Top
Best
New

Posted by proposal 1/27/2026

Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game(www.latimes.com)
https://archive.is/mi308
43 points | 112 comments
IvyMike 1/27/2026|
To me, this is the only real football game: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football.

(No spoilers please!)

quuxplusone 7 days ago||
Clicked expecting https://www.sbnation.com/2014/8/18/5998715/the-tim-tebow-cfl... ...and found something different! (Albeit by the same author, Jon Bois.)
jmhammond 1/28/2026|||
That was a really fun experience. Thank you for sharing!
soulofmischief 7 days ago|||
Exactly where my mind went as well :)

And the followup: https://www.sbnation.com/c/secret-base/21410129/20020

jaxelr 1/28/2026|||
Dopest thing I’ve seen this year. Thanks for sharing.
eszed 1/28/2026|||
How had I never seen this? Fantastic. Thank you!
disqard 1/28/2026|||
Thank you so much for sharing that!
mohaine 7 days ago|||
To bad they used red and green that look exactly the same to me
goda90 1/27/2026|||
Better on mobile browser.
electroglyph 7 days ago|||
comes to comments before reading story

reads something from the comments instead

never reads original article submission

leaves satisfied

SoftTalker 7 days ago|||
Crashes Firefox.
taneq 6 days ago||
What a ride!
dwd 1/28/2026||
There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes.

Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame.

Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey), constant action, and the ball can move 50+ metres up/down or across the field in a few seconds so you need to see the player movements off the ball. There's also something about a very large arena with 100,000+ spectators and a constant murmur of sound that can erupt in a moment.

ericbarrett 7 days ago||
I disagree about baseball.

I played it in school and have always enjoyed it casually, but I attended a game with a friend who was very into MLB. He pointed out many interesting defensive and offensive moves through the innings. Some were straightforward, like the runner on second base edging forward to steal. Others were less obvious, like outfielders tightening inward since the batter was likely to bunt. There was always action and information from multiple places on the field, once you knew what to look for. It was fascinating, and I’ve always much preferred in-person attendance since.

It’s impossible for a single screen to capture all these things, so a TV broadcast director makes calls to show one camera or another, and has to sacrifice the subtler stuff so they don’t miss a pitch or a throw to first etc.

Football, on the other hand, absolutely much better on TV if you want to follow the action. It happens in a small area of the field so it’s easier to show on a screen, you are seated much farther away, and the mud-brown ball is difficult to follow when it is hundreds of feet distant. The main fun of being there is social IMO.

jfengel 7 days ago||
George Will's Men At Work is a good introduction to the numerous minute subtitles of baseball. It came as quite a surprise to hear why, say, shortstop and second base are such wildly different skill sets.

I'm still not a fan of the game, but I can see why those who are, are. I enjoy it a lot more when I go with someone who is seeing a lot more to each play.

jfengel 7 days ago|||
I actually like the stop-and-go of American football. Each play is a few seconds of intense, simultaneous activity. You then have a minute to dissect all of that action, which can tell a different story for each of the 22 players. Even two players holding each other to a standstill can be serious drama.

To each their own, of course. But you might be surprised at how intellectual a game American football can be. It's not mere brutality, as it can appear.

vessenes 1/27/2026||
I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv. Baseball is one for radio: baseball is almost always better over radio; there’s lots of space to do something else at the pace of most baseball games.
mysterydip 1/27/2026||
I spent a summer building a car in a garage with baseball on the radio. That was the most I’ve enjoyed the game by far.
phatskat 7 days ago|||
The most fun I’ve had with regards to baseball is either getting tanked watching the local team in clllege on cheap beer and a short walk to the stadium, or a team-management game for Wii where the main focus was building your team and playing the whole 200+ game season. There was still a game of sorts for the actual play, but it was by no means the focus in terms of presentation nor mechanics.
AceyMan 7 days ago||||
My grandmother (b. 1906)—a very intelligent lady (held her J.D.)—always had MLB game the broadcast tuned in anytime I was visiting her. The tempo and information needs of the game makes it perfect for delivery by radio.
FatherOfCurses 1/28/2026|||
Sounds like heaven.
shuntress 1/27/2026|||
Baseball is killer in-person but it's also pretty nice to just have on TV. There is nothing else like the tension of a critical at-bat.

Football is actually really really weird for a spectator sport and, I think, is generally presented very poorly. 80% of the game is deciphering opposing formations to determine what they each are predicting the opposing formation is about to try to do.

vessenes 1/27/2026|||
Football is just a really complicated sport; one reason I think it’s popular is that it’s fun on a visceral physical individual level (“Wow, look at that run/block/hit/kick”) for ‘beginners’ watching and is also intellectually engaging as you learn more, “wait, how did they shift the secondary just now??”

Baseball - I like it in lots of forms, too. But I think a good radio announcer can get you most of the fun out of a critical at bat narrating.

dylan604 1/27/2026||
I recently watched Brockmire with Hank Azaria, and thought it was funny how the actual game announcing were just mere interruptions to whatever else he was talking about at the time. Which is pretty much how I find watching sports at a bar when there's multiple screens with multiple games and people you're with not actually into any of it.
chis 1/28/2026||||
Football is so unique in that the way it’s presented makes it almost impossible to understand what’s going on. There are a million rules, which even die-hard fans don’t understand. And the broadcast doesn’t even make an attempt to explain or even show the offensive or defensive formations and plays being chosen.

It feels like what we’re shown on tv is a very narrow slice of what’s going on. We see the ball moving down the field but have no idea what the coach or quarterback is doing. Somehow it’s still an incredible watch though.

jvm___ 7 days ago||
The plays belong to the individual teams, which is, I heard, why they don't broadcast full field views.

No idea if it's true or not

vessenes 4 days ago||
There are some recent experiments with consumer-facing full field: (Prime Vision All-22). They were held closely for a long time, though.
dylan604 1/27/2026||||
I went to a ball game to watch a buddy's kid throw a first pitch. I didn't know that there was more than one first pitch. We sat around talking after their first pitch and it was already the 3rd inning before I realized the game had actually started. I must have missed the "play ball" announcement.
recursivecaveat 1/27/2026||
Every MLB game I've ever been to has had that happen lol. 3 'first pitches' and then the actual start of the game happens with absolutely zero fanfair, so it's very easy to miss. In general they announce very little audibly about the actual game, it's a very different experience from watching on TV.
JackFr 7 days ago|||
The first time I saw baseball from box seats after 30 years of upper deck, it was two different games. While you couldn’t hear, seeing the players speak to one another was a blast.
dwd 1/28/2026|||
Cricket is another where the radio broadcast was always better, as you could have the TV on in the background but listen to the radio, only looking up when something happens.

The commentators, particularly for the Aus/England Ashes series were always better with the likes of Agnew and the now retired Blofeld providing much better commentary.

BigTTYGothGF 1/29/2026|||
> I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv

And just like killer apps of other technologies there were supplementary instruction books: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/chris-schenkel/...

bobro 1/27/2026|||
What’s the sport for short form video?
derektank 1/27/2026|||
Lots of Olympic events seem well suited to the format. BMX racing, freestyle skiing, luge/skeleton, and a variety of track and field events all have runs that last for less than a couple of minutes. Not sure if there’s anything comparable in the realm of professional sports besides highlights
wincy 7 days ago||
I remember that Turkish guy and the Korean woman who looked like total badasses in the shooting competition in the Olympics, the Turkish guy because he wasn’t using all the fancy gear, and the woman because she looked like someone out of a James Bond movie. Those highlights were just too cool.
Analemma_ 1/27/2026||||
That's actually an interesting question. Table tennis, maybe? Each volley is the right length for a TikTok video, and some of them (certainly not all) have spectacular long-distance lob+smash plays.

Seems like it plays well with vertical video orientation too.

sandspar 1/28/2026||||
Joke answer but it would be fencing, if only we could convince people to turn their phones to landscape.
colechristensen 7 days ago||||
post-game Chess analysis, diving, skis/snowboards/bikes/skateboards/etc doing tricks, any sports bloopers or amazing single plays (like the dad holding a beer and a baby who manages to also catch a foul ball, racing crashes, curling throws...
vessenes 1/27/2026||||
I wish it were chess boxing. I love chess boxing.
WorldMaker 1/27/2026||||
Basketball trick shots and single plays?
onlypassingthru 7 days ago|||
Swimming and diving.
doctorpangloss 1/27/2026||
that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha.

football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. it's not dead, but where growth is measured, it is not good. the cultural thing this guy is talking about in the article, it's going away. fewer and fewer people every year value the aesthetic experience he is describing.

TV ownership? trending down. they've never been cheaper for a reason. trend for TV production since peak TV? down.

football as a gambling product? up. okay, do you see what i mean by bad growth? football mediated as betting stats on apps? up. draftkings, polymarket, ESPN fantasy app ARPPU? up. ESPN streaming app ARPU? down. comcast? hated, down, everyone is cheering for it to go down. do you see?

there is no way to talk about specific instances of football (and stadium sports') cultural weaknesses without sounding really cringe. maybe just, "who cares?"

mrandish 1/28/2026|||
I get that you don't like football and you don't like television, which is fine.

As someone who's been analyzing video content industry trends for a few decades now, I just want to let you know you've reached some incomplete or misleading conclusions based a variety of category errors and assumptions. Traditional living room televisions are just one way of consuming video content. And "over-the-air broadcast" is just one way of distributing video content. Assuming broadcast television viewership shrinking also means less video is being created and consumed is like assuming music consumption is down because CD sales are down or the printed word is dying because fax machine sales are down.

The reality is quite the opposite. Video content creation, distribution and consumption are all growing at very high rates and have been for a long time. The industry puts a lot of effort into reproducible, audited measurement and has developed deep understanding of how viewership has shifted and multiplied across video consumption platforms, consumption modes, and distribution channels - ranging from streaming long-form to social snacking. While it's true that broadcast television is shrinking and traditional living room TV sales are down, far more video content is being created, distributed and consumed today than ever before, and not by a little - the growth trends are explosive regardless of how we count: viewers, views, hours, titles, revenue or reach. All the metrics measured across the entire video content lifecycle reflect the same incredible growth.

I suggest you focus on the myriad ways video content can be bad, is getting worse or has negative effects on kids, culture or human progress. But arguing video isn't growing is neither accurate nor necessary to support your point.

derektank 1/27/2026||||
>TV ownership? trending down.

Do you have sales or survey data to support this claim? I’m willing to believe individual households might be less likely to purchase TVs, but my understanding is that manufacturers are producing as many or even more screens than ever, though that might be for commercial or business use. Incidentally, it’s efficiency from this scale that allows manufacturers to sell televisions at such low prices, not a lack of demand.

doctorpangloss 1/27/2026||
haha well you wouldn't have thought that at some point in the past, tv set ownership was like 100%, so of course it has gone down, but it's still trending down. this also seems kind of obvious to me.

    Household
    Ownership
    Rate       2011     2020     2023
    -------------------------------------
    TV Set     ~99% [3] 96% [3]  88% [1]
    Smartphone 35% [2]  85% [2]  90% [1]
[1] https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ces2024-smartphone-ownersh...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

[3] https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2020/nielsen-estimates-121-...

vessenes 1/27/2026||||
Hmmm. NFL revenue continues to grow, with something like half of it from media licensing. So, I think you’re wrong. My son watches NFL on his laptop, but there’s little to distinguish how he watches it from the experience he would have on a Samsung tv - he’s not like in some chat group trying to get Ochocinco to write his name on a jersey - he’s passively consuming an edited video feed of a football game with commentary.
doctorpangloss 1/27/2026||
okay, let's look:

    Entity     2016 Rev    2024 Rev     Nominal    Real (Adj)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Netflix    $8.8B [5]   $39.0B [6]   +341%      +229%
    NBA        $6.5B [3]   $11.3B [4]   +74%       +30%
    NFL        $14.0B [1]  $23.0B [2]   +64%       +22%
    Inflation  ---         ---          +34% [7]   0%
i didn't say the NFL made less money, because i'm not stupid. i'm trying to describe a secular trend so i'm comparing the revenue growth in different media companies. looking at this table, a simple way to interpret this is, kind of obviously, netflix isn't really about presenting on TVs per se, they make a media platform, which performed way better than the NFL did, almost 10:1, which is really reinforcing my point no? for every 1 dollar someone gives NFL, consumers give Netflix 9. see? to me that is a trend going down, even if to you, it is a trend going up. depends what your benchmark is!

another POV: other people do a better job at making NFL content than the NFL does, which is what you are saying your son is consuming. and listen, honestly, ask him if he or his friends bet on football...

[1] https://www.footballscoop.com/news/report-nfl-rakes-14-billi...

[2] https://www.sportspro.com/news/nfl-revenue-2024-financial-ye...

[3] https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2016/10...

[4] https://www.sportsvalue.com.br/en/nba-teams-surpassed-us-11-...

[5] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/reven...

[6] https://www.wallstreetzen.com/stocks/us/nasdaq/nflx/revenue

[7] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

bsder 7 days ago||
And I would be VERY interested to see if that increasing NFL revenue was due to people spending more hours watching/attending or because the NFL have a ton of deals with all the online gambling sites whose revenue is going apeshit.

My gut feel is that people are actually spending a lot fewer hours watching NFL games.

Even when I have been at parties where an NFL game was on, the younger crowd were diddling with their phones--generally playing games. No judgment, it's not like phone games are inferior to vegetating in front of the boob tube--but I suspect that while an NFL game may be "on", it's not really the "focus" anymore.

mrandish 1/27/2026|||
> football as a televised spectator sport? trending down.

AFAIC, NFL football is almost always the top 99 out of 100 most viewed television programs in the US every year. The Oscars usually manage to claw onto the list and in election years a couple presidential debates make it, displacing a few regular season games. Since your claim conflicts with my current understanding, I just had AI do a quick search of recent credible sources. Here's the summary:

> "The claim that football (American football/NFL) as a televised spectator sport is trending down is not true based on recent data.

>Regular season NFL viewership saw a minor dip of about 2.2% in 2024 (averaging 17.5 million per game), but rebounded strongly in 2025 with significant gains—averaging around 18.7 million viewers per game (up 10% from the prior season in some reports, marking the highest in 36 years or second-highest on record when including updated measurement methods like Nielsen's Big Data + out-of-home viewing). Networks like CBS, Fox, NBC, and Amazon all reported year-over-year increases, with streaming platforms showing particularly strong growth.

> Super Bowl audiences continue setting records: Super Bowl LIX (2025) averaged 127.7 million viewers (up 3% from the previous year), marking consecutive record highs. Playoff games, including wild-card and divisional rounds, also showed double-digit increases in multiple cases. While some earlier seasons had slight declines (often tied to factors like election years or measurement changes), the overall trend since 2024-2025 has been upward, reinforcing the NFL's position as the dominant U.S. televised sport."

Your impression may arise from shifting measurement platform data due to increasing out-of-home, mobile, streaming, DVR, etc viewership. Just comparing traditional old-school Nielsen in-home diary data alone hasn't been accurate for over a decade. Even if we discount recent cross-platform measurement data, the overwhelming dominance of NFL football is also well supported by the audited financial reports of what broadcasters and streamers pay the NFL and further by what advertisers pay for slots. The sheer money being paid dwarfs all other sports and types of television programming (news, drama, comedy, etc). The recent dramatic growth of legalized sports gambling in the US will likely push NFL viewership across all platforms and formats even higher.

doctorpangloss 1/27/2026||
> The Oscars usually manage to claw onto the list and in election years a couple presidential debates make it, displacing a few regular season games.

the oscars audience is shrinking

all TV broadcast is growing like 1/10th the rate as Netflix did in the past decade. That's my benchmark.

mrandish 1/28/2026||
> the oscars audience is shrinking

Yes, but NFL viewership is growing.

> all TV broadcast is growing like 1/10th the rate as Netflix did in the past decade.

Okay, but that undermines your earlier point. The NFL isn't tied to or limited by 'broadcast television'. NFL football is simply 'video content', but not just any video content, it's the hottest video content of all time - no matter how its distributed. Streaming is now the fastest growing distribution channel for video content, so it's also the fastest growing channel for live football video content. Netflix is paying big bucks to stream some live NFL games - with plans to increase next year. And Amazon Prime is already a major 'network' for NFL with Thursday Night Football. Industry analysts report NFL football is by far the single most expensive content/hr for Netflix and Prime and is a major loss leader for both. They're paying the NFL far more than the broadcast rights are worth as a way to 'buy' more of the subscriber growth you find so impressive. Netflix (and Amazon Prime) aren't 'beating' NFL football, they've surrendered and are joining them (at a loss).

Disney Plus tried to bid on NFL streaming rights but NFL is so expensive it's a hugely risky way for streamers to buy viewers, so Disney dropped out and recently did a deal for exclusive US live streaming rights for a much smaller sport than NFL - F1 racing. Bottom line: live sports is the biggest, most consistent driver of video content viewership - and always has been. NFL is by far the biggest video content sport - and always has been. It's been true for over 50 years, from traditional over-the-air broadcast, cable television (in the 80s NFL rights made ESPN the most valuable cable channel), satellite (in the 90s out-of-market NFL games were the largest driver of DirectTV & Dish growth) and now it's a key growth vector for streamers.

Streaming isn't a threat to the NFL, it's the NFL's biggest growth channel. In fact, the real limit on the NFL's future growth isn't distribution at all. It's already so dominant in the U.S, it has no competition close enough to be relevant. The NFL's only remaining limit is, quite literally, the size of the U.S. population. That's why the NFL's been investing huge sums trying to establish NFL football elsewhere in the world. It's their single biggest growth priority - because they're already the absolute, undisputed king of broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming in the U.S.

doctorpangloss 1/28/2026||
i didn't even say that nfl viewership is down. i think most new viewers are disproportionately gamblers, and children that don't get to choose what to watch haha.
tenahu 1/27/2026||
Interesting, and I have also finished live football games thinking it would have been better to just watch it on TV at home.

However, his claim that a spectator would "automatically reframe what she saw into the way it would appear on television" is never supported other than him saying "trust me, it's true, if you don't believe me you are in the minority".

dylan604 1/27/2026|
I've been to JerryWorld or ATT Stadium one time for a non-NFL game. Most people just watch the giant screen as the actual players are tiny from the stadium seats. Watching at home/bar was the same conclusion I got to as well. I have no idea how much tickets are, but I know parking is extremely expensive as well, never mind concessions.
mjevans 7 days ago||
I'm convinced 'attendance' at those games is a form of worship / tribal participation.
andrepd 1/27/2026||
> Soccer is exclusively about atmosphere and identity, so the experience of being in the crowd and the experience of the game itself are only nominally associated, in the same way going to see the Grateful Dead in the late 1980s was only nominally about music.

This man has absolutely no idea what he's talking about x)

shuntress 1/27/2026|
Ah yes, of course, The Beautiful Game is clearly not at all about the actual game...
cheschire 1/27/2026||
Whenever I think it might be worth it to finally go watch an NFL game live, and I start looking at those ticket prices, I start to question if it's worth it or not. Then I get to the seat view simulator and instantly close the tab because holy hell are the "affordable" NFL seats absolutely terrible to watch a game from. Can you even see the player numbers let alone the names? I guess you need to be a big enough fan to know all the players by number on offense, defense, special teams, and the full depth chart for every position in case there are injuries.

Nah. A one time purchase of a 77" TV with surround sound was absolutely the better option.

psadauskas 1/27/2026||
I went to go see a Broncos game once about 10 years ago, it was $400 for a single ticket. I was in the top section, 3 rows from the back, I needed a Sherpa to help me get to my seat. I could tell there was a game of football being played down below me, but that was about it. I couldn't see the ball, I couldn't read any of the players' numbers, I couldn't see the refs hand signals. A beer and a hotdog was $30, and there was a 10-minute wait for the trough urinal in the bathroom. I was just watching the game on the jumbotron, which based on the distance was comparatively smaller than the TV in my living room.

The atmosphere was great, cheering with 75,000 other fans is exhilarating, but I haven't felt the need to go again. Soccer, hockey, basketball, baseball, I've all been to multiple times, the Denver stadiums for them are great, and the tickets and concessions aren't too expensive. Football is the only sport I really follow, but I'll never go to another game. The local high school is within walking distance, and a ticket is $5.

AceyMan 7 days ago|||
The very best gridiron football is NCAA (SEC specifically) but getting tickets is basically unobtanium. I was lucky to have a FIL who was an alum, and donated enough yearly to get "rights for" season tickets for UGA games (Go Dawgs!). As the saying goes, "There's nothing like cheering on your team with 92,000 of your closest friends." An absolutely amazing experience every time that I got to go. [edit:clarity]
seanalltogether 1/27/2026|||
I used to go to Rockies games over the summer with coworkers after work and buy cheap seats in the rockpile and everyone would drink and eat and just leave when they felt like it. It's probably the best live sports experience I've ever had.
taylodl 1/27/2026|||
Live football far exceeds football on TV for watching play development and execution. TV can't resist the closeup, which precludes you from seeing tne entire field of play, the defense being run, the matchups...you're missing a lot on TV. That being said, I don't live in a city having an NFL team so I have to travel. Add in elevated ticket prices and I don't typically make it to more than one game per year.
mrandish 1/28/2026||
In case you didn't know, the NFL releases game video on their website which can be downloaded as part of their basic NFL+ subscription ($7.99/mo). It's not the broadcast feed, it's the "all-22" views where you can see all the players on the field from above and each end zone. This is the same footage you see on many game analysis videos by football YouTubers.

Now that every NFL player wears a tracking beacon between their shoulder pads, there's an unbelievable amount of automated metadata available from a variety of third-party data services. The data can include breakdowns segmented per team, unit, player, drive, down-and-distance, etc and the costs can be quite reasonable depending the depth and sophistication of analysis. There is also some data available free on ad-supported sites or on free-to-join sites, including on fantasy football and sports betting sites who use the free data to attract sign-ups.

alamortsubite 1/27/2026|||
College is a good alternative. I go to one of my almae matres' games every year. To me, it's way more fun than NFL for a fraction of the price.

I agree NFL is best at home. Hopefully OTA broadcasts remain a thing for a long time to come.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1/27/2026||
One time purchase? How are you watching?
cheschire 1/27/2026|||
Since I would maintain an NFL+ subscription regardless of my attendance at a game or the purchase of a large TV, I don't factor it in.

I got the TV specifically with the money I redirected from an NFL tickets budget line.

Rebelgecko 1/27/2026|||
Probably an OTA antenna and/or streaming
jimbob45 1/27/2026||
Bit silly considering the scoreboard typically has a TV that shows the most important bits that would have been seen at home anyway. His argument may have made sense in 1980 before TVs were introduced in stadiums.

For an actually interesting topic worthy of your time, check out how 1st down markers are calculated and shown on screen at home. It’s much more complicated than you’d think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_%26_Ten_(graphics_system)

j4cobgarby 1/27/2026||
It wasn't until he mentioned 'soccer' that I realised football meant American football.
llm_nerd 1/27/2026||
It's the LA Times, a clearly American newspaper, so of course the reader must assume football = "American" football. This is not contentious.

Further, the contention of the article is simply that there are many perspectives to a game like (American) football, and every perspective is limited in some way, not receiving the full information of everything happening simultaneously, and this also applies to any video source. Not sure how that relates to fascism, but somehow it apparently does. Regardless, the contention is just as applicable to soccer (aka the shortened name the brits made for Association Football)

mabster 1/27/2026||
Unless LA stood for Latin America haha.
chris_va 1/27/2026|||
Surprisingly, the natively english speaking world is about evenly split on "soccer" vs "football".
mabster 1/27/2026|||
I guessed American when it was compared to Hockey, Baseball and Basketball.

In Melbourne, Australia, Football is again another sport (but it not being called Footy gives it a way).

macleginn 1/27/2026||
Most of what he writes (including the part on the skycam) applies to soccer as well.
_--__--__ 1/27/2026||
Maybe, but soccer doesn't have very many situations where there are ~14 players standing in spitting distance of each other and a 6 inch shift in the position of the ball or a single player has huge implications for the outcome of the game.
temp_praneshp 7 days ago|||
Aren't free kicks an example of this? There must be a few in every soccer game, no?

But I don't know how many times the 14 player scenario happens per game in American Football, is it a lot more?

alamortsubite 1/27/2026|||
Soccer fans also miss out on an hour of commercials each game (it's easy to skip the ones at halftime).
legitster 1/27/2026||
It's often pointed out that the ball is only live for about 18 minutes of every game. But what makes football so fascinating is that for every play there are 22 different jobs being executed at the same time. And the jobs change every play.

For something like baseball, you can basically see everything happening in frame the whole time. But for football, the game is so information dense that you can spend hours unpacking the game afterwards to see what was going on. That's why replays and highlights are so much more satisfying. And that's what makes it fun to analyze and or watch videos during the week - you can find all sort of unique or interesting aspects just watching the same play again and analyzing a different personnel group.

It also explains why cameras are everywhere (besides them being just flat out cheaper for high school games, etc). Film study is a crucial part of the game for players - more than in any other sport.

cgannett 1/27/2026|
reminds me of a friend of mine who turned his alabama football passion into a cameraman career
shuntress 1/27/2026|
This guy is not totally wrong but he is also way off about pretty much everything even just simple basic facts. He writes "Michigan Stadium, the third‑largest sports venue on earth." which is not even remotely true. Michican Stadium isn't even in the top 5 of venues in the US never mind globally[0]. And thats if you just take capacity counts at face value and don't try to include places that have huge standing room capacity like horse racing tracks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_venues_by_capac...

quickthrowman 1/27/2026||
You’re technically correct, but

I ran through the list, Michigan Dome is the third largest sports venue on earth, for team sports, or better yet, the third largest sports venue that everyone in attendance can witness all of the events taking place.

Like the author of the piece we are discussing, I don’t consider auto or horse race tracks to be a singular, contiguous sports venue’, obviously you can fit a ton of people alongside a track that is multiple miles long, the seating areas aren’t always continuous, etc.

The stadiums in India and North Korea are similar to Michigan Dome, all spectators can see the same event occur the entire time it is occuring, auto racing doesn’t really allow this, not sure about horse racing.

hackeraccount 1/28/2026||
Yeah. The NYC Marathon would seem to be the largest venue in America. No wait, that's nonsense.
More comments...