Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

So nothing's changed in 15 years for FRC? The robots don't perform better, look better, and play better-designed games?

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

The indirect effects of being on ESPN would be huge I imagine.

I watched the 98 champs as a kid, and had no idea what it was, but I knew at that moment I would do that someday. Also, being a 9 year old kid I said that I would be GREAT at it (what 9 year old wouldn't?).

My mom loved repeating that story after our 2011 season.

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

None of that has anything to do with my point or addresses the challenges faced by FRC on live television.

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

What was your point then?

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

Specifically? The "market" already "supported" FRC on ESPN for as long as ESPN was interested.

More broadly, FRC is not well suited for live broadcast for a number of reasons, many of which have been covered in this thread. A non-live, condensed broadcast is more doable, but still heavily limited and not likely for a nationwide broadcast on a major network.

Even broader still. This is a competition based on technology and ingenuity. Let's be forward thinking about how to present and broadcast the content. Internet streaming and video-on-demand are increasingly taking bites out of live television broadcasts. Embrace it, don't fight it.

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

As a growing technology company I think Twitch might be really into supporting FIRST, but I think it would have to be communications from a higher level than just team members.

Twitch is only going to get bigger, since it will now be on XBox 1 and PS4.

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

That was 17 years ago; what about now? How can we get other networks interested?

I still can't find the comment in this thread that said FRC is not well-suited for live broadcast and why - are there other threads?

Several have claimed internet is better for them, but haven't explained why it is better for the target audience - kids (and their parents) who need some inspiration to move forward with STEM degrees - who (by definition of 'needing inspiration') aren't searching the internet for robotics. Wooly hit on some challenges for live TV, but they're not necessarily barriers to entry if the IRI committee wants to put in requests to teams who attend.

I agree that internet-based tech is a great way moving forward. Yet I think we're asking the wrong questions with respect to broadcasting for target audiences. The question should be: how do current families with young children watch their entertainment? What if they're poor? What if they can afford every entertainment option? If they're already using Twitch, how do we get FRC robotics onto their Xboxes without them having to already desire it?

I have a moment to breath this weekend. Maybe I'll pull together some research.

Re: IRI Live Coverage
 

Here is a good place to start: http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/100...n-watch-video/

"Americans streamed 43.5 billion videos in December 2011, up 44% since December 2010"

"The average viewer watches 239 videos per month"

"The study also showed that 105.1 million Americans now watch videos online each day, up 43% from 73.7 million in 2010."


FRC is as well suited to live broadcast as soccer or hockey or curling is, but we lack the infrastructure to make the broadcast easily digestible to a mainstream audience.

For instance we don't have a centralized way of tracking stats, or an easily recognizable progress meter (e.g. the yellow first down line in football,) add to that the difficulty of creating a sense of drama that non-FIRSTers can understand (for example it's easy to hype Yankees v. Red Sox or UF v. FSU, but not as easy to explain why 1114, 217, and 148 v. 67, 469, and 33 is a big match) all while trying to explain a complex competition culture and game dynamic that plays out over a very short period of time.

A television broadcast would be great if we knew everyone watching already had fundamental understanding of FIRST and that particular years game because then the broadcast could focus on crafting the narrative necessary for good TV.

I believe the internet is the better option for the moment because it can better facilitate the steady growth of a niche audience, and I think it can be argued that FIRSTers are still a niche audience. I would also argue that if quality broadcasts of FIRST competitions live on the internet where they can be accessed for weeks and months after they are posted, they are more likely to be found by the crowd 'needing inspiration' then if it were on television for one particular day. Also take into account that if a video lives online the ease by which it can be shared through social media increases. This gives students the opportunity to discover FIRST through their friends or family online allowing them to have an instant link to a local team or event.

I think we are definitely headed in the right direction with this and i'm looking forward to seeing what we can make happen next season.

TL;DR: FIRST is a complex and nuanced competitive event that needs the proper context and explanation in order to facilitate the audiences emotional involvement in the narrative. I believe the internet is a more conducive environment for this.