Hockey - TV is fine if you are already a fan of the game. But, the live experience is better, and is what makes people fans of the game. You can sit close to the ice and get a feel for the speed and power of the players, or you can sit in the upper deck and watch the flow of the game. My NHL tickets are behind the goal and in the fourth row of the upper deck, and I can tell when a team is tired or having some sort of defensive breakdown. Its how I learned the game. Every once in a while its nice to upgrade the seats and get a reminder of how fast the game is.
Baseball - Live - There is no comparison. Baseball must be enjoyed with a bag of peanuts and only at the stadium can you throw the shells on the floor.
American Football - Generally better on TV, but a college game can be of the best live sporting events you can experience.
Football/Soccer - For a game that Americans, myself included, often criticize as slow and uninteresting, seeing a match in person is very entertaining. TV usually does not translate the game well.
Basketball - Other than a NCAA Match Madness game, see it on tv (so I can change the channel.) But if you can get your self to a tournament game, its a thrill.
More seriously (can you tell I don’t like cricket matches that take days to finish?!), I think that **watching with mates **adds to the experience whether in a stadium or watching TV.
I think the quality of the stadium seat and how easy it is to get there also matters.
Most US stadiums look modern, clean and well laid out compared to the older English ones.
I like watching rugby live if I’m close to the pitch.
However there is a pleasant addition to watching on BBC TV, which is that you can get the referee’s running comments to the players - very insightful.
The Yankees radio broadcasts have been pretty bad since Susan Waldman teamed up with John Sterling but I do agree that baseball can be a fantastic radio sport. Hockey can be pretty damn good too. I probably listened to more Ranger games on radio than watched them on TV before I gave up on the sport.
This is, IMO, absolutely correct. I think it has to do with the pace of the game and the time of year. Baseball is for summer, for listening while grilling or in a boat at the lake, or for sitting at the park on a cloudless summer day. Baseball is for being outside.
Football: Tie. TV is great for the stats and replays, but good 50 yard line seats and the roar of the crowd add a lot.
Baseball: TV. For such a slow paced game, the seats are too hard and the game too long for static continuous watching. Baseball is a sport for hanging out and social multitasking barbeques and conversations.
Soccer: Live. It is a full field game, and so much is lost to close camera shots.
Basketball: Live. The athleticism and skill is even more impressive in person. It is also a surprisingly quiet game in person with lots of tension and suspense.
Hockey: Live. The ice is small and intimate, and the crunch and clatter is fantastic. You can see the puck in reality, instead of wondering where it is on TV and waiting for the replay.
Any sport is better if you’re counting atmosphere and the atmosphere is positive. But for watching the actual gameplay. I think football, baseball, billiards, golf, and tennis are better on TV, and volleyball, hockey, and basketball are better in person.
For NASCAR, or any racing, it depends on the track. A road course or an old track like Talladega will have limited visibility and may only list the top 5 cars in the running order. At a world class facility like Texas Motor Speedway, every seat is a good seat and the scoring tower shows most of the running order and scrolls through the rest. Also, a radio is a bare minimum requirement. A scanner is preferred though. Taking a scanner changes the race completely from watching it on tv.