Sports. It is as American as sliders from White Castle, congressional gridlock in D.C., and full body groping by the TSA at our nation's airports. Most Americans associate themselves with some team, collegiate or professional, and it sticks with them for the duration of their lives. I was born in Toronto and reside in New Jersey, which means that I have supported all of the professional sports teams in Detroit for the better part of forty years. The only thing better than sitting in the bleachers with a beer in one hand, kosher hot dog in the other (your kid gets to hold the other kosher hot dog and second beer because only a fool leaves his ballpark treats under the seat), is sitting at home in your recliner watching the big game with your buddies, on your 100" screen broadcast in HD. Super Bowl parties are as important as Thanksgiving dinner. What self-respecting man won't admit to faking stomach issues so that he can get away from the dinner table to catch five minutes of SportsCenter on ESPN?
ESPN may not be the #1 network in the world as far as ratings are concerned, but it is certainly one of the most important, as far as sports are concerned. I watch less than five hours of television a week, but almost all of it is professional sports (ESPN, Fox Sports). The news? I get it all on the internet. Catching up on sports scores on your iPhone or Droid is fine, but nothing replaces watching Alex Ovechkin blast home a goal, Tom Brady fluff his perfect hair, or Ryan Howard go deep on a big screen HDTV. The only thing more exciting would be sports in 3D. Haven't seen it yet? Do make the effort to try it, because it is mighty interesting.
During the World Cup this past summer, ESPN 3D broadcast select games in... you guessed it: 3D. As someone whose grandfather was a professional soccer player in Europe in the 1930s, I was more than just a little intrigued to see the world's most popular sport in 3D. Fortunately, a number of manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and VIZIO) were demonstrating their 3D sets in Manhattan during the World Cup and I was able to watch a game on the top-of-the-line set from Sony. Soccer is a fairly slow sport (in comparison to hockey, football, and auto racing) so I assumed that there would not be a lot of motion lag. Sorta. While not as vomit-inducing as the 3D broadcast of a New York Rangers NHL game, it was not the most comfortable thing to watch for prolonged sessions. The field looked like a giant fish bowl with the players running around inside of it. ESPN conducted a series of research studies after the World Cup and was pleased to see that people who watched the games in 3D really liked what they saw.
The most important issue with sports broadcast in 3D is obviously a ROI (return on investment) for the networks who have taken the plunge. Professional sports is a big business; multi-billion dollar business in the United States and one that attracts a lot of advertising money from companies trying to appeal to enormous audiences. Stadiums are renamed for corporate sponsors (it's hard to keep track sometimes...Brendan Byrne, Meadowlands, the Izod Center) and it is not cheap to run a professional franchise. ESPN is not offering ESPN 3D as a freebie for its millions of viewers out of the goodness of their hearts or as a technology statement. They're in it to make money (they are a business after all), but to make money in broadcasting, you need subscriptions fees and/or advertisers. But you can't sell advertising without viewers, and therein lies the rub.
With so few 3D TVs sold to date, and so few markets currently served by 3D-capable providers (DIRECTV being the big exception), ESPN is not seeing the widescpread adoption once hoped for, nor are the advertising dollars just rolling in. ESPN needs to make a profit from this if broadcasting sports in 3D has a future. The network is currently half-way through its first year of 3D broadcasts and comments from Jonathan Pannaman, ESPN's Senior Director of Technology, who was recently asked about how the whole thing is going by a reporter from TVBEurope, were a tad disconcerting; "we're still not sure what makes sense for 3DTV and we don't yet see a proven ROI." Uh oh.
There are two issues here; the cost of shooting and broadcasting games live in 3D, and the lack of market penetration. How many of your sports buddies have shelved out for a new 3D set? How many even have the right cable/satellite provider to get ESPN 3D? If ESPN actually believed that millions of Americans were going to spring for a new 3D set during the worst economic crisis since 1929, they were either incredibly stupid, or being sold a bill of goods by the manufacturers. But hey, somebody had to take the plunge.
The NHL and Panasonic recently announced that two games would be broadcast on Hockey Night in Canada in 3D (courtesy of the good folks at CBC Sports), but how many Canadian viewers have purchased sets? HNIC is the longest running live sports broadcast in North America (I grew up with it and it was all I cared about on Saturday nights...even after I discovered girls) with millions of loyal viewers, but if twelve people in the Great White North have 3D sets, it's not going to be a very successful launch. I love Don Cherry as much as the next hoser, but his plaid suits in 3D could cause permanent blindness.
The NBA is getting into the act this fall with a few games in 3D, but unless those involve LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, or Kevin Durant, the audience is going to be really small. Broadcasting the woeful New York Knicks in 3D might be great for those who live in the tri-state area, but its not going to sell a lot of 3D televisions. Want to sell basketball in 3D? Broadcast the NBA All-Star weekend or the NBA Finals in 3D which have huge audiences across the country. ESPN plans on broadcasting some NCAA basketball in 3D which should draw some decent interest (let's face it...college basketball is far more entertaining unless you're watching Vassar play the University of Vermont), especially if they broadcast March Madness in 3D.
Football fans are not being left out of the mix, with ESPN 3D planning to broadcast some of the BCS games in January. Boise State versus Auburn for the national title might be a great game; too bad it won't be played on Boise State's controversial blue field. How great would that look in 3D. The crazy part of all this; where is the NFL? Not only is it the best run league in professional sports, but NFL Films is the standard for sports broadcasting. Nothing looks better than professional football in HD. The audience for the Super Bowl alone justifies broadcasting in 3D. Granted, having to pass around the $150 3D glasses (like anyone can afford more than four pairs) at your party might curb some of the enthusiasm.
Ask yourself this question:
"How many times are you really going to watch Avatar 3D?"
Now ask yourself this on:
"How often do you watch SportsCenter or football on Sunday afternoon?"
Nuff said.
Editor's note: Ian's insightful and passionate piece does miss one possible solution to ESPN's dilemma: corporate sponsorship. It's quite possible that ESPN's public comments on the viability of 3D sports broadcasting was a not-so-veiled plea for some 3D TV manufacturer to step in with some capital to help the burgeoning 3D network get through the lean times. DIRECTV could not (and would not) have launched their 3D channels without Panasonic's fiscal assistance. Sony is helping to fund the start-up of Discovery 3D. "Hey, Samsung, LG: ESPN 3D is calling - would you like to take the call?"
For more information:
Do Your Part to Bring 3D TV Home:
