I voted good idea because I’m a fan of creativity.

I don’t think it will help the game’s cause with serious sports fans. It sounds like a total gimmick, and I would get a good laugh out of it if it wasn’t a waste of money. I like Connor’s idea of the overhead cameras, but I doubt that’s even possible in the small-scale venues.

There’s always two sides to something like this. It can go both ways. Too distracting in my opinion though. It would look cool (if it was done right), but I feel like it may take away from part of the excitement of the game. It would make things as simple as fake passes less exciting. Even though some aren’t done that well, you can’t help but feel somewhat excited when the unexpected happens. There are just those small aspects of the game where not knowing exactly who has the ball makes for an exciting moment in the game.

Why dont’t they just spend the money on a large-scale professional video game? It would get WAY more kids into the game than LA Gears on the end on shafts.

The biggest, mots effective “quick fix” to get people into the MLL would be to have a big, loud, personality as an owner.  Mark Cuban is the obvious parallel, but it’s also true for the ones you love to hate like Steinbrenner or Al Davis.  This isn’t a practical solution, especially when someone like Jake is running the league. 

More practical solutions would include 1) stop multi-subs on every freaking play. These specialty positions are chewing up half the shot clock and casual players can’t keep track of positions when you bring people in and out constantly.  It’s like MLL is trying to invent the middle reliever and pinch-runner positions 6 times per team. 2) closer camera angles.  I hate full-field shots.  I presume the directors are coming over from soccer experience but aren’t taking into account that the ball is comparatively tiny.  

Getting into more gimmicky solutions: 3) I’d like to see force measurements on certain player’s pads/sticks.  Who wouldn’t want to know how hard (as opposed how fast) that shot was when it hits the goalie’s chest pad?  How hard was that stick-on-stick check?  Sure, maybe they’ll show the bent pole later, but if we can get a comparison (e.g. that check had the same amount of force as a hand grenade at 10 feet), then I’d bet more people would be into it.

Fair enough!

After talking to a few “casual fans” about this idea, I’m convinced that at times it can be very difficult to tell who has the ball. Examples: After a timeout, GB scrum, faceoff or quick whistle.

Same. In my opinion, there are a few ways to implement this correctly,
and there are many ways to do it wrong. With ESPN’s guidance, I think
what some people are calling a “gimmick” could actually have curb appeal
without frustrating hardcore fans. I’m really interested to hear more
about it.

LA Gears – ha! I think you’re on to something here. This comment has comment of the week potential if it wasn’t for your username!!

Great perspective.

Re: Owner – What if they let Body By Jake talk more and showed his play by play reactions? Would that suffice your appetite for owner entertainment? I’m convinced Jake should have his own reality show.

Re: Practical solutions – This is dead on IMO. I actually think multi-subs is killing new player retention at the high school level. As for camera angles, I’ve always thought they should have basketball cameramen do lacrosse games – what would you think of that?

Re: Gimmicky solutions – This made our new on increasing exposure on tv! http://laxallstars.com/11-ways-to-blow-up-pro-lacrosse-on-television/

I’m going to take a wait-and-see approach.  We can’t judge this product until we see it executed, well or poorly at that.

I personally feel no sport is helped more by HD than lacrosse.  The wide angle aspect ratio and higher clarity provides an overview of the field of play and access to seeing (and identifying correctly) the ball handler at all times with the goal in view.  Though it isn’t perfect.

Other sports, like football, baseball, and basketball, not only have more visible balls but benefit from decades upon decades of production experience around the presentation of the game on network and cable television.  Much of that has translated to an enhance experience in HD, but not the amazing shift in watchability that lacrosse has enjoyed. 

As many have alluded to, we are thinking about elements like stick illumination to aid the casual fan, not the hardcore fan.  Parents, channel-flippers, etc. will not make “walk-up” visits to lacrosse television in most instances.  If the stick illumination changes that, then huzzah!

Re: your first comment – I think you are right to a certain extent. When the game is in action it’s not difficult to tell who has the ball and most sports fans *shouldn’t* have any trouble spotting the carrier. That said, IMO there are specific instances in which it is difficult (especially in full-field camera view): A) After a timeout or dead ball B) Quick whistles C) Faceoffs/GB scrums. Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible to spot the ball carrier (that’d be nonsense), I’m just saying it can be tough for my friend Joe from New Mexico who’s never seen the sport on TV before.

Re: Announcers – I personally think you are dead on. Announcers should focus on accurately explaining what’s going on and leave conversations about lacrosse politics and rule changes for off-camera discussion. Those conversations are not productive at all and do our sport no justice. Whomever the color commentator is should push his energy toward talking about players, their off-field day job, their weapon of choice, etc. etc. I don’t get to hear enough about that kind of stuff and neither do the kids watching at home.

Anyway, I’ll stop blabbering now. Great discussion all around!!