I enjoy watching football because of the skill, athleticism, physicality and strategy. I enjoy being a football fan for the social and community aspects, but those don’t have anything to do with why I enjoy watching it. At least on TV.
I once heard baseball described as “5 minutes of excitement crammed into 3 hours of play.”
Ah, found the exact quote (thank you, Google!)
I was close.
So how does test match cricket fare?
Annnnd then we have those who drop the ball BEFORE they cross the goal line. Ex:
And note that is from seven years ago. I’m sure there’s been plenty more since then to add to the lowlight reel. (I feel like I’ve seen at least one a year, whether in college or NFL.) It drives me absolutely crazy. Like I get it happening once. Maybe twice. But repeatedly when there are so many examples out there of why not to celebrate too early!?! (And there are plenty of examples in other sports, too, of the premature jubilation.)
That was the original example I was adding to in that quote. 
ETA: The last example in the clip was the best. As the ball lay on the field and the offense celebrated, the defense snatched it up, ran it back to the other end zone, and scored, with the offense paying no attention.
Funny little bit of failed (computer) programming in the NFL+ Premium service: The dates of this week’s games are listed as January 11st and 12nd. That’s some quality “fuck it” energy from the developers.
EDIT: Oops, thought this was the playoffs thread. I’ll go repost this there.
[Moderating]
Apologies for missing this flag earlier, but this is a personal attack, and therefore, this is a Warning.
Me, when I finally resolve that compile error that’s been blocking me all week:
Chuck Klosterman’s new book Football apparently has an essay that talks specifically about this. I haven’t read it but based on a conversation he had on a podcast when promoting it, his contention is apparently this: Football is the perfect sport largely because of the stops in play.
Now, I suspect that this assertion requires the viewer to be at minimum conversant in the rules, strategy and game dynamics in a football game. He argues that the constant stoppages give fans (and to a degree the analysts) time to set the context and consider the stakes for every single play. In most fluid games, there’s lots of subtle stuff that happens that gets missed by the casuals. Often it probably gets missed by the experts too if it doesn’t result in a scoring opportunity.
In football, even a relatively mundane 2nd down and 6 rushing play can be discussed, debated and reviewed in the 30 seconds before the next play. This kind of study deepens the experience in a unique way. Additionally, it makes the game way more communal. Between plays fans can talk about what happened and what might happen next in some depth without distracting from any action. Football isn’t great as a passive watch, but when you’re active it’s more rewarding. In this age of second screening and low attention spans, this makes it really special.
I’m paraphrasing the discussion, and it was brief, so I might be mischaracterizing it without having read it firsthand. But I think this argument feels right. Football might have a higher barrier to entry, which puts off casuals like OP, but the investment is ultimately rewarding exactly because of what luddites criticize.
Agreed, it’s why I love watching football.
In addition, the start-and-stop nature of the game sets up moments of great tension that can occur throughout the game, especially at the end. A team will have one discrete event (a “play” in the game parlance) to achieve an objective, such as advancing the ball a certain amount. Of course, the opposing teams have the goal to prevent it.
The complex rules also force the coaches to make strategic decisions, often choosing between a safe, low-risk and low reward play, and a high risk, high reward play. Fans can discuss and debate the choices as the game unfolds, and often long afterwords. See the NFL Week by Week threads, for examples.
I guess I can imagine some of what folks say about the stop/start, but from my perspective, it detracts from the enjoyment for a casual viewer. I don’t need to be instructed in the intricacies of the game, or what is happening or happened n other games. Instead, I just want some decent entertainment.
And a lot of the rules seem awfully arbitrary. Wait, they are reviewing THIS play but not THAT one? All the while, much of the announcing is done in a breathless manner suggesting it is more important than a bunch of men getting highly paid to play a game. But I guess that appeals to some.
Also, I perceive the analysis as quite uneven. For example, I watched a couple of minutes of Sunday’s game. IIRC, during the 2d qtr. (My wife watched much of it. I read in another room.) One time a Bears player was flagged on a play that extended a Rams drive. I think he kinda just body checked a Ram after the whistle. IIRC, penalty was 1/2 the distance. Didn’t look like much to me. They showed 1 quick replay. 1 announcer said, “You can’t do that”, and the other said, “Didn’t look like much to me.” But then they just went on to the next play. Whereas this penalty continued a 1st half drive. I think, but am not sure, the Rams scored on that drive. So the penalty was hugely significant IMO.
So you just have these nattering idiots, filling whatever space there is, primarily to fill the space, not because they are providing info of value.
I recall hearing Bob Costas saying that his main skill was being able to talk to fill a specified length of time. He didn’t say provide valuable commentary. Just yapping to fill air time.
During the little I watched, I realized how much I disliked the feeling of wanting one team to win, and the tension associated. Kinda like my feeling towards gambling - I dislike losing far more than I enjoy wining.
Not saying anyone else ought not enjoy watching sport. Just not for me.
You’re not wrong; it is kind of arbitrary. Broadly, certain types of plays are always reviewed (any scoring play, any turnover), but many reviews are instigated by the head coach “challenging” the call on the field.
And, even then, some types of plays/rulings are, by the rules, not reviewable, including most penalty calls, and other rulings which the league considers “subjective.”
I agree with you on this. A few announcers do provide interesting observations and insights, but most are jabbering to fill the available space, and I’m pretty certain that they are coached to not leave any dead air.
Decades ago, the NFL did a trial of having an “announcer-less” televised game. The audio for that broadcast only included the stadium announcer, the referee’s mic for penalty calls, crowd noise, and noise from the players on the field. It was deemed to be unpopular among fans, because it didn’t provide enough context.
We were at the Seahawks game last Saturday. Then we watched the recording of the game, and it was interesting to see how the announcers analyzed what was happening. I did get a few insights that I would have missed if I just watched the game live and in person. However, it’s not a big deal. Mostly we just wanted to re-live a really fun game.
I remember that - and greatly preferred it. I’ll accept that I am just not in the target audience.
I’m not sure, but ISTR that at times I actually watched games with the TV volume off, but the radio on. ISTR the radio announcers did a better job of just describing what happened, instead of just spouting stats that can be supplemented with flashy graphics.
A lot of people do that. It’s very common. I’ve done it a couple of times myself.
In this, it’s somewhat similar to baseball. I’ve thought that sports like basketball, soccer, and hockey have more action, while baseball and (American) football have more plot.
I’ve done it, too, but my understanding is that, due to some baked-in time delays in certain forms of broadcasts, the radio and/or TV feeds aren’t necessarily truly “live” anymore, and the radio and TV broadcasts may not be synced up.
Here in Chicago, up until a few years ago, the Bears’ radio broadcasts ran on WBBM, the local 24-hour news station, which broadcast on both AM and FM. They would advertise that one of those two bands carried the truly live feed (and, thus, would be appropriate for listening to while at the game), and the other was time-delayed a bit, to sync up with the TV feed.
Correct. It’s not perfect and can be a bit jarring, even if the quality of the radio announcers is better. Here in the Seattle market, the Seahawks games are done by former Seahawks players and sports analysts Steve Raible and Dave Wyman, and they do a fantastic job. But it’s not perfectly in synch to listen to them and watch the game.