So, which NFL telecaster actually gives the screen to the viewer? - Page 2

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.

how can u not need down & distance ?

Easy, listen to the announcers.

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

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

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 " 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.

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.

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.

And back then, when I need scores of other NFL games, I called SportsPhone, which updated every 10 minutes.


AVS Video Forum

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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