I think it's going to depend on the quality/style of TV production. I didn't watch the nascar race, but in the highlights, you really wouldn't have noticed there were no fans. And that's not a joke about nascar's dwindling attendance, it's just camera focus. In-car or following, wide or close, you wouldn't notice the fans unless the camera panned the stands. And when he won, Harvick did the traditional burn-out even though he had only a TV and crew audience. I think it might be more difficult for football, where crowd noise and participation makes more of a difference. It will be strange to see a "Lambeau Leap" into empty seats. But still, the camera can cut out the stands. Mentally, though, I don't know if it will work quickly without some adjustment. When you watch a live game on TV, you get a sense of participating in the event with the fans attending. TV only and you're sorta watching it by yourself and it looks canned. Difference in live audience and laugh track. But did you see McIlroy wave and acknowledge the "crowd" at the golf charity skins game?Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:56 pmI might have cranked the music and done email at the same time. 8.24 mph.O Really wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:51 pmImpressive, fershure. Interesting, maybe not so much.Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:50 pmI might have watched the last half hour if I knew and it was free. 7:17 per mile for 100-miles is pretty impressive, even on a treadmill.O Really wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:18 pmGuy runs 100 miles on a treadmill on the weekend and sets a new world record. Yay.
But reporting it is what passes for "sports" on the desperate TV sports segment.
And people watched the event. People watched a guy running on a treadmill, and called it "live sports."
Lots of noise about fanless sports resuming. We'll see.