- Worth noting that this is the default view for basically all "two goals" based sports (i.e., football, soccer, basketball, hockey, even volleyball, etc.)
- That's not just arbitrary equilibrium: (1) it provides stable point of reference for which direction a team is attacking / defending, (2) it lends itself well to more "stability" of the camera with a more fixed point of reference, and (3) it is the easiest way to glean depth / distance down the field as an observer watching in 2D
- People are generally averse to change, but you're also asking for a major shift from the viewer / consumer for some (?) marginal benefit. For all of the non-die hard fans or those who didn't play the sport previously (and thus have more exposure to A22 view), you're pushing them to take on a much heavier cognitive load to digest the images coming from the screen for the course of a whole game -- there's a benefit to familiarity here which I wouldn't be so cavalier in dismissing as "people always hate change, they'll get over it"
You make some good points, but you lost me at "marginal benefit". Under the current broadcast angles, the receivers literally run out of view every snap with a passing play that takes longer than 3 seconds to develop. In passing plays, we get to watch an offensive line battle a defensive line.
This is only possible, of course, with the advent and widespread adoption of 1080p and 4K, and big-ass TV screens. Thus, it really hasn't been a possibility until recently.
I'm all for it. It would probably be worth trying the end-zone (Madden) view and the standard sideline view, and cameramen would have to get used to responding differently to plays as they happen, but it could be done.
I’m what survey takers refer to as being in the “average older viewer” demographic. You know the type. So, I realize that what follows will likely be unpopular here. But the comment button was open, so here goes…
At the outset, I’m fine with additional alternative viewing options being available to various segments of viewers who find them beneficial. However, I’m far less accepting of efforts to replace the traditional broadcast in favor of this view. Here’s why.
First, All-22 violates the Goldilocks Principle, much as helmet cams did at the other extreme. Helmet cams were too close to the action for viewers and didn’t add to the viewing experience. So, they quickly faded into obscurity. All-22 goes too far the other way for me. With its wide static view of the field, it is too removed from the action on the field and leaves the players and the ball more distant and difficult to focus on. This elevated perspective tends to render the game sterile and clinical and strips it of its raw emotion and excitement. The game feels less dynamic.
Ticket resellers seem to agree. The tickets that are available for an All-22 vantage point - those in the upper decks far above the field of play - are the cheapest. Those in the lower bowl right along the field of play with no aerial view are the most expensive. What the market is suggesting is that the tradeoffs for All-22 are poor ones. Its lower value additional elements are insufficient to compensate from the diminution from not having closer field views. It is what teams, PFF and other services need, but not the average television viewer.
It’s also not consistently valuable. From what I’ve seen, All-22 appears useful essentially only on pass plays (half of the game), and then only a small subset of those plays – passes that are thrown deeper downfield. I don't need it for WR screens or passes behind the line of scrimmage. It’s also less valuable for Red Zone plays where we can already see all the players.
All-22 also appears to require clearer lines of sight. I recently saw a video analysis on Substack of the Caleb Williams game ending INT against the Rams. Strangely, the creator elected to use All-22 film that was nearly opaque in the poor weather conditions due to its distance from the action. The further away the camera is, the more the snow seemed to impact the view. The network broadcast had all the same necessary visual elements for the play itself – only clearer for the viewer. In weather, All-22 can detract from the visuals.
I sense that the growing popularity with All-22 is a modern development nurtured and incubated by an analytics-soaked culture where we are inundated and incessantly sold that more information is always better and will somehow always offer crucial insights. More to the point, All-22 seems to be a part of a growing sports culture trend that prioritizes wanting to out-think an experience rather than fully experiencing it on an authentic emotional level. Too much thinking and not enough enjoyment in the moment for me.
It's like admiring an amazing sunset as some boorish guy wanders over uninvited to explain the meteorological details that make it all less magical. No thanks. Opinions will vary here of course, but for me it takes away all the things that make watching the NFL exciting, emotional, and entertaining in exchange for more information of questionable value for a handful of plays.
Here is an interesting piece from the May 7, 2011, Business Insider:
"...We've chronicled the most recent and dizzying sports broadcasting blunder the last couple weeks from the initial Twitter reaction to the predictable comeback from ESPN. Perhaps ESPN should have realized that their use of SkyCam for the bulk of Kentucky-Mississippi State two weeks ago would bring the scorn of college basketball fans anywhere.
I can't think of anyone who has ever thought to themselves, "wouldn't it be awesome to watch a game hovering beneath the scoreboard and constantly twirling around back and forth." Apparently, someone important at ESPN thought just that, although I've never seen seats sold in mid-air above center court."
So, I’ll respectfully pass on All-22 and leave it for others as I turn to on the regular broadcast.
NBC did a "Skycam" for a game in 2017. Not quite All-22, but certainly a broader way to see plays unfold than what we normally get.
I seem to remember many complaints on Twitter at the time. I loved it, and the comments on this video suggest many others did, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaNhfKEQzo
Apparently there was more hate than love, considering the network never went back to it.
Most people's experience of All-22 views is seeing them as a replay of a play we have already seen and know the outcome of. A typical application of it is:
A QB sack
1. Conventional view shows the QB dropping back, surveying the field, then getting swallowed up by the pass rush.
2. All-22 shows the receivers routes, the defensive coverage, and if there were any open receivers the QB missed.
Here, the All-22 provides supplemental information and context to explain the result we already know about and saw, and it is successful at this (though not completely, since, e.g. it can't tell us what the QB's progression was on that play, and where the open receiver would have been on that).
I'm not sure that validates its use as the delivery mechanism for the result of the play. In an All-22 replay, we might focus on the intended receiver of the pass. For the initial play, we'd probably look at the area currently covered by the conventional view, and this would be inferior.
Today, I learned Amazon already offers the NFL viewing experience I've always wanted, and I had no idea it existed! Oh, and 100% of my friends and family who are heavy NFL consumers have no idea this exists.
Ethan is right, Amazon has to make a big promotional deal out of this and not hide this option in an obscure menu that people are unlikely to find. Until that happens, we have no idea if this would be the future of NFL broadcasting; it's all just speculation and guesswork.
A few things...
- Worth noting that this is the default view for basically all "two goals" based sports (i.e., football, soccer, basketball, hockey, even volleyball, etc.)
- That's not just arbitrary equilibrium: (1) it provides stable point of reference for which direction a team is attacking / defending, (2) it lends itself well to more "stability" of the camera with a more fixed point of reference, and (3) it is the easiest way to glean depth / distance down the field as an observer watching in 2D
- People are generally averse to change, but you're also asking for a major shift from the viewer / consumer for some (?) marginal benefit. For all of the non-die hard fans or those who didn't play the sport previously (and thus have more exposure to A22 view), you're pushing them to take on a much heavier cognitive load to digest the images coming from the screen for the course of a whole game -- there's a benefit to familiarity here which I wouldn't be so cavalier in dismissing as "people always hate change, they'll get over it"
You make some good points, but you lost me at "marginal benefit". Under the current broadcast angles, the receivers literally run out of view every snap with a passing play that takes longer than 3 seconds to develop. In passing plays, we get to watch an offensive line battle a defensive line.
Yeah I was going to say the same thing, it's the exact same way in basketball. The camera follows the ball, not the players.
The viewer wants to be guided to what's currently happening, not "here's everything, but that corner is where you want to focus"
…there seems to be two separate issues/questions…
1. Should there be an alternative All-22 Feed? (Yes, that’s what streaming allows you to do, it makes sense to take advantage of it…)
2. Should we switch to an All—22 Feed as the default main broadcast? (No, not unless/untill the All-22 Feed organically becomes more popular)
This is only possible, of course, with the advent and widespread adoption of 1080p and 4K, and big-ass TV screens. Thus, it really hasn't been a possibility until recently.
I'm all for it. It would probably be worth trying the end-zone (Madden) view and the standard sideline view, and cameramen would have to get used to responding differently to plays as they happen, but it could be done.
I’m what survey takers refer to as being in the “average older viewer” demographic. You know the type. So, I realize that what follows will likely be unpopular here. But the comment button was open, so here goes…
At the outset, I’m fine with additional alternative viewing options being available to various segments of viewers who find them beneficial. However, I’m far less accepting of efforts to replace the traditional broadcast in favor of this view. Here’s why.
First, All-22 violates the Goldilocks Principle, much as helmet cams did at the other extreme. Helmet cams were too close to the action for viewers and didn’t add to the viewing experience. So, they quickly faded into obscurity. All-22 goes too far the other way for me. With its wide static view of the field, it is too removed from the action on the field and leaves the players and the ball more distant and difficult to focus on. This elevated perspective tends to render the game sterile and clinical and strips it of its raw emotion and excitement. The game feels less dynamic.
Ticket resellers seem to agree. The tickets that are available for an All-22 vantage point - those in the upper decks far above the field of play - are the cheapest. Those in the lower bowl right along the field of play with no aerial view are the most expensive. What the market is suggesting is that the tradeoffs for All-22 are poor ones. Its lower value additional elements are insufficient to compensate from the diminution from not having closer field views. It is what teams, PFF and other services need, but not the average television viewer.
It’s also not consistently valuable. From what I’ve seen, All-22 appears useful essentially only on pass plays (half of the game), and then only a small subset of those plays – passes that are thrown deeper downfield. I don't need it for WR screens or passes behind the line of scrimmage. It’s also less valuable for Red Zone plays where we can already see all the players.
All-22 also appears to require clearer lines of sight. I recently saw a video analysis on Substack of the Caleb Williams game ending INT against the Rams. Strangely, the creator elected to use All-22 film that was nearly opaque in the poor weather conditions due to its distance from the action. The further away the camera is, the more the snow seemed to impact the view. The network broadcast had all the same necessary visual elements for the play itself – only clearer for the viewer. In weather, All-22 can detract from the visuals.
I sense that the growing popularity with All-22 is a modern development nurtured and incubated by an analytics-soaked culture where we are inundated and incessantly sold that more information is always better and will somehow always offer crucial insights. More to the point, All-22 seems to be a part of a growing sports culture trend that prioritizes wanting to out-think an experience rather than fully experiencing it on an authentic emotional level. Too much thinking and not enough enjoyment in the moment for me.
It's like admiring an amazing sunset as some boorish guy wanders over uninvited to explain the meteorological details that make it all less magical. No thanks. Opinions will vary here of course, but for me it takes away all the things that make watching the NFL exciting, emotional, and entertaining in exchange for more information of questionable value for a handful of plays.
Here is an interesting piece from the May 7, 2011, Business Insider:
"...We've chronicled the most recent and dizzying sports broadcasting blunder the last couple weeks from the initial Twitter reaction to the predictable comeback from ESPN. Perhaps ESPN should have realized that their use of SkyCam for the bulk of Kentucky-Mississippi State two weeks ago would bring the scorn of college basketball fans anywhere.
I can't think of anyone who has ever thought to themselves, "wouldn't it be awesome to watch a game hovering beneath the scoreboard and constantly twirling around back and forth." Apparently, someone important at ESPN thought just that, although I've never seen seats sold in mid-air above center court."
So, I’ll respectfully pass on All-22 and leave it for others as I turn to on the regular broadcast.
Thanks as always for the time and space.
Are they going to put a blue halo around the football like when Fox tried to launch NHL in the US b/c they thought viewers couldnt follow the puck?
NBC did a "Skycam" for a game in 2017. Not quite All-22, but certainly a broader way to see plays unfold than what we normally get.
I seem to remember many complaints on Twitter at the time. I loved it, and the comments on this video suggest many others did, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaNhfKEQzo
Apparently there was more hate than love, considering the network never went back to it.
Most people's experience of All-22 views is seeing them as a replay of a play we have already seen and know the outcome of. A typical application of it is:
A QB sack
1. Conventional view shows the QB dropping back, surveying the field, then getting swallowed up by the pass rush.
2. All-22 shows the receivers routes, the defensive coverage, and if there were any open receivers the QB missed.
Here, the All-22 provides supplemental information and context to explain the result we already know about and saw, and it is successful at this (though not completely, since, e.g. it can't tell us what the QB's progression was on that play, and where the open receiver would have been on that).
I'm not sure that validates its use as the delivery mechanism for the result of the play. In an All-22 replay, we might focus on the intended receiver of the pass. For the initial play, we'd probably look at the area currently covered by the conventional view, and this would be inferior.
Today, I learned Amazon already offers the NFL viewing experience I've always wanted, and I had no idea it existed! Oh, and 100% of my friends and family who are heavy NFL consumers have no idea this exists.
Ethan is right, Amazon has to make a big promotional deal out of this and not hide this option in an obscure menu that people are unlikely to find. Until that happens, we have no idea if this would be the future of NFL broadcasting; it's all just speculation and guesswork.
In Plato’s allegory of the cave:
Most people don’t even realize they’re watching shadows - and when someone tells them there’s more, they often reject it.