“We’re giving the screen back to the viewer,” says Michael “Spike” Szykowny, senior director, Graphics Development and Post Production Group, for ESPN Creative Services. “Many networks have a bottom line; they have their clock and score and their miniboard. And above that, they put their insert graphics. So you’re starting to stack graphics one on top of each other.”

From: http://www.sportsvideo.org/portal/artman/publish/article_12270.shtml

Nice. In my opnion, ESPN has been the one leading the graphics overload in sports broadcasting. Hopefully this is done tastefully and it is adopted for their other sports and other networks follow suit.

When it comes to on screen graphics, less is more. I hope that's what ESPN is trying at achieve. I know CBS is.

Couldn't have said it better than Ken did.

When it comes to on screen graphics, less is more. I hope that's what ESPN is trying at achieve. I know CBS is.

Does this mean CBS is killing "GameTrax" this year.
Hoping it's gone. :)

Well, graphics have ruined auto-racing. Try watching an Indy Car race on ESPN.

What, won't the gamblers who need to be kept constantly informed as to the disposition of their betting lines be marching on Bristol with torches and pitchforks when and if the glorious day arrives that the Network dumps the infamous "bottom line" that has produced such rancor here on the AVS Forum? Don't they fear the wrath of the "gaming" industry, not to mention fantasy leagues, if they give that screen real estate back to the casual fan?

I'm as hardocre as any fan, see username, and although I don't play fantasy I do place small wagers and I want my whole screen back :)

Well, they should keep it to 1 bottomline, instead of having a ****ing ellipse/rectangle thats sorely out of place on the screen.

But it is a good thing they are doing. I noticed fox blacked out a line on the top of the screen for no reason. There were no graphics there, just a dark pattern, which cut out extra lines for no reason. That is unacceptable.

Does this mean CBS is killing "GameTrax" this year.
Hoping it's gone. :)I don't think so.

I never thought I'd see the day where I would get more real estate back on my screen.

Bravo ESPN and those other networks who have already made things a little less cluttered on our displays.

And I agree with CycloneGT, the graphics squeeze on most auto racing telecasts is abominable.

ESPN doesn't run the bottomline during MNF, do they? I think they just run the 18/58 update. I specifically remember complaining that the scorebox graphic could've been oriented a fewer pixels south because they don't run the bottomline during MNF.

I'm skeptical this will actually give me back any of my screen real estate.

Ok, so ESPN is giving the screen back to the viewer. So who had the bottom third of the screen previously: gambling addicts, ESPN graphics guys, or who?:rolleyes:

I really don't see the need to clutter the screen with graphics and stats that aren't relevant to the current game. If you haven't pawned your laptop or cell phone you should still be able to track up to the minute scores and see who's beating the spread in all of the other college and pro football games.

Why should ESPN take away from the current game for the sake of those who have the mortgage payment riding on Boise State vs. B.F.E. State?:confused:

The best part was a quote from some Fox Sports exec back in days of 480i Fox Widescreen to the effect that HDnet's NHL and MLB coverage was "primitive" because they didn't have the screen cluttered with the latest graphics packages and pop ups. I'll take pristine HD picture quality properly composed for a 16:9 frame over pop ups any day of the week!:D

Nice. In my opnion, ESPN has been the one leading the graphics overload in sports broadcasting. Hopefully this is done tastefully and it is adopted for their other sports and other networks follow suit.I hope something is maintained for college football, though. Often I'm at the bar or elsewhere Saturdays without access to a radio, and my team hasn't exactly earned its way on TV a lot over the past couple of seasons :(, but I'd still like to know how they're doing. (Hint: I'm originally from central Iowa. The main team here in eastern Iowa has spoiled fans who assume every game is going to be on TV regardless. ;) Just kidding, of course, Hawk fans!)

Relatively speaking i never found MNF on ESPN to be a major offender of this to begin with. Some of the old ABC stuff was very bulky and large (the same style has followed over to SNF, though a bit more polished). The new MNF score bug was always small and placed at the center of the screen, which I thought allowed the image to breathe much more than placing it in a upper corner (which IMO restricts the image composition to a 4:3 model with extra space, just as obnoxious is the FOX box/NBC score bar which constricts the screen vertically). I never got the sense that MNF was making consessions for the 16:9 audience which is common, the show seemed at home in 16:9.

I was skeptical of the new MNF bug at first but it grew on me. Compared to some other shows out there i thought MNF was pretty smart with how they handled the insert graphics look. When they needed a lower third, the bug would transform into it, and then back (as opposed to adding another graphic which is more common), last year the score bug even transformed into the replay wipe. I am curious to see how Spike and Mauro and the guys in creative services pull this new one off.

Now ESPN needs to go to work on the wayyyyyyyyy too much graphics overloaded ESPN2 hd.

When it comes to on screen graphics, less is more. I hope that's what ESPN is trying at achieve. I know CBS is.Watched the Pilot Pen tennis tournament yesterday on CBS and the graphics looked smaller than what I remember from last year's US Open.

ESPN doesn't run the bottomline during MNF, do they? I think they just run the 18/58 update. I specifically remember complaining that the scorebox graphic could've been oriented a fewer pixels south because they don't run the bottomline during MNF.

I'm skeptical this will actually give me back any of my screen real estate.

BottomLine is not in during MNF, NBA games, and other high profile events on ESPN.

Why can't they all do it like HDNet and stick it far up in the top left?

Why can't they all do it like HDNet and stick it far up in the top left?

Oh come on...you know the answer to that.

HDNET has 100% HD viewership and they do not have to worry about framing for 4:3. ESPN still has more 4:3 viewers than 16:9 viewers.

Oh come on...you know the answer to that.

HDNET has 100% HD viewership and they do not have to worry about framing for 4:3.

ESPN still has more 4:3 viewers than 16:9 viewers.
Way more.

It's roughly 8 SD viewers for every 1 HD viewer, though certain events slip a bit higher on the HD front as viewers seek on HD screens to watch them on.

Oh come on...you know the answer to that.

HDNET has 100% HD viewership and they do not have to worry about framing for 4:3. ESPN still has more 4:3 viewers than 16:9 viewers.

This excuse does not hold water. The graphics make a 4:3 less. Just as a 16:9.

I hate when good sporting events are on ESPN2 especially. They are making watching tv less enjoyable!!!

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Looking forward to the first MNF game.
Also, interested in CBS's move.

-R

Oh come on...you know the answer to that.

HDNET has 100% HD viewership and they do not have to worry about framing for 4:3. ESPN still has more 4:3 viewers than 16:9 viewers.
Well, if they truly intend to give the screen back to the viewers they would consider something like this. Doubt they will do it though, they have to give us information overload for some odd reason. Kinda like during MLB games, they display stats of people's averages when a specific count after each pitch. There can be over 500 at bats per year, does it really matter for this particular pitch?

Oh well.

As cell phones, PDA's, Laptops and Smartphones become more prevalent I don't see a use for the bottom line. Even if you yourself don't have a device that can look up the score of another game there is almost always someone within earshot that can tell you the score of virtually any game within 60 seconds.

ESPN's testing new graphics for MNF? Great. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, I see. MNF needs a new announcing team, and ESPN/ABC needs to clean up their grainy HD signal. Then we can worry about the graphics package. (And move it to the top of the screen, please.)

Hopefully this will mean the return to 16x9 widescreen HD, because what I've seen on espn has been more like 24x9.....with all that extra crap on the top or bottom.

the scorebox espn uses for college football is the best....along with the usual info like score, qtr, downs etc it gives:
- timeouts left per team (because the announcers sure wont tell u)
- after a pass it says smith 8 yr pass and his stats for the game + the reciever of the pass & his stats for the game as well....really small right on top.

Not sure about giving anything back, BUT the game tonight is SO much better with only TWO in the booth.

This excuse does not hold water. The graphics make a 4:3 less. Just as a 16:9.

I hate when good sporting events are on ESPN2 especially. They are making watching tv less enjoyable!!!

Your post does not hold water either.

Clearly you do not understand basic business practice (servicing the bulk of your customers) and TV Production.

For ESPN (and Sports on other networks) to survive, they need to get past the hard core fan and get to the masses - especially if they see ala carte on the horizon.

I undestand that, but....
Survive? Is ESPN in any trouble at all?

I undestand that, but....
Survive? Is ESPN in any trouble at all?

If ala carte becomes the norm, yes.

Consider that it cost roughly $5 per sub for ESPN's suite of channels - almost $3 for them main channel alone. Research continues to show that only around 25% of the population cares about sports and ESPN's own research shows that less than 12% of the subs ever tune to their channel.

Simple math tells you to continue to make the same type of rights fees paid for the current offerings, 12.5% of the subs would be forced to pay 7x $5 or $35 a month for the ESPN suite. Considering many would not do it, $50 a month for those that do is not out of the question.

Would you pay $50 a month or $600 a year for the ESPN suite of channels?

Thats why they need to get as many CASUAL sports fans in - because they know the issue if ala carte ever comes along.

In my opnion, ESPN has been the one leading the graphics overload in sports broadcasting.
No way, FOX has been destroying quality for years. Every time I see their retarded dancing robot I want to kick the TV screen in.

No way, FOX has been destroying quality for years. Every time I see their retarded dancing robot I want to kick the TV screen in.

That would be expensive:eek:

I wish Fox would drop the full top line scoreboard and just go to a box with the score information. Ditto for the "Rundown" sidebar on AM SportsCenter shows. The news networks are getting more and more Bloomberg-esque (seen CNN-HD's "coverage" of the DNC - absolute waste of space with decibel level, trivia and other useless graphics). I want my full 16x9 screen back.

I'm still waiting for ESPN to give me the screen back for MLB and NBA.

Do we need another bar on top of the giant score bar telling us the batter's average after every pitch?

I also hope for NBA they they stop popping up those stats above the score bar.
For the NBA ifnals they kept popping up the bar to tell us what we were watching.

The current CFB/CBB bar has grown on me, I liked the simple clean box(used from 2004 up until 2007) in the bottom right(for CBB) that could have stats come out from the left side or above, when needed. The line takes up the entire bottom of the screen, but it is cool to see timeouts remaining, and a little more space for team names to be displayed.

I undestand that, but....
Survive? Is ESPN in any trouble at all?

If ala carte becomes the norm, yes.

Consider that it cost roughly $5 per sub for ESPN's suite of channels - almost $3 for them main channel alone. Research continues to show that only around 25% of the population cares about sports and ESPN's own research shows that less than 12% of the subs ever tune to their channel.

Simple math tells you to continue to make the same type of rights fees paid for the current offerings, 12.5% of the subs would be forced to pay 7x $5 or $35 a month for the ESPN suite. Considering many would not do it, $50 a month for those that do is not out of the question.

Would you pay $50 a month or $600 a year for the ESPN suite of channels?

Thats why they need to get as many CASUAL sports fans in - because they know the issue if ala carte ever comes along.
No, ESPN is not in any trouble - ala carte or not.

ESPN is a media company, not a cable network.

Cable subs are actually a small piece of the pie compared to other divisions and business interests. Granted, most companies would love to have their "small piece of the pie" as even their primary income, but they are fully insulated against the potential of a revenue drop should viewers decide not to pony up.

In fact, PPV and subscription services are actually huge money generators for them already.

That line "giving the screen back to the viewer" reminds me of when politicians say "I'm going to lower your taxes". I think it might happen about the same time as hell freezes over.

Your post does not hold water either.

Clearly you do not understand basic business practice (servicing the bulk of your customers) and TV Production.

For ESPN (and Sports on other networks) to survive, they need to get past the hard core fan and get to the masses - especially if they see ala carte on the horizon.

I don't think he even understood the issue --- that the bug needs to fit somewhere in the 4:3 frame in order for it to be seen by all viewers.

Not sure about giving anything back, BUT the game tonight is SO much better with only TWO in the booth.

Amen to that! I hope Tony stays sick. Someone who detests football so much does not belong in the booth. I seem to recall in our discussions last year that someone said Tony would not be back. I recall that someone being a person likely to have insider info (Ken H maybe? I really don't remember for sure). I was so much hoping he would be right and Tony would not be back in the booth this season. Fooey!

I don't think he even understood the issue --- that the bug needs to fit somewhere in the 4:3 frame in order for it to be seen by all viewers.


They need to letter box it for everyone else and keep it all 16x9. Analog will be shut off soon and that should be part of the analog shut off.

Glad to learn they will be taking away the digital layovers. I would like to see it all gone. Even the score only needs to flash up there now and then.

Amen to that! I hope Tony stays sick. Someone who detests football so much does not belong in the booth. I seem to recall in our discussions last year that someone said Tony would not be back. I recall that someone being a person likely to have insider info (Ken H maybe? I really don't remember for sure). I was so much hoping he would be right and Tony would not be back in the booth this season. Fooey!

A little strong there on Tony aren't you?

No, ESPN is not in any trouble - ala carte or not.

ESPN is a media company, not a cable network.

Cable subs are actually a small piece of the pie compared to other divisions and business interests. Granted, most companies would love to have their "small piece of the pie" as even their primary income, but they are fully insulated against the potential of a revenue drop should viewers decide not to pony up.

In fact, PPV and subscription services are actually huge money generators for them already.

For someone who wants to talk big picture, you certainly haven't grasped the big picture.

Let's say 90 million subs @ $5 a month brings in a little less than 1/2 a billion dollars A MONTH.

That pays for a lot of production - and rights fees.

Knock that down to 10 million subs a month @ $10 a month and you get $100 Million a month - or roughly 75% less.

Less subs also mean lower advertising rates.

If you think that ESPN can make up $400+ Million A MONTH in other areas and still maintain anywhere close to the network as you know now them, you must think that money grows on trees, as $5 Billion a year takes away to ability to pay for virtually all the major rights fees they have now - and if you believe otherwise, you are in the minority.

PPV may be the ONLY way for them to make it work if ala carte.

A little strong there on Tony aren't you?

I don't think so. YMMV. Are you suggesting that you think he has learned to like football during the off season? That would be a breath of fresh air. I will try to keep an open mind, but it won't be easy.

They need to letter box it for everyone else and keep it all 16x9. Analog will be shut off soon and that should be part of the analog shut off.


Wishful thinking. Good luck with that. No offense intended. I don't see it happening, but I would be glad to be wrong on this one. I think centercutting (with no AFD) will become the norm.

If ala carte becomes the norm, yes.

Consider that it cost roughly $5 per sub for ESPN's suite of channels - almost $3 for them main channel alone. Research continues to show that only around 25% of the population cares about sports and ESPN's own research shows that less than 12% of the subs ever tune to their channel.

Simple math tells you to continue to make the same type of rights fees paid for the current offerings, 12.5% of the subs would be forced to pay 7x $5 or $35 a month for the ESPN suite. Considering many would not do it, $50 a month for those that do is not out of the question.

Would you pay $50 a month or $600 a year for the ESPN suite of channels?

Thats why they need to get as many CASUAL sports fans in - because they know the issue if ala carte ever comes along.

Part of the sissification of america.
25% like sports, sigh..... :(
I pay over $200 for the ST and Superfan, so what do you think? ;)

Our local sports media guru, Jay Posner has posted his thoughts on what's going to change on ESPN...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20080829-9999-1s29mediacol.html

During one of the Jets pre-season games this year- CBS-HD's graphic generator was offline for the first 3 or 4 minutes or so after the return from a commercial break. So we were treated to a beautiful virgin 16:9 full HD screen with absolutely zero onscreen graphics... nothing- no clock/down & distance/score bug, nothing- just wall to wall football in 1080i HD.
It was glorious while it lasted :D

Part of the sissification of america.
25% like sports, sigh..... :(


Sorry to disappoint you but that figure has been pretty stable for 40 years now.

There is a reason why Sports goes last in the 6p and 11p Newscasts....and gets little to no play in other newscasts.

There is a reason why Sports goes last in the 6p and 11p Newscasts....and gets little to no play in other newscasts.

Actually, there could be an entirely different reason in play for that.

Consider that most sports fans would watch the actual games they want and not need the local news recap. Then consider channels like ESPN with regular recaps throughout the day and the dedicated ESPNews channel even moreso.

Pretty much no need for the local stations to cover the national sports in a big way since other channels do that... so only the "localest" like high school and smaller colleges really are "in play" as local news interest items, and those tend to have a smaller following, thus the less prominent they are in the newscast.

Sorry to disappoint you but that figure has been pretty stable for 40 years now.

There is a reason why Sports goes last in the 6p and 11p Newscasts....and gets little to no play in other newscasts.

But if a local team or athlete wins a "big event" it's almost always the first story on the newscast.

If you think that ESPN can make up $400+ Million A MONTH in other areas and still maintain anywhere close to the network as you know now them, you must think that money grows on trees, as $5 Billion a year takes away to ability to pay for virtually all the major rights fees they have now - and if you believe otherwise, you are in the minority.

PPV may be the ONLY way for them to make it work if ala carte.
Sorry, but you obviously have no concept of the portfolio ESPN has in their back pocket - and apparently haven't bothered to research it.

ESPN might have to work a bit harder to make up that loss in subscriber fees, but they are fully prepared to do so.

BTW: being in the minority in this case merely means that the majority has failed to see the full potential of a diversified corporation. ESPN does not live on subscriber fees alone - by a long shot.

Sorry to disappoint you but that figure has been pretty stable for 40 years now.

There is a reason why Sports goes last in the 6p and 11p Newscasts....and gets little to no play in other newscasts.
Um, sorry, but that's way off base.

Sports goes last for two reasons:

The first is people will stick around for it when they hope to see coverage of junior in his state conference game or other local sporting event. If you've ever encoutered the rabid parents at some school events, you'll get the concept that those same people want to see their wonder child score the winning play in the highlight at 11.

The secondary reason is to allow late running events to finish (or the sports ENG crews to get back to the station after them) so the rundown doesn't have to be swapped around newscast to newscast if things are delayed.

The reason there is little play in other casts is there's not a lot to cover in earlier shows. Local newscasts are prohibited from showing events in progress (only ESPN has the $$ to get exceptions for certain sports - i.e. Baseball Tonight and the MLB) and the sports crews are usually out covering the local stuff at that time.

Sorry, but you obviously have no concept of the portfolio ESPN has in their back pocket - and apparently haven't bothered to research it.

ESPN might have to work a bit harder to make up that loss in subscriber fees, but they are fully prepared to do so.

BTW: being in the minority in this case merely means that the majority has failed to see the full potential of a diversified corporation. ESPN does not live on subscriber fees alone - by a long shot.


Holy Crap - anyone that can loose $400 Million+ EACH MONTH in sub fees and think it won't make a dent clearly has to be a Politician in Washington.



Um, sorry, but that's way off base.

Sports goes last for two reasons:

The first is people will stick around for it when they hope to see coverage of junior in his state conference game or other local sporting event. If you've ever encoutered the rabid parents at some school events, you'll get the concept that those same people want to see their wonder child score the winning play in the highlight at 11.

The secondary reason is to allow late running events to finish (or the sports ENG crews to get back to the station after them) so the rundown doesn't have to be swapped around newscast to newscast if things are delayed.

The reason there is little play in other casts is there's not a lot to cover in earlier shows. Local newscasts are prohibited from showing events in progress (only ESPN has the $$ to get exceptions for certain sports - i.e. Baseball Tonight and the MLB) and the sports crews are usually out covering the local stuff at that time.

I have piles of Maggid Research which shows you are incorrect. Besides, its laughable to think that most large markets cover "some local school event" - it happens so seldom its not even funny. #2 is even more laughable as most of the story content in the can long before the opening of the newscast. I don't know what you *think* you know, but in this case its something out of "left field."

Oh goodie! Another Im smarter than you AVS debate thread :D

Its nothing but your opinions guys, dont forget it.

ESPN should eliminate running their bottom line during all live games. The NFL, NBA, NASCAR, and MLB will not let them run it. They screwed up a few weeks ago and run it during a NASCAR Cup race. Talk about a prescription for a headache or motion sickness. It's too much to handle at once.

ESPN should eliminate running their bottom line during all live games. The NFL, NBA, NASCAR, and MLB will not let them run it. They screwed up a few weeks ago and run it during a NASCAR Cup race. Talk about a prescription for a headache or motion sickness. It's too much to handle at once.

It may have not been a screw up. There are times during those live events when it is allowed by contract to show the bottomline.

ESPN should eliminate running their bottom line during all live games. The NFL, NBA, NASCAR, and MLB will not let them run it. They screwed up a few weeks ago and run it during a NASCAR Cup race. Talk about a prescription for a headache or motion sickness. It's too much to handle at once.

I dont watch any NASCAR, cant speak for that "sport". They run the bottom line during MLB games pretty much constantly though. I think Sunday night is an exception.

Seems to me the half century + of integration has made sports very mainstream.
I'd imagine having a harder time asking someone to name their elected representatives than their pro teams' stars.
The fact that more people watch mindless drivel, like American Idol, than live team sports is a sad thing.
Video games by themselves over team sports is even worse.
Obviously just my opinion.


Oh and when is ESPN supposed to give us back our screen? It definitely isn't today.

good, how about doing it for college games too.

Anyone else watching on a TV with overscan on notice the College Football score bar is higher and that stats text above it can almost not be seen on most TV cause it's just to high?

Watching on my PC full frame, with the black above the score bar and the bottom line below, it's almost like the video is being letterboxed.
I hope considers getting rid of the bottom line or goes back to a score box.

Frame for 16:9. Letterbox playback on 4:3 sets. Move graphics to the edges.

Well, graphics have ruined auto-racing. Try watching an Indy Car race on ESPN.

Why, exactly, would I WANT to do that :confused:

Crappy cars, crappy racing and a pathetic announce team. How could the on screen graphics possibly make it any worse ?

I tell you what ESPN. Start putting live games on ESPN News hd and take the rest of the graphics to ESPN hd and ESPN2 hd and we will call it even.:D

Here is a sneak peak of what ESPN plans to do with the new graphics.

http://www.sportsvideo.org/portal/artman/publish/article_12440.shtml

I don't think it is what we all were hoping to see.

Basically what it looks like is they are taking the top bar and merge it with the bottom bar.
Same amount of wasted space, but at least it isn't making the picture look "squeezed" like college football is on ESPN.

But this is still graphics overkill from ESPN who, after years of avoiding the "bar" to prevent comparison to FOX's style, has recently gone too far.
I don't like the bar on it's tennis telecast and absolutely hate what they have done to college football.
Oh well. :(

Maybe I'm confused but how are they actually giving the screen back to the viewer? All I see is a setup like NBC, with the previous scoreboard that was in the middle of the lower part of the screen all of the way across. What did they give back, like .05%? We've all been had.

Why do these idiots have to grey out areas beside and under scoreboards?

What a crock. That picture shows an entire bar devoted to the words "ESPN Monday Night Football" and another bar below that with absolutely no content. Granted that could change, but it's still crowding the screen.

If they really wanted to give the screen back, they would drop that scorebar to the bottom of the screen and LEAVE IT THERE.

Oh, God.

Totally NOT what I was expecting.

Horrible. Truly, horrible.

I wish they'd put a poll on espn.com asking viewers what they think of that mess :(

Oh, God.

Totally NOT what I was expecting.

Horrible. Truly, horrible.
Ditto. That is pathetic.

What a crock. That picture shows an entire bar devoted to the words "ESPN Monday Night Football" and another bar below that with absolutely no content. Granted that could change, but it's still crowding the screen.

I assume the bar with no content whatsoever is just a placeholder for the ticker. Otherwise, they've definitely taken away space; not given it back. The old floating scorebox wasn't near as obstructive as that mess.

I assume the bar with no content whatsoever is just a placeholder for the ticker. Otherwise, they've definitely taken away space; not given it back. The old floating scorebox wasn't near as obstructive as that mess.

The area under where it says "Monday Night Football" is blank for overscan protection.

I guess by "give screen back to viewer" they mean they won't clutter huge amounts of our screen with the program.

Unbelievable, isn't it? When will they learn we want MORE SCREEN not MORE STATS. Idiots!

i hope that lil preview is not what MONDAY is going to look like :mad::mad:
reminds me of NBA TV and NBC's SNF

Wait, if I read thigs right, I believe that the area that says MNF in that pic will be used for player lower-thirds, etc.

yea i understood that they were getting rid of lower thirds altogether, so in that respect that's pretty significant. It's almost a hybridization of the NBC (old ABC) score bar and some funky Viz work on the bottom line almost like CBS's NCAA basketball score bar. If they do away with lower thirds altogether that is fairly significant in this day and age of over fonting (and probably makes Herky, the TD, a very happy man). I still would prefer the top line of it not go all the way across the screen. Again ESPN seems obsessed with this.

Man, last night's South Carolina/Vandy game was an exercise in graphical overuse. Just awful. I know that this thread is about a MNF announcement, but I just had to mention it.

-R

The NEW Slogan: ESPN - The Leader in Annoyances

The NEW Slogan: ESPN - The Leader in Annoyances
No kidding, when they show a replay not only does it say ESPN in the bottom right corner, it also says ESPN in the top left.

And why does the yardage have to stay up during the entire play? Don't they realize that it makes it harder to see the players when they run into it?

And wth do they have to have ESPN MNF on there. What kind of dumbasses do they think we are if we can't figure out it's Monday and we are watching football.

I am getting dumber just by watching it.

this new graphic is horrible. I almost feel the need to get my tape measure out and calculate exactly how much real estate it's taking. I'm guessing at least 15%.

I just checked the MNF thread, over half of the posts are people complaining about it.

Replays look nice at least :\

TOTALLY SUX....they dont show down & distance in the scorebox:

1. its on the field which makes it hard to read.
2. sometimes the players stand on it & u cant read it.
3. they waste space on the screen with just colored bars but cant put down & distance ?

some jerk producer again who doesnt know anything.

the best by far is abc/espn college football....u even get time outs in that 1....cause we all the announcers will never tell u.

this new graphic is horrible. I almost feel the need to get my tape measure out and calculate exactly how much real estate it's taking. I'm guessing at least 15%.

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind, as well, in regards to calculating how much screen real estate is devoted to those with attention deficit disorders.

As stated in numerous posts here, "NOT what I was expecting." :mad:

I hope ESPN catches a lot of flack for this. I'm glad to hear there are numerous posts on their site complaining about this obtrusive "New Look."

What ticks me off even more is the fact that some ESPN rep is reading all these negative posts, and in a state of denial proudly claims to himself, "What the hell do they know! I think this looks awesome! Go X Games!" :eek:

What ticks me off even more is the fact that some ESPN rep is reading all these negative posts, and in a state of denial proudly claims to himself, "What the hell do they know! I think this looks awesome! Go X Games!" :eek:

I'm not sure that's exactly the conversation that is going on, but you do have to understand sports fans complain about EVERYTHING. And i say that as someone who works in the business and is on the opposite end of much of that. You would not believe the volume of complaints about everything from the type of Bermuda turf the team is playing on, to the music, to Tirico's tie and on and on. If you read enough of these forums you will hear someone complain about everything ESPN does, the challenge for them is filtering the criticism and deciding what is just your normal griping and actual constructive comment. Again on a forum like this we're looking at the score bar with a very different eye. They might be more concerned with getting rid of lower thirds altogether as being revolutionary (and it is) and we're looking at the empty black and red box and not seeing the more dramatic shift in design philosophy.

ESPN has been responsive to viewer feedback in the past several years. A noteable example is regarding "stretch-o-vision"; ESPN used to do that like the Turner nets do, but they heard us complain, and they changed it.

They may reduce the size of the new score-bar, if they get enough feedback.

sports fans complain about EVERYTHING.

patriots lost the super bowl last year....i didnt complain about that.

18-1....18-1....18-1. :D

I'm glad to hear there are numerous posts on their site complaining about this obtrusive "New Look."url?

url?

The Monday Night Football thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1064665

I'm convinced this had nothing to do with "giving the screen back to the viewer". It seems to be all about stylizing the ticker and making it fit with ESPN's SportsCenter. I just noticed how perfectly it fits over the Sportscenter ticker.

If you read enough of these forums you will hear someone complain about everything ESPN does, the challenge for them is filtering the criticism and deciding what is just your normal griping and actual constructive comment.

I totally understand what you're saying. I just hope that the powers-that-be look at our posts and understand that this is constructive criticism, not petty griping about the color of someone's tie.

For me, the problem is information overload. I don't need a ticker at the bottom, taking up a good chunk of my beautiful hi-def screen, to tell me that an illegal motion penalty has been called - right after I watched and heard the ref make the call, and...the ESPN announcer reiterate that there was an illegal motion call.

This level of redundency just reminds me of a Terry Gilliam movie, like Brazil, where there are sheafs upon sheafs of redundant wiring and ducts cluttering up an apartment, encroaching upon the well-being and comfort of the occupant.

The Monday Night Football thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1064665

Thanks for clarifying that it was a thread on AVS instead of over at ESPN.

For some reason, my mind cobbled together an image of viewers across the U.S., angered beyond belief, bombarding the ESPN site with their complaints about the new graphics bar.

I should have known that this dream scenario would probably only happen on AVS, land of more discerning viewers. ;)

ESPN has been responsive to viewer feedback in the past several years. A noteable example is regarding "stretch-o-vision"; ESPN used to do that like the Turner nets do, but they heard us complain, and they changed it.

They may reduce the size of the new score-bar, if they get enough feedback.

I really hope so. It's my only gripe about their coverage. I even like the colors of the commentator's ties! :D

The graphic would have been better had the area beside and under the score/clock would have been a dark, transparent look instead of a black, filled in look. It's taking away from some of the screen.

MNF presents POP UP FOOTBALL. I'm up for facts, but Cutlers completion percentage and QB rating outside the pocket during a drive is too much. I agree the black should be eliminated below the score.

So, what ESPN giventh ESPN takenth back? Are you kidding me? Why can't they just do like they did during the Masters, no clutter whatsoever? And I was hoping this was the beginning of something good...:rolleyes:

I'm also puzzled at what they mean by "giving the screen back" and then taking up a huge amount of my screen on the bottom. It is useless data like the fact that it's Monday Night Football. NO KIDDING?, for a second I thought I was watching bowling on Tuesday morning. Why does the bottom 6th of my screen have to tell me that?

Why can't they just do like they did during the Masters, no clutter whatsoever?

That's because Augusta National has total say in what goes on in the television production. The NFL has some control too. My guess is they had no problem with that without knowing how it would come out in the end.

I really like the box FSN has been using on college football this year. Colorful, yet small with enough of the important info a viewer needs. It needs to be the standard for the other networks.

So, what ESPN giventh ESPN takenth back? Are you kidding me? Why can't they just do like they did during the Masters, no clutter whatsoever? And I was hoping this was the beginning of something good...:rolleyes:

Because golf and football are two different sports. You don't necessarily need a leader board the entire time during a golf match to know who is ahead. In fact not at all during play. Too many people have come to expect knowing game in progress information, down/distance, score, clock, play clock, timeouts remaining, etc. The original rationale is that all this information was readily available in the stadium but not at home, but IMHO i think most fans aren't so obssessed with seeing nothing on the screen that they would forego having an up to date clock and score. The problem becomes compounded in a high quick scoring sport like basketball.

IMHO i think most fans aren't so obssessed with seeing nothing on the screen that they would forego having an up to date clock and score. The problem becomes compounded in a high quick scoring sport like basketball.

And an up to date clock and score during a football game has to take up that much real estate on a screen, like the ESPN bar? :rolleyes:

Speaking of basketball, if I remember correctly, doesn't TNT's graphics box take up a very small footprint of the overall screen, allowing the GAME itself to be the focal point of what we're watching?

Once again, ESPN = Information Overload. Please stop catering to the statistically obsessed fantasy football fans. If I want specious stats, I'll look them up online, or in the newspaper the following morning.

I agree the black should be eliminated below the score.

I would almost be satisfied with this compromise...at least until an interactive feature comes along that allows us to individually set up what we want on our screen. Then I could eliminate the graphics completely, punching up score and clock only when I need to.

Let's remember that part of the reason for having the time and score on screen at all times during regular play is for the sake of editing and showing highlights later on. Both the editor and the viewer can immediately know where in the game certain plays are happening.

Let's remember that part of the reason for having the time and score on screen at all times during regular play is for the sake of editing and showing highlights later on. Both the editor and the viewer can immediately know where in the game certain plays are happening.

Its all for the viewer. Editing has time code and meta data to be able to find what they are looking for.

The area under where it says "Monday Night Football" is blank for overscan protection.Which makes no sense, because the "ESPNHD" logo appears BELOW the bar that says "MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL." And even if a TV had HORRIBLE overscan, the worst case scenario would be that they wouldn't be able to see the "MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL" line if there was nothing below it.

Ideally, they'd get rid of both the "MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL" line and the blank line below it, but at the very least, that bottom line of nothingness needs to die!

And one more thing... If someone sees an NFL football game on television on a Monday evening, do you really think they are baffled as to what they are watching?!?!

"Hey Ma! What is this show that's on where the people are playing professional football on a Monday evening?!?!? Is this CSI: Miami?"

And one more thing... If someone sees an NFL football game on television on a Monday evening, do you really think they are baffled as to what they are watching?!?!

"Hey Ma! What is this show that's on where the people are playing professional football on a Monday evening?!?!? Is this CSI: Miami?"

All networks do this. There is SNF everyone on NBC. The Nfl on CBS is ubiquitous as well so is the NBA on TNT. I would gladly take this over the Fox model which is just to mindlessly brand everything with sponsors. I'll take Monday Night Football bug over a Chevy logo (if need be) any day.

I'd just like to see the PQ pick up on ESPN. Their HD is absolutely terrible 90% of the time.

this new graphic is horrible. I almost feel the need to get my tape measure out and calculate exactly how much real estate it's taking. I'm guessing at least 15%.

Talking about misleading! Instead of giving the screen back to the viewer, ESPN is actually *taking more of the screen away* from the viewer!!

Last year's MNF graphic actually took up less space than this jumbo of mess.

I'm convinced this had nothing to do with "giving the screen back to the viewer". It seems to be all about stylizing the ticker and making it fit with ESPN's SportsCenter. I just noticed how perfectly it fits over the Sportscenter ticker.

Exactly. I noticed that this morning. It has nothing to do with overscan and everything to do with creating a space for SC bottom line all night and the next day.

So has anyone measured exactly how much room the new scorebar takes up?

Because golf and football are two different sports. You don't necessarily need a leader board the entire time during a golf match to know who is ahead. In fact not at all during play.

Yet ESPN puts a huge 1/3 "bug" at the top of the screen during golf coverage that constantly shows a leaderboard or group scores.

True I notice they are somewhat inconsistent especially with Soccer.

That's because Augusta National has total say in what goes on in the television production. The NFL has some control too. My guess is they had no problem with that without knowing how it would come out in the end.

I really like the box FSN has been using on college football this year. Colorful, yet small with enough of the important info a viewer needs. It needs to be the standard for the other networks.

Amen. Not to mention the logo is removed. It truly is perfect. If only they could do it for the rest of their sports coverage.

For those that wanted an update as to whether Lovie Smith made a decision to play Devin Hester Sunday, need not worry! ESPN kept the BottomLine on during the national anthem Monday night. Stay classy, Bristol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98BuAX2T0U

And what a National Anthem it was! Is it me or did that chick absolutely BUTCHER the song??? Off Topic, I know, but I felt it worth a mention.

PS - How bout dem COWBOYS?!?!?!

Chris White

DUH, I didn't notice your youtube link. Obviously I was NOT the only viewer with good hearing who cringed the entire time. ;) Heck of a game, though.

Chris White

You guys keep saying how the new scorebar lets the "BottomLine" fit "perfectly" under it - well it DOES NOT FIT PERFECTLY. ESPN has to squeeze the main game video to fit in the BottomLine below it (notice the black bars on the left and right when the BottomLine is on), and even then the BottomLine obscures the content of the new scorebar when the new scorebar has a dropdown active showing some other stat. The whole thing looks amateurish and sloppy.

You guys keep saying how the new scorebar lets the "BottomLine" fit "perfectly" under it
The BottomLine fits under it during SportsCenter, but that's only because they edit in another score bar that is positioned higher up on the screen.

You guys keep saying how the new scorebar lets the "BottomLine" fit "perfectly" under it - well it DOES NOT FIT PERFECTLY. ESPN has to squeeze the main game video to fit in the BottomLine below it (notice the black bars on the left and right when the BottomLine is on), and even then the BottomLine obscures the content of the new scorebar when the new scorebar has a dropdown active showing some other stat. The whole thing looks amateurish and sloppy.

Bottomline is not in during MNF. What you're referring to is 18/58 which is a bigger graphic and does cause a very slight compression to the picture (true for all sports though), but they seem to fix the issue of it bleeding over the score bar by not having any info on that lower text field drop down while 18/58 is in.

In truth neither the bottom line or 18/58 neatly fit. What has traditionally happened is that ESPN is running a separate game feed just for highlights that positions the score bar slightly higher on the screen (no squeeze), so that the bottom line for the studio shows will fit. Occasionally though a highlight supervisor will record the wrong feed and take the main game feed instead which results the bottomline bleeding over the score bug.

Any way you cut it, their coverage of the game sucks

Any way you cut it, their coverage of the game sucks
Agreed, they are officially in "graphics overload" mode now :mad:

Any way you cut it, their coverage of the game sucks

Agreed

I would like to request a thread title change. ESPN MNF "shoving their graphics down the throat of the viewer"

I have read some data recently that suggest that the vast majority of those polled at least see the new Score Bar as an improvement. Even some of the TV guys I work with feel that the show feels a lot cleaner some even thought it was too spartan, like something was missing but they couldn't pinpoint it. The vast majority of the viewing public are not scrutinizing their HD the way we are. I personally asked a bunch of people, many of them in the business, what they thought, a good chunk of them didn't even notice, they were paying more attention to the game.

So that leaves ESPN a dilemma. Do they cater to the hardcore Calvinistic sports fan who will quite honestly NEVER be happy unless the screen is totally blank and there's only nat sound, with more wide shots than anything else, spartan replays and rotary wipes from an old GVG 200, or do they take a more populist approach (where the money is) and try and keep the show accessible for the masses, ticking off the sports and HD purists? It's a tough call that no network seems to have really figured out. Compound that with the fact that the sports viewing public has a love/hate relationship with MNF. For everyone that loves Hank Williams there's 5 people who hate it. Some loved Madden, some hate him. And there are a ton of people who are anti-anything Disney or ESPN regardless of how well or poorly they do something. People complain about CBS SportsLine, they complain about the FOX Box, they hate NBC's score bar, there's really no win here.

ABCTV99,

I appreciate your contibutions here. Please take all of my comments in the best of spirits.

As far as the Hank Williams Jr. opening goes, I don't like it (he wore out his welcome with me in 1990), but - here's the big difference - Hank goes away after three minutes. The waste of space at the bottom of the screen stays there for the most of the game.

I still haven't heard a good reason as to why the static part of the graphic (the part without the score and the time) has to stay there - or what having it there accomplishes. I don't like, but understand the reasoning behind the score box. I appreciate that the ticker is gone for most of the game (that's good - I like that). But the ticker has been replaced with a bigger graphic that adds no value.

To summarize my position: less is more. What is there needs to have a purpose.
Here's what's there: more graphics. What is there is largely useless.

-R

As far as I'm concerned, those "double-deckered" tickers/graphics are overkill, especially if one of the rows is static. No need for it to be there. Even NBC's SNF bar, which used to look huge, now looks elegant and slim!

So that leaves ESPN a dilemma. Do they cater to the hardcore Calvinistic sports fan who will quite honestly NEVER be happy unless the screen is totally blank and there's only nat sound, with more wide shots than anything else, spartan replays and rotary wipes from an old GVG 200, or do they take a more populist approach (where the money is) and try and keep the show accessible for the masses, ticking off the sports and HD purists?

I worked as a director for local TV news (not sports I know but a lot of the whiz-bang production aspects are overemphasized there too) for many years so I appreciate where you are coming from. I often wondered and it sounds like you would be in a position to know as to whether focus groups of viewers are used when new graphics packages, layouts, etc. are proposed. It just seems to me that when these things are done, it's a lot of TV nerds (yes I'm one of them) sitting around going "It would be cool if we could do <fill in the blank>" and if it's whiz-bangy enough everyone else in the room goes "That would look cool, let's do it." That's how things were done at my station and it seems to me in the last 10 years that's how things seem to be done nationally as well.
Are viewers/potential viewers ever consulted about these changes? I think the time/score bar was a great innovation but I think it has gone way too far. I think TV producers/directors a lot of times are trying to impress each other and the viewer is not a factor in the equation. Just because you can do something does not mean you should (I mean you in this sense as the TV industry, not you personally).
You did say channels have to balance between the minimalist approach people on this board favor and a more "populist" approach that is where the money is and keep the show accessible for the masses. It seems to me that is basically saying that people would not watch a game if not for the special effects and score bars which I find debatable at best, especially considering that ratings for all sports have declined over the last 10-15 years (due to many factors I know). I guess I would like to know what evidence there is that all these special effects are increasing ratings.
Sorry to go on so long, but the ever-increasing graphics clutter and over-production of sports on TV really gets my goat.

a good chunk of them didn't even notice, they were paying more attention to the game.

Then why have it so big? This proves lokar's point. People watch the game to watch the game.

Absolute waste of space on the bottom. Thanks for nothing.

AVS Forum: ESPN MNF "giving the screen back to the viewer"

I worked as a director for local TV news (not sports I know but a lot of the whiz-bang production aspects are overemphasized there too) for many years so I appreciate where you are coming from. I often wondered and it sounds like you would be in a position to know as to whether focus groups of viewers are used when new graphics packages, layouts, etc. are proposed. It just seems to me that when these things are done, it's a lot of TV nerds (yes I'm one of them) sitting around going "It would be cool if we could do <fill in the blank>" and if it's whiz-bangy enough everyone else in the room goes "That would look cool, let's do it." That's how things were done at my station and it seems to me in the last 10 years that's how things seem to be done nationally as well.
Are viewers/potential viewers ever consulted about these changes? I think the time/score bar was a great innovation but I think it has gone way too far. I think TV producers/directors a lot of times are trying to impress each other and the viewer is not a factor in the equation. Just because you can do something does not mean you should (I mean you in this sense as the TV industry, not you personally).
You did say channels have to balance between the minimalist approach people on this board favor and a more "populist" approach that is where the money is and keep the show accessible for the masses. It seems to me that is basically saying that people would not watch a game if not for the special effects and score bars which I find debatable at best, especially considering that ratings for all sports have declined over the last 10-15 years (due to many factors I know). I guess I would like to know what evidence there is that all these special effects are increasing ratings.
Sorry to go on so long, but the ever-increasing graphics clutter and over-production of sports on TV really gets my goat.

You raise excellent points. There is indeed a bit of institutional arrogance on the part of TV production people who (and maybe rightfully so) think they know better than the viewer what the viewer wants when in fact it is often a question of 'wouldn't it be cool if...' quite a bit of the time. There is certainly a balance that needs to be struck here between the pros and their experience and trained judgment versus their audience. In entertainment (TV and otherwise) sometimes the viewer gets lost in process, statistics and data and individual experiences and concerns get lost.

As for ESPN they spend a ton of time and money in focus groups and of all the sports networks are probably the most aware of their criticism (even if it doesn't appear that they act on it). I can tell you they can probably quote daily criticisms from their harshest critics like Mushnick and Deadspin and even within the company there is often consternation with the visual direction of the network. It's one of the reasons they hired an ombudsman as a check and she does a great job. The technical people and directors (and even a lot of the creative people) are of the mind that less can be more, the producers want as much information as possible on the screen. It doesn't help that a lot of the studio producers either come from local news (notorious for overindulgment) or print backgrounds.

Despite what people say here MNF tends to take a more minimalist approach. If you really look closely and critically there aren't a lot of loud bangs and whistles and dancing robots and all that jazz. But it is Monday Night Football on ESPN and there is somewhat of a (somewhat understated) credibility issue, they want to make it look like they can run with and beat the big dogs. So there's some overcompensation a la mid-90s FOX. As far as the nuts and bolts of covering the game everything is usually very purposeful and deliberate. But that being said MNF sometimes feels like they took the simple cleanliness of their old SNF and overproduced it. Probably too much listening to the focus groups and not enough good TV sense. And maybe too many cooks in the kitchen which can often be a chronic problem at ESPN.

I personally think ESPN is on the right track in recognizing that viewers do want less on screen. First time I've ever heard a sports network really come out and make this admission. As a director I cringe when I hear people say this new MNF is graphics overload because I've seen some real overload in my time. CNBC is graphics overload. The Situation Room is overload. FSN's Final Score is overload. CNN's political coverage is overload. People on this forum are concerned with the bottom 10% of their screen taken up but true to their word MNF does not impose much on the viewable area at all. No game action is ever being covered up (unless you're dying to see that first row of the audience) and the camera ops are likely protecting for the score bar (as they do on Fox and NBC) so its not like there's visual information being cut off. People are going to watch the content sometimes with disregard for the presentation. During the conventions CNN easily won the ratings even with all that noise on screen, and viewers had other options (though most of us opted for PBS cleanliness). My point with the populist approach is that I'm not sure the mainstream cares enough (or even notice enough) the graphics package to really dissuade them from viewing, and this often gets mistaken as license to do anything the production folks. I would imagine though they get far more complaints about Tony K.

People on this forum are concerned with the bottom 10% of their screen taken up but true to their word MNF does not impose much on the viewable area at all.
To me, it's not so much about how much area they're taking up, it's what they do with it. MNF's bar takes up more space than the score bug for ANY OTHER NFL BROADCAST. And what are they doing with all of that space? Nothing. That's the problem. They could do everything that they're doing now without the wasted space.

I agree the space is wasted and I don't care if I see more 'grass' or people's heads...that's what's natural...If I'm at the game I don't have a black bar in my visual field so when I'm home I want a more 'natural' visual field and any graphics defeat that purpose...

reduce the score bar to the inch that it needs to take up at the bottom of the screen and leave it at that...

and again last nite they werent consistently showing down & distance in the score box....theres just no reason not to do that.

Even some of the TV guys I work with feel that the show feels a lot cleaner some even thought it was too spartan, like something was missing but they couldn't pinpoint it.

The non-football, cross-promotion, is reduced significantly. The loser guest in the booth that has nothing to do with football segment is gone. That makes the show cleaner and spartan compared to the crap that was this show the past two years.

This kind of stuff doesn't usually bother me that much but I was annoyed by how much of the screen is wasted. Just show the score in the corner so I can actually use the whole screen for the game. It's almost as bad as my local channels when there is a local election. The show i'm watching shrinks to about 1/18th the size of what it should be so there is a scroll at the bottom that takes about 1/4 of the screen then just bars around the top and sides FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!!

The show i'm watching shrinks to about 1/18th the size of what it should be so there is a scroll at the bottom that takes about 1/4 of the screen then just bars around the top and sides FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!!
Leaving out any opinions on the practice, the bars are there so that you can see the whole picture without any distortion. If the bars weren't there, they would either have to cut off part of the picture, or distort it.

Since at least the mid-1990's there has been a lot of talk about the promise of "Interactive TV". From a simple viewer's perspective, Interactive TV seemed to involve the opportunity to place wagers while watching horse racing or sporting events or else the opportunity to buy crap while watching informercials, home shopping channels, or 30 second ad spots on traditional programming. I was disinterested in all of these applications of Interactive TV.:rolleyes:

However, I think there may be a great future for truly interactive television when it comes to on screen graphics and other information displayed on top of the progam that I really wanted to see in the first place. I can see where an info button or a TV station identifier with far prettier graphics than most cable set top boxes would be useful. If I'm in a hotel room in a strange town, I would like the opportunity to see a very pretty station logo that says ESPN HD, Lifetime HD, or even a logo that says "Logo" for the gay channel for all of about five to ten seconds. I then want that damned logo to go away until I press the info button or until I change the channel again. Interactive TV could eliminate the need for ugly, omnipresent bugs or snipes.

There is one other wonderful application of "interactive TV" that I envision. For lack of a better phrase, I call it the "go the hell away button". If only digital television were so interactive that I could simply cycle through one button and remove most or all of the on-screen graphics during major sporting events I would be very happy!

In short, the kind of interactivity that I want from HDTV is merely the ability to remove more crap from my screen and to enjoy more of the sights and sounds of actual compelling entertainment. Quite a novel concept I suppose.

In short, the kind of interactivity that I want from HDTV is merely the ability to remove more crap from my screen and to enjoy more of the sights and sounds of actual compelling entertainment. Quite a novel concept I suppose.
The problem with that is that the vast majority of viewers would have to have equipment that supported the interactivity for it to be of any use. A broadcaster isn't going to strip their program of graphics if only a small number of viewers have the ability to put the graphics back in if they want to.

As a director I cringe when I hear people say this new MNF is graphics overload because I've seen some real overload in my time. CNBC is graphics overload. The Situation Room is overload. FSN's Final Score is overload. CNN's political coverage is overload. People on this forum are concerned with the bottom 10% of their screen taken up but true to their word MNF does not impose much on the viewable area at all.
Except, other than FSN, all those examples you cited are talking head channels. You don't watch those channels to actually watch them. You turn them on, turn away and let them run in the background unless something pops up that grabs your interest.

It's not a game where viewers are actually watching the video to see something happening.

I found a properly sized black piece of material, and attached it via velcro to the ends of the TV frame. Covers the bottom line completely, and keeps the damn annoying thing outta my sight!

I call it.... Wait for it....drum roll please, ringo....

THE SCROLLBUSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

How you like me now ESPN? Muhahha, Muhahha..........

I should probably point out that the current graphics on MNF really don't bother me. I'd prefer less, but, compared to NASCAR, this is gving back the screen to the viewer. Those freakin' driver name labels with the arrows attached to the cars really bug me - as if I somehow miss the giant number on the side and roof of the car.

However, above all, I'm most annoyed by the big honkin' program rating box on TV shows that pops up for a good 30 seconds. Talk about stealing my screen...

One thing that I do kind of like about the new MNF graphics layout is that the actual video portion of the screen, where the action happens, is an uninterrupted rectangle.

But I guess my personal favorite treatment of sports play-by-play graphics has to be what FSN is doing with their college football games -- a fairly small rectangle in the upper left part of the screen.

I really think a lot of what is on the screen could be accomplished with a small folder tab type of graphic sticking up from the bottom of the screen, raised slightly only during a few select times where score and news updates occur on a bottom line - which disappears when nothing is changing frequently.

If I want to see a continuous scrolling update, I'll switch over to ESPNews where it stays on during the break and I get all the update info. Otherwise, I just want to watch the game I'm tuned into.

But I guess my personal favorite treatment of sports play-by-play graphics has to be what FSN is doing with their college football games -- a fairly small rectangle in the upper left part of the screen.
Look at the posts in this thread and others about all of the stations with sporting events on them. I seen more complaints about the stations other than FSN than I do about FSN. As a matter of fact I don't think I've seen one bad thing about FSN.

Gotta tell you something.

I don't care what the focus group results are. I don't see CBS getting any complaints with their graphics for the NFL. And they don't eat up a major portion of the screen.

As a matter of fact I don't think I've seen one bad thing about FSN.

i know 1 bad....fsn doesnt give u timeouts left & god knows the announcers sure arent gonna tell u....the abc/espn college football box does show timeouts & thats why its the best jerry the best !!

I don't care what the focus group results are. I don't see CBS getting any complaints with their graphics for the NFL. And they don't eat up a major portion of the screen.

CBS gets all kinds of complaints about the SportsLine and Fantasy Football tickers. Just peruse a few NFL on CBS threads.

I don't care what the focus group results are. I don't see CBS getting any complaints with their graphics for the NFL. And they don't eat up a major portion of the screen.

CBS gets all kinds of complaints about the SportsLine and Fantasy Football tickers. Just peruse a few NFL on CBS threads.
On the other hand, I haven't seen any press releases from CBS claiming to be "giving the screen back to the viewer".

Im sorry but theres no defending this graphic.

This is not sunday afternoon or sunday night. We have no need for constant score updates , game breaks , and Fantasy updates. There is a singular game going on the pertinent info will take up space regardless. Why a decision was made to just cut off more , and leave that bar there the whole time is indefensible.



It's a terrible choice , its wasted space , it serves no purpose. Everything outside the score bar should be transparent period.

Just lip service.

This year's blackout of the bottom of the screen is horrendous.

BTW: I measure 16% of the picture eliminated, not 10%.

Just ask them a simple question. Does the information you're providing at any given time important enough to override 16% of your presentation? If they truly feel it is that important, they are clueless about sports - they've become out of touch.

Just lip service.

This year's blackout of the bottom of the screen is horrendous.

BTW: I measure 16% of the picture eliminated, not 10%.

Just ask them a simple question. Does the information you're providing at any given time important enough to override 16% of your presentation? If they truly feel it is that important, they are clueless about sports - they've become out of touch.

I agree. Blackout is a good term for this. Covering up 1/6 of the screen for no apparent reason shows very poor judgment.

Nothing down there? I see a lot of stats being put up...

I agree. Blackout is a good term for this. Covering up 1/6 of the screen for no apparent reason shows very poor judgment.

I agree completely. They can have the scorebar but they should have it clear beneath. I see no reason to black out the bottom.

Nothing down there? I see a lot of stats being put up...
The stats are fine. But they're blocking out a huge portion of the screen that they do NOTHING with.

ESPN, and any visual company or organization, needs to begin with a sound design philosophy. Not having a unified philosophy -- or having conflicting ones -- results in the hodge-podge kind of output we see now from ESPN.

If ESPN were to adopt a visual philosophy which stated, for example, "On-screen score and status graphics will display only key information plus network brandiing and color scheme, and will obscure a minimum of screen area to do so."

To me, Comcast SportsNet (Philadelphia and Chicago only, I believe) have the most economical on-screen graphic designs. White text on black bubbles, only large enough to accomodate the logo and the information itself, placed to the farthest top and right of their defined safe zone.

ESPN talked about going 16:9 native/4:3 letterbox on College Football broadcasts, but backed out. The only program of theirs which airs in this manner is the World Series of Poker, where they use slightly larger graphics to accomodate their smaller display on 4:3 screens. I sure the "HD community" would be up in arms if ESPN went 16:9 only to make their graphics (or at least their typefaces) larger...

ESPN, and any visual company or organization, needs to begin with a sound design philosophy. Not having a unified philosophy -- or having conflicting ones -- results in the hodge-podge kind of output we see now from ESPN.

The core problem is that their design philosophy is oriented toward the channel surfer than those actively watching the product.

It's the equivalent of being a faithful subscriber to a magazine and suffering through a dozen subscription cards shoved into the mag. Except in this case, ESPN would glue those cards to random pages throughout.

The stats are fine. But they're blocking out a huge portion of the screen that they do NOTHING with.
Agreed, this is a horrendous waste of screen space. The clean score box from last year is replaced by, what? A big bar of NOTHING.

Add that to the constant and neurotic widening/shrinking score bar for down and distance and you'd have to think someone had WAY too much of something dreaming this up.

The core problem is that their design philosophy is oriented toward the channel surfer than those actively watching the product.


It would be one thing if ESPN had only one channel, but they have 69:rolleyes: where the neurotic junkie can go to get their fix on all the information he or she needs.

Just lip service.

This year's blackout of the bottom of the screen is horrendous.

BTW: I measure 16% of the picture eliminated, not 10%.

Just ask them a simple question. Does the information you're providing at any given time important enough to override 16% of your presentation? If they truly feel it is that important, they are clueless about sports - they've become out of touch.
By my calculations it still sucks. Just not as bad as it does for college football.

Next year we can count on ESPN putting black bars on the edge of the 4:3 area. :rolleyes:

ESPN at a minimum has to nuke the red/black background down below, the whole gyrating graphics presentation is as unwatchable as the Jets' performance yesterday and TK.

My point with the populist approach is that I'm not sure the mainstream cares enough (or even notice enough) the graphics package to really dissuade them from viewing, and this often gets mistaken as license to do anything the production folks. I would imagine though they get far more complaints about Tony K.

I think you are right in this assessment of things. Do you know if when ESPN uses focus groups, what options are presented? I am wondering if a minimalist approach is ever one of the options offered or if they are all graphics overload of one kind or another. I just can't imagine people would pick graphics overload over a minimalist approach, except for gambling junkies or fantasy football freaks, which I am guessing are a minority of the total audience. I would like to see ESPN have a poll on their website about what layout viewers would like to see or better yet, do an entire game with a minimalist approach and see how many complaints you get from viewers about it.
The current MNF look reminds me of taxes, it is good that a lot of the ridiculous things you mention are not in MNF (non-football guests, dancing robots, huge sound swooshes during wipes) but the score bar is so huge it's like viewers are paying a tax to get rid of the other things and the man always gets you one way or another. I am aware of safe area concerns but this goes way too far.
Being in the know, do you think there is any way to get back to minimalism or see it even given a fair shot? My idea of a perfect presentation would be a small time/score/down/distance bar no larger than half the size of the current MNF bar but keeping all the good innovations that have come along, like the first down line. One final complaint, watching in HD I don't recall ever seeing anything on the 16:9 areas of the score bar but the bar stayed there nevertheless. I think you should at least get rid of the 16:9 areas of it that don't ever have any information.

the fugly bar is gone!!!!!! yes!!!!!!!!

Love the new MNF scoreboard/graphics package. Less is more.
You guys that are in the TV business, please pass along my thanks to ABC/ESPN.

What took them so freaking long!

Yay!!! Bout damn time. I think the new booth crew is great too, Gruden has lots of useful insight and works well with the other two. The man knows the game, even if he is just a rent-a-coach this year.

MNF is BACK.

I thought the bar was a little large for what info it has, but thankfully overall it takes up less space than any other channel's bars and none of that garbage shading under it. I really hope the other channels learn that less IS more.

Definitely a move in the right direction while CBS is moving in the wrong direction. However, if they're going to have that massive color coded on-field down and distance arrow, they may as well eliminate the down & distance section of the score bar and shorten it. That's necessary info, but nothing is so necessary that it needs to be displayed in two locations on the screen.

I really wish they'd get back to something like this. This score bug was simple and elegant. An updated version would be great...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=152655&d=1253018560

Yay!!! Bout damn time. I think the new booth crew is great too, Gruden has lots of useful insight and works well with the other two. The man knows the game, even if he is just a rent-a-coach this year.

MNF is BACK.

Agreed. I have hated MNF since it arrived at ESPN, but last night changed my mind. The score bar is, dare I say, tasteful. Still not as small as I would like, but given what we've seen before, it's beautiful.

And Jon Gruden does commentary like he's been doing it for 15 years. He manages come off natural, enthusiastic, and knowledgable, and that's more than I can say for 90% of the other announcers out there. He made Jaws look downright silly a couple times. By the end of the game, I was convinced that Tirico and Gruden could two-man the season and no one would even notice Jaws was gone. If Gruden makes a career of calling games, he could easily be the next John Madden (pre-senility).

Great steps in the right direction last night.

Definitely an improvement. I also agree about showing the down and distance twice. I would personally like to see all the networks get rid of the down and distance indicator superimposed on the field.

I really wish they'd get back to something like this. This score bug was simple and elegant. An updated version would be great...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=152655&d=1253018560


Agreed, Fox Sports does something like this on their HD College Coverage...it's very refreshing...

Definitely an improvement. I also agree about showing the down and distance twice. I would personally like to see all the networks get rid of the down and distance indicator superimposed on the field.
Hear Hear. Isn't it great when they run through it and disappear?

Hear Hear. Isn't it great when they run through it and disappear?

I liked the down and distance when it was part of the status bar.

However, I did like it when they added the play clock when it ran below 10 seconds.

I liked the down and distance when it was part of the status bar.

However, I did like it when they added the play clock when it ran below 10 seconds.

I agree, although a couple of times they kept the play clock graphic on the field and ticking well after the ball was snapped.

I agree, although a couple of times they kept the play clock graphic on the field and ticking well after the ball was snapped.
My guess is that the graphic won't disappear until the clock operator resets it to 40. That stuff is generally automated.