
Also looks like I'll have to do some fancy footwork to get it to work for me, looks like there are some regional restrictions. Their Android app specifically lists the providers is works with and won't even let me download it to my phone, I assume because it's branded to a Canadian provider!

Don't see the NBC one, it must only be visible during the game. Would be great if you could go back and watch it VOD. The NBC page you pointed me to is pretty badly done, pc got laggy when I opened it, and it caused Firefox to ramp up to 25% of my CPU! A bit too much active content there, boyos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

ESPN has an app you can download to a mobile device. Smart TVs have it as does AppleTV and maybe Roku or Chromecast. Not sure if FOX or CBS do this.

NBC runs a mutimedia access website during its games from their website. http://www.nbcsports.com/snf-all-acc...night-football
That is where the alternative camera views live for their games.

If its an app, you usually need to activate access by choosing your cable provider and entering in an access code to activate the device.

---

Do you have DirecTV, pb? I think I've tried to login to ESPN Watch before but DirecTV feels like the only TV provider that doesn't have a contract with the app, which seems ridiculous considering how many people have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by channtheman

Do you have DirecTV, pb? I think I've tried to login to ESPN Watch before but DirecTV feels like the only TV provider that doesn't have a contract with the app, which seems ridiculous considering how many people have it.

---

Nope. AT&T U-Verse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Nope. AT&T U-Verse.

---

In doing a bit of research, I've found that DirecTV does not in fact have a contract with ESPN to allow their subscribers to use this app. The likes of Wave Broadband and Walnut Communications (real companies apparently) have been able to get this done, but greedy DirecTV has not. I sincerely hope NFL Ticket someday is not a monopoly. I could have a much more useful TV subscriber if I didn't need NFL Ticket to watch the Packer games.

EDIT: Now please allow me a time of mourning as I realize I will never get to watch the game from these other angles. Without the announcers and with the camera actually on the field, you wouldn't have trouble keeping track of down and distance and would be more immersed in the game. :( Oh well.

I discovered I can login with my ISP (Cox) but I only receive access to network VOD's of some games. I can't watch anything live, and have no access to the Spider cam. Almost completely useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by channtheman

I sincerely hope NFL Ticket someday is not a monopoly.

---

DirecTV has a pretty limited monopoly if you think about it - full league coverage, which no one had pre-DirecTV. There's quite a bit of NFL coverage outside. But considering you want a specific App for special angle coverage which wasn't available for anyone since what - about 10 minutes ago - I bet if people start asking DirecTV to sponsor that app, it'll get done eventually.

The competition for DirecTV comes from other sources who have the ability to bid for the NFL coverages. You're never going to get a better deal if the 'monopoly' is broken up, unless some sort of law is passed requiring the NFL to sell it's product for less, because if they offer it to more carriers, there will have to be something in it for them, and that will get passed on to you.

I could see them perhaps offering more ala carte broadcasts, via multiple sources, but then the individual game costs will go up. Still, service providers generally try to use their exclusive rights to valuable product x to force carriers to accept bigger deals for more products. See for example Fox negotiations with Dish network.

If I could subscribe to the Packers for 100 bucks and get all their games regardless of which carrier I had, I would do that in a heartbeat. There are some online things through the NFL but I don't believe any of them allow live broadcasting, plus I have to use my PC or hook it up to my TV and can't sit on the couch with a remote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

DirecTV has a pretty limited monopoly if you think about it - full league coverage, which no one had pre-DirecTV. There's quite a bit of NFL coverage outside. But considering you want a specific App for special angle coverage which wasn't available for anyone since what - about 10 minutes ago - I bet if people start asking DirecTV to sponsor that app, it'll get done eventually.

The competition for DirecTV comes from other sources who have the ability to bid for the NFL coverages. You're never going to get a better deal if the 'monopoly' is broken up, unless some sort of law is passed requiring the NFL to sell it's product for less, because if they offer it to more carriers, there will have to be something in it for them, and that will get passed on to you.

I could see them perhaps offering more ala carte broadcasts, via multiple sources, but then the individual game costs will go up. Still, service providers generally try to use their exclusive rights to valuable product x to force carriers to accept bigger deals for more products. See for example Fox negotiations with Dish network.

---

You would immediately get a better value by offering NFL Ticket on more than one platform, regardless of the ask set by the monopoly that is the NFL.

More people would be able to access it, for one thing. Even the streaming option available is not available to anyone unless you meet the criteria of living in New York, Chicago or 10 University towns.

DirectTV also pays more than any other broadcast partner per subscriber. This exclusive content is the most distinguishing feature of its cable package. If all broadband providers could access the programming, the leverage to subscribe to the service would decline and prices would be more competitive. The NFL might not change its ask, but the providers would need to adjust their margins. You might also see a lowering of the tier you need to have in order to access the service.

The reason its not more available is fear of the broadcast networks of a decline in local ratings. Its classic monopolistic behavior, there is just an intermediate party wedged in the middle.

Quote:

---

You would immediately get a better value by offering NFL Ticket on more than one platform, regardless of the ask set by the monopoly that is the NFL.

---

yes, the monopoly is the NFL, not DirecTV. I wrote incorrectly - If there are more platforms for NFL Sunday ticket, it's going to zap the free local broadcast and everyone will then pay more, but pay less on average than those who have to buy exclusively through DirecTV. I haven't thought far enough ahead to think what losing the local broadcast and those advertising dollars would do to the cost of the Sunday ticket average price, but you'd expect it to go up, no? Because the NFL is the monopoly, and not DirectTV, it seems like there is going to be a price for the Sunday Ticket feature that is relatively inflexible, no matter how many carriers offer it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

yes, the monopoly is the NFL, not DirecTV. I wrote incorrectly - If there are more platforms for NFL Sunday ticket, it's going to zap the free local broadcast and everyone will then pay more, but pay less on average than those who have to buy exclusively through DirecTV. I haven't thought far enough ahead to think what losing the local broadcast and those advertising dollars would do to the cost of the Sunday ticket average price, but you'd expect it to go up, no? Because the NFL is the monopoly, and not DirectTV, it seems like there is going to be a price for the Sunday Ticket feature that is relatively inflexible, no matter how many carriers offer it.

---

That is a hard call to make. Compared to 1994 or whenever they hatched the Sunday Ticket scheme, Nielsen and Hollywood know how to count viewers who have cut the cord and stream the content, avoiding the affiliate. They have numbers for people who are online for the Live broadcast and those that pay and watch on delayed schedules. So its easy to put a number on it and sell advertising through the Live streaming, though they must cut out a few commercials to allow the live streaming event to 'catch up' to the live broadcast (there are always buffering delays). And, at least according to my Hulu channels, they can pinpoint your location enough to give you the local affiliates schedule and possibly local commercials.

And unless they have completely mucked it up, they should have vastly better and more accurate numbers from online subscription than from Nielsen.

The mystery is how that would affect advertisers on the OTA broadcast. There might be some loss of eyeballs (though if the price is somewhat inflexible, it might not dip a lot). However, football remains attractive to advertisers not because it delivers the same shares it used to (not as many TVs are tuned in during games due to increased competition) but because football is one of the few properties to deliver that big of an audience regularly. While just about every other form of TV draws much smaller ratings, the NFL is almost impervious. So despite a smaller share overall, they offer a huge audience that few TV shows can match. That keeps the advertiser dollars flowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

One sport that will have to change is baseball. The average age of viewers is up in 50s. They are going to have to pick up the pace somehow.

The slow football games at night are the worst. During the day, it is much easier to DVR and fast forward. Recording games to watch the next day is unappealing because you might hear the score somewhere, and somehow the DVR copy grows a little stale overnight.

---

I'd say the problem with baseball is that there are 162 games on various days/times. It's easy for casual football fans to catch games during the NFL/college season because there are so few for teams they follow, and they usually only have to worry about one a week. I don't know of many people who will watch/listen to all the games in a season. Most will tune in if their teams are still in the playoff hunt/in the playoffs, but they can wait until the end of the season for that.

Also, as to the original point about the length of the OSU/Bama game, it also probably doesn't help when there are 77 points scored in a game. That usually pushes game length up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoosier

Easy solution: just watch the second half. Or the last fifteen minutes for that matter. College football has kind of gone the way of the NBA in that respect.

---

Record the game and watch it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker

I'd say the problem with baseball is that there are 162 games on various days/times. It's easy for casual football fans to catch games during the NFL/college season because there are so few for teams they follow, and they usually only have to worry about one a week. I don't know of many people who will watch/listen to all the games in a season. Most will tune in if their teams are still in the playoff hunt/in the playoffs, but they can wait until the end of the season for that.

Also, as to the original point about the length of the OSU/Bama game, it also probably doesn't help when there are 77 points scored in a game. That usually pushes game length up.

---

Baseball is a game made for young men to play and old men to follow. As I get older, I find myself enjoying the slow, deliberate tempo of the game. The strategies within strategies. Pitches, pitch count, changing strategies with alignments in the field, with runners in scoring position, substitutions, left handers versus right handers, I could go on. I'm no expert at baseball - at all - I might enjoy trying to become one, if I survive until retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

Baseball is a game made for young men to play and old men to follow. As I get older, I find myself enjoying the slow, deliberate tempo of the game. The strategies within strategies. Pitches, pitch count, changing strategies with alignments in the field, with runners in scoring position, substitutions, left handers versus right handers, I could go on. I'm no expert at baseball - at all - I might enjoy trying to become one, if I survive until retirement.

---

Just don't write a book about it while also contemplating verdant expanses, morning dew and the rebirth announced with the Spring.