Reading Summary
This article seeks to answer the proposed question as to why pre-recorded sports events are less pleasurable than watching them live by providing 5 (rational and irrational) explanations. The first of these is that the removal of commercials, since you can fast-forward through them, eliminates the moments of emptiness between sets where tension and drama allowed to build. Secondly, the viewer is distanced from the actual live experience and reactions of the events by watching it later, making it to where they cannot experience the same emotions with other views. Thirdly, recording games gives the viewers control as to when the game is watched and the pace of viewing. Additionally, a viewer who is watching a game recorded likely wasn’t as invested in the game anyways since they chose to not watch it live, therefore there is even less of an emotional investment. The final two reasons are deemed “irrational” explanations. The first of these is that a personal involvement in watching the game live will influence its outcome, therefore watching the game later doesn’t give the same attachment to the outcome. Secondly, in the interconnected world that we live in, it is very likely that if you do not hear anything memorable from a game, then there is likely nothing memorable that happened and is thus not worth watching on tape delay. Thus the author concludes that for all of these reasons, watching a game on tape delay will never replicate the same excitement from watching it live.
Outside Example
The question proposed by the article fails to anticipate, understandably, the COVID-19 world that we live in and the question that lays at the feet of every sports network executive currently. Without any major live sports, networks are faced with a few options in how they will present sports content to their viewers. One is to air old classic games in which most fans, especially older ones, know the outcome. Two is they air the dwindling number of odd sports leagues that are still in fact being played such as rugby, bull riding, or the CBA. Or option three is they air games that were so random and unmemorable that fans most likely don’t know the outcomes, therefore the action feels real.
Reading Connection
In this question that networks are faced with, Klosterman’s points do not fully extend and would perhaps justify airing non-memorable games. For one, networks will still have commercials which will invoke that sense of waiting suspension for play to return. Furthermore, I believe that if there are games in which most fans don’t know the outcome, the same feeling of suspense will remain with the uncertainty. Because of this, I believe the first irrational point is invalid because if you are able to distance yourself from social media and others who may have watched the game, then when you watch on tape delay you will still get the same suspenseful feelings and witness memorable moments if they so exist. My evidence would be that one does not necessarily need to see a blockbuster movie on the Thursday Night premiere, but can still see it Friday or Saturday and get the same jaw-dropping moments and same crowd reactions. While it is true that viewers will be less attached since these games are not memorable, this can be offset by airing classic games that fans know the outcome too. I believe this plan is also desirable since it is hard to legally watch the full-length of memorable games in sports history. Because of these reasons, I believe networks have plenty of options at their disposals and will not be hampered by the current crisis forcing networks to air games on tape delay.
Comm 2302 Spring 20 
check plus
LikeLike