I'm never sure how attachments work on Google Groups, so below are some links to some screengrabs.
Note that because they come from iPlayer they have an additional BBC transparent bug in the top left that doesn't appear on live broadcasts. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9ga8N37qzidM1NrOWM0MzE5aGs https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9ga8N37qzidejhzU1lKSU5oNFU https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9ga8N37qziddld5alUzeW9vX1U A couple of things to note: - The BBC uses the same on-pitch overlays and graphics showing yardage - There's no indication of remaining timeouts - There's no pop-up saying "Touchdown" when there's a score. The scorecard just ticks over - You can't tell from the grab, but because the clock is actually a camera pointed at what I assume is a stadium clock, it's constantly rocking when the stadium rocks - i.e when those 4th quarter touchdowns were coming in. I'm sure I remember that's how things used to work in the old days with NFL. Back in the 80s perhaps? That's when the UK first got regular coverage. As for your solution for choosing teams to play abroad, it's an interesting model. The only thing I'd note is that the NFL is clearly trying to *sell* the game internationally. And if you only give the UK dull fixtures with losing teams that nobody cares about, then they won't do that. But then I'm basically against the whole thing anyway :-) Adam On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:36 AM Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> To pivot this slightly, what the NFL has yet to do is put a game in >>> London that would (in theory) be a moderately compelling match up. In the >>> 14 games played as part of the "International Series", this was the first >>> year where a intradivisional game was played (Jets/Dolphins). Nine have >>> been interconference. >>> >>> And with Jacksonville (the one team that needs to be relocated but >>> isn't) in one game for each of the next five years, I don't see that trend >>> changing soon >>> >>> >> Surely that's because they wouldn't dare to remove a big game from a >> side's home schedule and take it to London? Given that an NFL side only has >> 8 guaranteed home fixtures a season, it's quite a move to give up one of >> those ties. >> >> Indeed if the boot was on the other foot, and I was told that this >> season, Arsenal v Man United was going to played in New York, I'd be really >> upset. I mean *really* upset. And we get 19 home ties a season for Premier >> League football. >> >> It's actually for this reason that I no longer go along to any of the >> London games. It doesn't seem fair to home fans of sides playing that >> they're deprived of a home tie. >> >> Now it'd be a different case if the Jaguars became a London side, >> something that is off-mooted. But I'm not convinced the numbers stack up >> yet. Never mind the logistical challenges of stacks of transatlantic >> flights with jet-lag, and kick-offs that could never be anything but 2pm >> EST games or earlier in the US. (We did enjoy the fact that Miami brought >> it's own toilet tissue with it this year!) >> >> For starters, they have to work hard to sell out these games, and they're >> not quite doing that. Wembley holds 90,000 seated. They close off a few >> rows at the front for NFL fixtures, but there were definitely empty seats >> on Sunday. And that's despite having "fan rallys" in Trafalgar Square and >> closing off Regent Street. I get the NFL UK emails and there are always >> tickets available. >> >> A smaller stadium like Spurs' new one, a possible site for future NFL >> games, would help, but it's not as though we're short of sporting >> opportunities in London. >> >> Finally, a note on the UK transmission of Sunday's game. It was live on >> Sky Sports as most NFL games are - they effectively had four games back to >> back for most of Sunday. But it was also live on BBC Two which is free to >> air. I strongly suspect that the NFL gives very favourable rates to get BBC >> coverage. It promotes the sport. Anyway, BBC Two ran its own graphics >> package alongside the regular (CBS?) commentary team. Switching between Sky >> and BBC coverage you could see the two. I believe sports graphics are >> effectively data + CSS-style display information, and the BBC chose to use >> it's own display format. The only bit they couldn't seem to do was the >> clock, so it was old school camera-pointed-at-stadium-clock and in vision. >> > > If there are any screen grabs you have of the BBC package, I'd love to see > it. > > As for the unfairness of losing a home game, here's my top-of-the-head > solution: > * Take all divisional pairings where both teams have >=.500 records > * A team that makes the playoffs is exempt from losing a home game, so > eliminate any pairings where both teams made the playoffs. > * The lowest attendance by combined percentage of the two teams goes, and > the lowest attendance loses the home game > > Using the 2014 schedule (asterisk indicates a playoff team). > AFC East: NE*, BUF, MIA > AFC North: None (all teams with winning records made the playoffs) > AFC South: IND*, HOU > AFC West: DEN*, KC, SD > NFC East: DAL*, PHI > NFC North: None (all teams with winning records made the playoffs) > NFC South: None (no one had a winning record) > NFC West: SEA*, ARI*, SF (the Seattle/Arizona pairing is discarded) > > Of the 10 pairings, the worst was Buffalo/Miami, with a combined > percentage of 185.1. Buffalo had the lower attendance, so they lose the > home game. > > This gives an incentive to the fans to show up to the games > > This obviously doesn't guarantee a high-quality game, but you at least get > one game on the board that has a higher level of importance. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
