FRC Einstein: Almost ready for primetime?

[David Brinza]

The format of Einstein this year seemed to work very well. Kudos to FIRST for doing a lot of well-deserved awards at the division-level, allowing the focus on Einstein to be a few major awards and the finals.

In prior years, long delays between matches for awards, speeches, etc. seemed to suck the energy out of the crowd. Some spectators in the stands would even nod-off (for sure, exhaustion from four long, hard days is a big factor). Einstein is the climax of the FRC season - the finals program needs to be designed keep the adrenalin flowing those last couple of hours.

The quality of Einstein matches this year kept the intensity level high (maybe the best finals ever?) The short breaks between matches were more than just fill-in. Between the matches, the "Top 10 List" played well with the crowd, as did "Crowd-A-Tron." Post-match commentary from Blair and Andy was pretty cool, too.

I think FIRST is getting Champs dialed-in for live broadcast. What's needed now is a sports TV production team to coordinate multiple camera angles, split-screen, picture-in-picture, etc of the matches. Slow-motion replays of key moments in the matches, with expert analysis would provide the audience more insight into the alliance strategies.

This year's Einstein program seemed almost ready for prime-time, live network TV broadcast. Perhaps we're just a few tweaks from getting it out to the masses. That will really make FIRST Loud!

[Brandon Ha]

I believe that the awards were completely awesome and very well done this time around. It seemed to flow with ease for the teams competing and those watching. But I would just say only one thing in disagreement.

No sports team cast. Alumni/Mentor/Student Castors. They would know whats truly happening and could effectively discuss the plays and strategies on the field at the moment.

[qzrrbz]

The Paul and Karthik Show? Just like IRI! DaveV is already busy on the field, or he'd make it a threesome...

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Brandon Ha

No sports team cast. Alumni/Mentor/Student Castors. They would know whats truly happening and could effectively discuss the plays and strategies on the field at the moment.

As could professional broadcasters with a day or 2 of study.

Consider that FRC Alumni/Mentor/Student(s) are very plentiful, while there are ONLY a few hundred English-language broadcasters. The broadcasters get paid a LOT of money. Why? Because their particular talent is RARE in society.

An amateur welder can make metal stick together, but a professional gets the most difficult jobs done perfectly, every time.

Insist on professional broadcasters (and a well-tuned broadcast team) if you want it done really right.

--

That being said, there are several people in FRC that could fill a big role in such a broadcast.

[cgmv123]

It's definitely past time. Not just Championship, but weekly regional(s)/district(s)/district championship(s). I can't think of a better way to Make it Loud. (Whoever agrees to broadcast Einstein all but automatically wins the Make it Loud award)

[Billfred]

I saw a flyer at Pit Admin from FIRST talking about the 2015 Championship changes, and one of the things was a bigger push into new media for those at home. (Didn't take one to copy down, but that was the gist.)

I have to imagine this was partly a dry run for that.

[James1902]

As someone who watched Championships via webcast for the first time this year I think it was a massive improvement from what I've heard about and seen in the past.

However I do think the biggest drawback to the format this year was that the production didn't seem to be intended to be consumed remotely. In most sports there seems to be an experience designed for the people in the arena and a separate production for those watching at home.
For instance, as a home viewer I would have preferred hearing from the two desk anchors much more then the 5 to 6 minutes of crowd footage that we got in between every match.

Having the crew focused on providing a fantastic experience for the people at the event is great, but if we want to grow into a true spectator sport there needs to be a separate production that's just as focused on providing the best experience the vast majority of people at home who couldn't make the trip.

We also need to find people who can eloquently and accurately express the drama and magnitude of something like the Einstein matches to the un-initiated home viewer. Someone who is knowledgeable enough about the teams and the program to know about all of the history and back story that gives those matches such weight. As Don said, that might not be the easiest thing to do but it's certainly possible.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by James1902

For instance, as a home viewer I would have preferred hearing from the two desk anchors much more then the 5 to 6 minutes of crowd footage that we got in between every match.

Agreed. The issue with the sports desk anchors wasn't who they had there at all (Blaire and Andy are likely the two most qualified for the position), but that they were given 30 seconds to talk the match. Given the time constraints, it would be very hard to get anything more than pretty general, obvious analysis.

On the other hand, do we have to copy the most pointless, fluff pieces of all sport games? While it was nice to see and hear some of the students (who all did a fantastic job), the sideline reports didn't add much. A student sitting next to me asked if FIRST was trying to mock sports games by doing the sideline reports.

All that being said, the entire Einstein was significantly better than any other year.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Agreed. The issue with the sports desk anchors wasn't who they had there at all (Blaire and Andy are likely the two most qualified for the position), but that they were given 30 seconds to talk the match. Given the time constraints, it would be very hard to get anything more than pretty general, obvious analysis.

On the other hand, do we have to copy the most pointless, fluff pieces of all sport games? While it was nice to see and hear some of the students, the sideline reports didn't add much. A student sitting next to me asked if FIRST was trying to mock sports games by doing the sideline reports.

All that being said, the entire Einstein was significantly better than any other year.

I enjoyed the sideline reports, and all of the students interviewed did a great job with their responses, as one would expect of FIRST students.

[James1902]

The sideline interviews can add great info and context but only if they are given the proper time, which is why I think they didn't work as well here. In my (admittedly biased) opinion I think the RoboShow interviews with Pink and Swamp regarding the DQs this year are a good example of this kind of sideline interview done well.

[dgros]

Yeah if FIRST really wants to "make it loud" there really needs to be a push to make the event spectator and television friendly. The format of the qualification matches will always be hard to televise, but with the excitement and polish of the elimination matches like those we saw on Einstein, it is defiantly possible for Eisenstein to be a prime time broadcast.

This is especially true if FIRST moves to 8 divisions. That way the audience would have time to basically figure the game out during the quarterfinals and then really get into it for the semis and finals.

I agree that for prime time to work, there has to be somewhat separate productions for the spectators and the TV audiences. The sideline analysis and interviews were great concept this year, but too much of it at a live event and it becomes sort of awkward.

Originally Posted by Brandon Ha

...

No sports team cast. Alumni/Mentor/Student Castors. They would know whats truly happening and could effectively discuss the plays and strategies on the field at the moment.

I would kind of disagree. The Michigan Championship was put on public television by a sports team cast and it was pretty impressive. They had one commentator who was a professional sports commentator and one commentator who was a experienced FIRST veteran. What was great about that was the professional was able to give a outside perspective and ask the questions that the average TV watcher might have. My concern with using all FIRST people is they might use FRC terms or brush over concepts that are familiar to us, but do not make sense to outsiders.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by dgros

...snip...

I would kind of disagree. The Michigan Championship was put on public television by a sports team cast and it was pretty impressive. They had one commentator who was a professional sports commentator and one commentator who was a experienced FIRST veteran. What was great about that was the professional was able to give a outside perspective and ask the questions that the average TV watcher might have. My concern with using all FIRST people is they might use FRC terms or brush over concepts that are familiar to us, but do not make sense to outsiders.

I am glad to hear that you liked it. The 1 hour special should be really good this year.
Dave & Dan have a very good back and forth and it has been really good. Paul C. also did a nice job during the 2011. I also agree that Dan being able to ask some "general public" questions makes it very helpful.

[I-DOG]

As long as they don't miss the game winning shot again...

[Jared Russell]

I think FIRST could make a pretty compelling audition tape to shop around to television networks with a quick edit of the 2014 Einstein footage.

[Citrus Dad]

I've worked with TV crews for track & field competitions, and too often they have no clue what's happening on the field and make many bad decisions. It's the nature of TV that if an event isn't wildly popular, the production crew rarely makes the effort to gain real insights into how to improve their broadcast. I've found them to be quite arrogant at times, unwilling to accept advice from true experts in the sport.

The second element is to be sure to have an announcer who is actually interested in the sport--that he's not just there collecting a paycheck (I've worked with those before). Tom Hammond is an absolutely awful track announcer who hurts the sport unfortunately. If we stuck with a Tom Hammond, we won't get the wider appeal we should. Instead we want Phil Liggett as he does the Tour de France.