Tonight, after watching the Jets game on MNF, I decided to take it upon myself to see which broadcaster actually gives the viewer more of the screen decicated to the actual game and not lattice or blackened out portions that NEVER get used (unless they go to a replay in which usually all bugs are gone except for a grayed network identifier).

The snapshots I used were either taken by me or by other users on AVS.

If I've made any errors, please let me know.

The numbers in parenthesis denote how much room is taken up by graphics while a play is being run live, with a screenshot provided.

I used x,y coordinates and simple algebra to figure out how many pixels were taken up by graphics, and divided by the total number of pixels to get a percentage.

#1. NFL Network (~2.7778%)
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6734/nflnettv3.th.jpg (http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nflnettv3.jpg)http://img150.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

-------------------

#2. CBS (~7.66333%)
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5403/cbsfl8.th.jpg (http://img517.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cbsfl8.jpg)http://img517.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

The scoreline used to denote other scores around the league takes up 4.8% of the screen.

-------------------

#3. FOX (13.8889%)
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8256/foxbp4.th.jpg (http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foxbp4.jpg)http://img146.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

This could be could down to a little as ~1.56%, taking away portions of the graphic that never get used. If you still want to see out of town scores, the graphics could inflate to as much as ~2.36%.

-------------------

#4t. ESPN (15.8333%)
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8526/espnjy9.th.jpg (http://img524.imageshack.us/my.php?image=espnjy9.jpg)http://img524.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Look at the bottom at how much of the screen ESPN gives us. Oh, wait, it's completely covered up with a nice red and black. ESPN could shrink this down to as little as ~2.23%. And if you need to be constantly remind that that football game you happened to stumble upon on Monday night is ESPN Monday Night Football, it could take up only ~3.45%. And if you forget what the down and yardage is, it would balloon up to $4.44%. Still, not too bad.

-------------------

#4t. NBC (~15.91%)
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9638/nbcgb2.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nbcgb2.jpg)http://img412.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Could be shrunken down to ~3.953% without all that lattice that serves the important purpose of...

it figures that the channel with the least # of games wins.

The reason NFL Network doesn’t clutter the screen is because they can’t afford to upgrade their graphics package. Which is also why that colorful and beautiful Total Access studio that just screams for HD, isn’t in HD. The NFL is hangin’ by a thread, people. True, I’m tellin’ ya its true.


;)

After the NFL Net, which should get a pass because by Thursday night its been 3 days since another game (no need for scores or info bar), I like CBS. You get everything with the least intrusion.

The nice thing about the NFL Network, you can see the entire field of play without any clutter. What a concept!

After the NFL Net, which should get a pass because by Thursday night its been 3 days since another game (no need for scores or info bar), I like CBS. You get everything with the least intrusion.
Someone write this date down. I agree with KenH, but I do like NFL net and hope they don't change. What I do not understand is the need for "ball on: PHI 22" text when the blue and yellow lines are right there infront of your eyes and the numbers on the field have arrows

What I do not understand is the need for "ball on 22 yard line " text

I believe CBS only does that at the beginning of a drive. It's 14:55 in the 3rd, so the Eagles just returned a kickoff. I think they only do it at the beginning of a drive or when they return from commercial, not all the time.

If any good can come out of job reductions/layoffs let it be in the graphics dept of ALL the networks, esp ESPN. Sorry to those talented people in those depts but enough is enough. I didn't pay large sums of money to have a 16x9 screen only to have it boxed down to 4x3 for the benefit of keeping graphics engineers employeed. Give me back my full screen. Get rid of the most irritating of all graphics....the endless scroll.

I could do without ALL of the graphics myself. Why not just run them between plays, for the folks who are not paying attention to the game.

It's very refreshing to watch an OLD game and see the lack of graphics. You used to get the score when they went to break. IF you are really watching the game, you know the score.

If CBS would kill the GameTrax Bar on the bottom, CBS would be perfect. If CBS wants to post the other scores, make a small box on the offside of the main score box. All the Fantasy Geek junk is worthless since they likely are using realtime info from the net, as well as having it customized. I didn't measure it up, but the GameTrax seem to take more screen real estate than the main score box.

I could do without ALL of the graphics myself. Why not just run them between plays, for the folks who are not paying attention to the game.

It's very refreshing to watch an OLD game and see the lack of graphics. You used to get the score when they went to break. IF you are really watching the game, you know the score.

thats would suck cause i wanna also know:

1. down & distance
2. time left in qtr
3. time left on 40 sec clock
4. time outs left

but the GameTrax seem to take more screen real estate than the main score box.

GameTrax takes up 4.8% of the screen, while the main scorebox takes up ~2.86% (including the spot of ball and down and distance).

NFL Network's bar is still pretty intrusive in terms of size and (at least as of last year) it expanded and contracted the same way ESPN's does. http://www.realityx.com/ (navigate to Realtime 3D under reels they have CBS, ESPN and NFL Network graphics its a great comparison).

thats would suck cause i wanna also know:

1. down & distance
2. time left in qtr
3. time left on 40 sec clock
4. time outs left

Like I said, if you are watching the game, you know mostly all of that..also, I said for the folks not paying attention, put it up between plays. They have yellow lines, blue lines, stupid looking bubbles etc. all over the field. How much is enough?

Really, unless you are the QB, why does it matter how much time is on the play clock?

It's amazing how much JUNK folks want on the screen. I guess I'm just in a dream land, not wanting close to 20% of the screen taken up with useless graphics.

Like I said, if you are watching the game, you know mostly all of that..also, I said for the folks not paying attention, put it up between plays. They have yellow lines, blue lines, stupid looking bubbles etc. all over the field. How much is enough?

Really, unless you are the QB, why does it matter how much time is on the play clock?

It's amazing how much JUNK folks want on the screen. I guess I'm just in a dream land, not wanting close to 20% of the screen taken up with useless graphics.

1. im watching multiple games on sunday at once so i cant keep track of each teams time outs left.
2. i like to see the 40 sec clock tick down as the qb is getting ready to snap the ball.
3. if they just flash it on the screen like u said between plays while im watching another game and i miss it then im lost on down, time etc.

1. im watching multiple games on sunday at once so i cant keep track of each teams time outs left.

3. if they just flash it on the screen like u said between plays while im watching another game and i miss it then im lost on down, time etc.

I think that is how we get graphic overload. You have people who watch multiple games and can’t keep up with any of them without help from graphics to inform them. You have people who are into fantasy football and need to know every stat and score. Then you have people who flip on a game and don’t have the patience to wait for updates. I have to think these people comprise a rather large section of their focal groups and this is how they come to the decision to list every friggin’ stat they can show. Stats are one thing, but why would any intelligently run department want to degrade their product by eliminating a portion of that product by blacking it out with colorful lines and diagonal stripes? What focal group said I see too much of the action on the screen and I want you to put up black bars so I can’t see so much? I don’t see this getting any better, only worse.

The reason NFL Network doesn’t clutter the screen is because they can’t afford to upgrade their graphics package. Which is also why that colorful and beautiful Total Access studio that just screams for HD, isn’t in HD. The NFL is hangin’ by a thread, people. True, I’m tellin’ ya its true.


;)

nfl network is the biggest cheapskate in America. maybe we should let NFL owners run the Feds.

Great work, jpr. My kind of analysis.

-R

I think that is how we get graphic overload. You have people who watch multiple games and can’t keep up with any of them without help from graphics to inform them. You have people who are into fantasy football and need to know every stat and score. Then you have people who flip on a game and don’t have the patience to wait for updates. I have to think these people comprise a rather large section of their focal groups and this is how they come to the decision to list every friggin’ stat they can show.

I would venture to guess that your average viewer has a compartmentalized view of game watching. If your focus group asks them what stats they want to see, they probably aren't answering that question in relationship to how much screen space they want. Those are really two different questions. The other thing is screen real estate may not as big of an issue to viewers as one might think especially in this age of the internet where overload is common. Got to remember we're HD-philes and nuts about this stuff - we have a heightened since of awareness when 0.1666 of the screen is covered, most people do not.

This thread is concerned with loss of screen space, but the most complaints come when graphics are disruptive like TNT's pop ups that just kinda appear. Since all the score bars on all networks are up ubiquitously, in many cases they aren't perceived as being as much of a graphic distraction. Now if they squeeze back the whole game and turn it into CNBC (basically the unfortunate direction NASCAR coverage is taking) people will complain quickly. Because that breaks the mold that people have come to expect when watching football. Sports is tough because on the one hand you want to be ambitious and try to cover the event in new ways but on the other hand your viewer base can be very intolerant.

This thread is concerned with loss of screen space, but the most complaints come when graphics are disruptive like TNT's pop ups that just kinda appear. Since all the score bars on all networks are up ubiquitously, in many cases they aren't perceived as being as much of a graphic distraction. Now if they squeeze back the whole game and turn it into CNBC (basically the unfortunate direction NASCAR coverage is taking) people will complain quickly. Because that breaks the mold that people have come to expect when watching football. Sports is tough because on the one hand you want to be ambitious and try to cover the event in new ways but on the other hand your viewer base can be very intolerant.

To further your point, I don't think it's just "total space" on the screen.

For my eyes, I like to see only one area for graphics. So CBS is more distracting to me than the new ESPN MNF graphics. Also, placement is important. I find I can ignore the lower third graphics much easier than anything in the top. The Fox topline is especially annoying.

If CBS would kill the GameTrax Bar on the bottom, CBS would be perfect.

My thoughts exactly. I could even live with it popping up a few times an hour, but as it is now, it's a total distraction.

I would venture to guess that your average viewer has a compartmentalized view of game watching. If your focus group asks them what stats they want to see, they probably aren't answering that question in relationship to how much screen space they want. Those are really two different questions. The other thing is screen real estate may not as big of an issue to viewers as one might think especially in this age of the internet where overload is common. Got to remember we're HD-philes and nuts about this stuff - we have a heightened since of awareness when 0.1666 of the screen is covered, most people do not.


Maybe this is where Perceptual Blindness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FxXhO9x4SQ) comes in. :)

Most Distracting (one AVS-er's list):
1. ESPN - we like red and black lines and useless "ESPN MNF" graphics
2. FOX - the shaded topline above the bar and unused bar sections need to be nuked
3. NBC - explain why we need the "latticework" (transparent or not) again?
4. CBS - The ticker needs to be lowered or removed completely
5. NFLN - wait till we upgrade our graphics

And 90% of the noise on the graphics need to be eliminated. Kudos to jpr as well for he analysis.

thats would suck cause i wanna also know:

1. down & distance
I think one of the most intrusive things is when they have a huge arrow, c0ck feather, etc with the down and to go, and they leave it up during the entire play. Guys run all thru it and you lose the ball carrier.
2. time left in qtr
3. time left on 40 sec clock
4. time outs left
2. I don't think not having the time left is that big of a deal. It could take up a very small amount on the screen.
3. Why? Is it important that he got the play off with 10 seconds left compared to 9 seconds?
4. Possibly only show this in the 2nd and 4th quarter if need be? Again this could take up minimal space on the screen.

The problem is is that even though these could take up very small parts of the screen, the broadcasters make them much bigger than they need to be.

CBS is catering to the fantasy people that are watching the games instead of tracking players online. I was trying to find the final score of the Tampa Bay-Chicago game after it went to OT. Everytime I went to our Fox game, their ticker comes off during replays. It would get to that score, then time for a replay or commercial. I went to CBS and it would take them 2 minutes to change the score from one game to another because they had to show the top stat guys from each team. After spending 15-20 minutes trying to find it, I finally went to nfl.com and got the score.

A) They all "have" to protect their graphics for up to 10% over-scanning. Thats sux but its the reality.

B) NFL-N's PQ and play by play was so bad last year that I wouldn't care if they had the best graphics, they were 5 place IMO.

C) CBS's would be highest on my list if not for their blinking logo.

I agree that it's a combination of size, placement and usefullness of the graphics themselves.

On a side not, does anyone remember the Fox football graphics from a couple of years ago during the holidays? The top of the screen had the usual mess plus blinking christmas lights and animated snow that fell across the top every few minutes while sleigh bells jingled. LOL!! Who in the world decided that would be a good idea??

the lattice on nbc or the greying above/below the bars is required because most tvs overscan and for many the overscan is close to the score bars. so to them, it appears like 1 to a few lines of jibberish motion is moving on the bottom of the screen under the score and they can't quite tell it is the video behind it; apparently it is distracting

the reason for all the added extra crap is the whole 'value added' thing. football fans will watch their games regardelss of what you do to the picture, so those eyeballs are guranteed. they add more crap to try and attract fantasy players who may not generally watch, or the casual channel flipper who may not stay long enough to figure out what is going on. they are also trying to differentiate the brand - possibly pointless to us - but deemed useful to them, along with keeping up with the jones - aka fox has a bar, maybe we need one.

and then come the focus groups. they way they are set up they only add crap, not take it away. and the way teh questions and setups go, it looks nice for 10 seconds, but gets annoying with you have to deal with it for a whole game, and all the other wonderful crap is also added too.

and of course they hire graphics guys and companies, and graphics guys and companies are not going to sugest less graphics (ie less work)

too bad with the implementation of DTV that they didn't add an overlay feature with a button labeled 'Crap' on the remote. press 'Crap' button to get all the overlay crap, press it again to remove all the overlay crap. same would have been nice for the audio. one audio channel with just the on field and stadium surround, the other audio channel has the same with the announcers. this they could provide with the multiple audio capabilities - of course your local station would screw it up.

All i need is the score, what quarter, and time clock. Thats it.

well the nfl network may be cheap, but their graphics clearly have the least amount of clutter on the screen. also the best hd pq i get for football from any network is nfl. next is cbs. none of the others are close. this is via e*.

well the nfl network may be cheap, but their graphics clearly have the least amount of clutter on the screen. also the best hd pq i get for football from any network is nfl. next is cbs. none of the others are close. this is via e*.

I wouldn't call NFL Networks football coverage cheap, they actually throw a bunch at their regular season games (or did last year at least). What hurts them is the lack of cohesion and production chemsitry. Every game looks like their first even though they have some very experienced people putting their shows on. Intiitally John Gonzales directed (who was the big NBC director back when NBC had the NBA) and Craig Janoff (who did MNF in the 90s) helms now. It's a top tier crew...but they don't work together enough IMO to really get a groove going.

Thanks for bringing that up about the NFLN Studio shows. Why aren't those in HD? That makes no sense.

Maybe someone should try integrating all the graphics directly into the field like the down and yardage graphic that everyone now uses. No one needs to see the score when the play is in motion. The only thing we need to see on screen when the play is in motion is the scrimmage/first-down line and the clock.

If ESPN dropped the red and black bar and just had a graphic like NFLN, they'd have the best visual presentation. I like the fact that all the cues are constrained to the lower third. I just wish they didn't kill the entire lower third with useless red and black window dressing.

I wish other networks would do like NFLN and opt for graphical representations rather than words. It saves space.

In defense of NBC, whose presentation I prefer to ESPN's, their lower third graphic is mostly transparent.

All i need is the score, what quarter, and time clock. Thats it.

how can u not need down & distance ?

how can u not need down & distance ?
Easy, listen to the announcers.

Thanks for bringing that up about the NFLN Studio shows. Why aren't those in HD? That makes no sense.

Don't get me started. The short answer is no good reason.

Easy, listen to the announcers.

I want the data. Just make it neater and smaller and less obtrusive. Anyone who doesn't want the data isn't really watching or participating in the game or knows what to look for or what to watch if they go to a real game where all that data is available on the scoreboards all the time.

It frustrates me when they take the data off for a kickoff or a replay.

Just make it compact and as much off the screen as possible.

I want the data. Just make it neater and smaller and less obtrusive. Anyone who doesn't want the data isn't really watching or participating in the game or knows what to look for or what to watch if they go to a real game where all that data is available on the scoreboards all the time.

It frustrates me when they take the data off for a kickoff or a replay.

Just make it compact and as much off the screen as possible.
Wow, that's a pretty bold statement. So in order for me to make sure I am really watching a game I have to always know that the down and to go are? As a kindergarten graduate I can count to 4, and if those chains haven't moved after the 3rd play, chances are pretty good there is going to be a 4th down. Yes at times I need to see the to go, but when I am at the stadium or watching on tv, I'm not always looking at that. What I do is hear the announcers say "gain or loss of " and then I hear them say "down and yards to go."

The only thing I agree with you is it needs to be compact. But I guess for the real fans and real watchers it needs to be huge so they can see it, right?

My choice for best football presentation goes to - and I never thought I'd be saying this - is: Raycom Sports.

The score bar isn't overly big. The area above the bar isn't blacked out or some herringbone pattern. There isn't a second bar for other game scores. They don't cut it like a music video, and they don't have an overhead cable camera (with substandard PQ).

-R

My choice for best football presentation goes to - and I never thought I'd be saying this - is: Raycom Sports.

The score bar isn't overly big. The area above the bar isn't blacked out or some herringbone pattern. There isn't a second bar for other game scores. They don't cut it like a music video, and they don't have an overhead cable camera (with substandard PQ).
Watching a replay of the Ole Miss/Florida game last night confirms your post. The only negative thing is there is scoreboard all of the way to the left (viewing) of the screen.

Previous posters mention they want to see the down and to go, it pops up for a few seconds before the play starts just underneath the scoreboard and then goes away before the play starts. It doesn't always show the time outs left.

Other pluses not mentioned: doesn't have the down and to go in the field, doesn't have the line of scrimmage line, very little graphics.

I like most of what CBS does. Here's what I want, ideally:

1. Score, quarter and time bug in the "backfield" (like CBS does it) 16:9 corner. Move that sucker into the widescreen, dangit!

2. Line of scrimmage and first down lines on the field. Have down and yards to go pop out of corner bug.

3. Have a bug of other games' scores pop up occasionally below the corner bug.

That's it.

this is one of the most informative threads i've seen in a long time. major props to op...

btw, didn't espn come out and say with great fanfare that they were dedicated to giving the screen back to the viewer? apparently not

When I read a thread like this, no wonder there is so much JUNK on the screen. How did people even watch a game in the 70's? There was hardly any info, usually none at all, and I remember enjoying them just as much, IF not more.

If this community feels the need for all the info, then I know the population at large loves it. I look for it to get worse.

We were used to the bare bones approach, because that's the way it was - the graphics generators just weren't there and it was left to the announcers to inform viewers of the info.

People were getting antsy because they wanted to know about other games during the ones they were watching. I know NBC came up with their "10 Minute Ticker", popping up on screen every ten minutes or so (it was a full screen of scores) when a play wasn't running. Became a running joke after a while.

I think the turning point was around 1994 - during the summer when the World Cup was on (being held here in the USA). They couldn't cut to commercials, so ABC added a time/score box in the upper left corner and occasionally added a box next to it with an advertiser's logo and the message "this portion of the game sponsored by <fill in advertiser name whose logo is on screen>" was announced.

Fox, which had just acquired NFC games, grabbed onto this and put up a similar time/score box (which I think also included down and distance). It was a bit on the translucent/transparent side. I don't have a screenshot, but it was simple and not too intrusive.

When I first saw it, I said "Brilliant! About time!". I'm probably not the only one who said that. It's only recently that they've changed to the full bar across the top or bottom of the screen.

When I read a thread like this, no wonder there is so much JUNK on the screen. How did people even watch a game in the 70's? There was hardly any info, usually none at all, and I remember enjoying them just as much, IF not more.

If this community feels the need for all the info, then I know the population at large loves it. I look for it to get worse.
The people who watched in the 70's must not be real watchers. ;)

I agree there is waaaaay too much stuff on the screen. For example why do we need a blue line of scrimmage marker. Where is the fun in being like a ref and trying to guess if they went over the line before they threw the ball? It's like we can't think for ourselves. What's next, a red tint for the red zone?

When I went to the Memphis/Ole Miss game a few weeks ago I was not looking around for a los and first down line. I wonder if people go to the games and they are clueless if they don't see these?

I hate FOX's retarded robot coming back from commercial. I've gotten so fed up with all of FOX's presentation that if the only game is on there I'll play XBOX instead.

As for NBC, how about their Football Night in America show? Keith Olberman made a crack during highlights how a player scored despite the (HUGE) graphics covering him up. I swear it was 20-33% of the bottom of the screen, showing stats for the big game the player had, but you couldn't actually see the TD play.

I wonder if people go to the games and they are clueless if they don't see these?
Well the difference is the much wider field of view at a game you attend. You're not watching in a 4:3 or even 16:9 box, so you can always keep a frame of reference to the LOS and FD markers on the sideline. On TV that's much harder to do because a play on the near side will cause the cameraman to tilt down and completely cut out those far-side markers.

Well the difference is the much wider field of view at a game you attend. You're not watching in a 4:3 or even 16:9 box, so you can always keep a frame of reference to the LOS and FD markers on the sideline. On TV that's much harder to do because a play on the near side will cause the cameraman to tilt down and completely cut out those far-side markers.
On any normal 1st and 10 what you are saying wouldn't be a problem. The camera might move but you could get a general idea of where the los and fd markers are by looking at the markers and refs on the sideline, and the los easily be seeing where the linemen are at.

When I read a thread like this, no wonder there is so much JUNK on the screen. How did people even watch a game in the 70's?
And back then, when I need scores of other NFL games, I called SportsPhone, which updated every 10 minutes.


AVS Video Forum

All i need is the score, what quarter, and time clock. Thats it.

how can u not need down & distance ?

Easy, listen to the announcers.

1. im watching more than 1 game at once.
2. im in a bar watching so there is no tv sound.
3. doesnt take alot of space.
4. alot of times the stupid announcers dont even tell u.

your turn.

The people who watched in the 70's must not be real watchers. ;)

I agree there is waaaaay too much stuff on the screen. For example why do we need a blue line of scrimmage marker. Where is the fun in being like a ref and trying to guess if they went over the line before they threw the ball? It's like we can't think for ourselves. What's next, a red tint for the red zone?

When I went to the Memphis/Ole Miss game a few weeks ago I was not looking around for a los and first down line. I wonder if people go to the games and they are clueless if they don't see these?

For better or worse, the networks are going to err on the side of too much information rather than too little information. Do they NEED all this information.. probably not, but for what of the screen it takes up, I'd rather have it than not. I'm the type of person who's all about statistics (not even just for fantasy purposes), so I like having that information on the screen. If during a game, you think to yourself 'wow, player X looks really good, he must have a lot of rushing yards' and the stat is somewhere on the screen right after, then the networks are probably doing their job of keeping you informed.

Call me crazy, I find ESPN's presentation to be the best this year. The lack of lower thirds is great. And the fact that it seems all the camera ops protect for the score bar makes it easy to watch the game and not miss anything. I find I miss more action with CBS because either they protect for both bars or only one and you can miss some things. I didn't watch the NFL Network games at all because of Gumbel but I will be interested to see what they do this year. I find Fox to give a decent performance with the top bar protected and unobtrusive much in the way ESPN's is. At least Fox gives scores for other games in that same bar and not a separate one like CBS does.

1. im watching more than 1 game at once.
2. im in a bar watching so there is no tv sound.
3. doesnt take alot of space.
4. alot of times the stupid announcers dont even tell u.

your turn.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was a game.

But if it was, which stats would you like to have thrown up on the screen? :p

Score, game clock, down and yards to go. I also like the first down marker. If you're in to fantasy football get a computer.

All i need is the score, what quarter, and time clock. Thats it.

Believe it or not, that's exactly how it was in 1985. There's a photo attached to explain.

Guess I need to update the list with CBS' new "Eye Bar."

Why can't they just use a compact box rather than a full-width bar for the standard information like score/quarter/down/distance/clock? Is it because the producers believe that format is "too crowded" for ordinary viewers to digest? If they have the same graphic on screen the entire game, won't most people figure it out?

I like statistics as much as the next guy (I used to teach stats in college), so I am happy to see the occasional performance numbers between plays. Football has so much dead time that it should be easy to avoid polluting the actual play on the field with an ever-increasing array of information displays.

Personally I find scrolling the most annoying of any of these methods of displaying information. It's much more difficult to ignore something in motion on the screen than a static display. Constantly updating text boxes are a close second in annoyance value.

And, CBS, I really don't need to see live updates of every single game all the time. How about five times an hour. There are so many other options available nowadays for the fantasy players and intense fans to stay informed that you don't need to show it to the rest of us.

Believe it or not, that's exactly how it was in 1985. There's a photo attached to explain.
But it wasn't on the entire time during the game.

But it wasn't on the entire time during the game.

Very true.

And nothing needs to be on screen now during plays.
I can dream. Unfortunately, it will only be a dream.

-R

But it wasn't on the entire time during the game.

You're absolutely right. I neglected to say so.

RULE #1 should be an absolute "no-brainer" whether you are a football fan, fantasy nerd, or the producer/director of the presentation:

NEVER blackout or mask part of the presentation.

The blacked out portion not only eliminates part of your primary product, it also cannot relay any other information. Therefore, it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

If you find yourself in the position that you've taken the historically unprecedented step of masking off part of your programming to address overscan - your graphics have evolved to the unacceptable point that they have "painted you into a corner" and it's time to start over with a different format.

There is no defensible position to justify violating this rule.

It looks like ESPN just jumped into second place.

It looks like ESPN just jumped into second place.

Agreed.

Hopefully the start of a trend. I can actually see the game. Old unis look good too.

Does anyone have a 1920x1080 screencap from any of this weekend's CBS games, with the new "Eye Bar" score bug?

Does anyone have a 1920x1080 screencap from any of this weekend's CBS games, with the new "Eye Bar" score bug?

Check "NFL on CBS" on Wikipedia for all of them.

Check "NFL on CBS" on Wikipedia for all of them.That only has downsized 4:3 versions.

Does anyone have a 1920x1080 screencap from any of this weekend's CBS games, with the new "Eye Bar" score bug?
I'll try to get a capture of it Sunday. Send me a pm to remind me.

wow thats a bad shot...oh well.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/37/m_fbcf327661e24c59a5bacdec9da84c8b.jpg

CBS and FOX are now a tossup IMO. Not sure what's worse - eliminating a significant portion of the top, or having a top and bottom bar that makes you feel like you're watching the game while looking through the slats of a closet door.

CBS and FOX are now a tossup IMO. Not sure what's worse - eliminating a significant portion of the top, or having a top and bottom bar that makes you feel like you're watching the game while looking through the slats of a closet door.
Both. It's almost like what's in the middle doesn't count.

safe zone... safe zone...

repeat that after me.

safe zones were important back in the old SD says... actually old CRT tv days.

these days, i think what the camera operator sees on his 16x9 view finder is what we see on our HD sets...

that's why those dang lattice shows up on NBC...

sigh...

something i would enjoy tremendously is that when the ball is hiked( or any play is "live" for that matter) that all/any overlays fade out. They are already active as it is and being constantly changed for down, yards etc etc. So why cant they just fade out or turn off as the ball is hiked. I dont beleive it would be a big deal as its monitored anyways. They could learn a lesson from some NHL score overlays as they have improved the last 2 years as well.