A look at FSN’s new graphics

FSN’s graphics are probably among the most worth watching in the country, because they are aped by so many teams’ own operations. Click below for a look at FSN’s new college football graphics:
Highlights: Colorado - Colorado St.
Highlights: Colorado – Colorado St.

It warrants comparison not only with FSN’s old graphics…

…but the Big Ten Network’s as well (sorry for it being last year’s game):

They’re sisters and there seems to be a definite BTN influence on these new graphics. (I haven’t included Fox’s current graphics, which this is clearly an attempt to take after as well.) Perhaps more interesting is that this is more box-like than any FSN score bug since the early part of this decade, rather surprising when you consider it was Fox and FSN that in many ways gave us the modern scoring banner in the first place, yet it doesn’t switch sides depending on which way the ball is going. It’s somewhat akin to ABC’s last college football box before getting absorbed into the ESPN brand in that sense, as well as the sense that the teams are still placed horizontally from one another.

One notable feature of it is that it does not contain the name of the network. FSN’s college football broadcasts are national operations that have to go out to the Comcast Sportsnet operations, as well as a couple of others such as MSG in New York. In the past CSN in particular overlaid a modified version of its own logo over the FSN logo. Now CSN can just plop its logo in the upper right corner of the screen and plausibly pass it off as entirely its own operation. For that reason, I would not be surprised if FSN did not port this graphics package to any local broadcast of baseball, basketball, or hockey, even though their old graphics package looks rather amateur (it’s hard to think of a baseball version of this graphic anyway), unless Comcast Sportsnet were willing to come up with a similar graphic.

And while I don’t have anything against sound in score graphics in principle, this new one has a weird mechanical sound when putting in the new down and distance that’s a bit distracting.

Tim Buckley probably isn’t interested in a word I say, but I have to get it off my chest anyway.

(From Ctrl+Alt+Del. Click for full-sized breakup.)

So it looks like Lucas and Kate are splitting up, rather suddenly, just as Lucas was about to tell Kate he finally does love her.

This as we, basically simultaneously (through cross-cutting), learn that Gamehaven, the store where Ethan works (well, sort of), has been sold to someone else… who, whoever it is, apparently doesn’t intend to keep it a video game store (unless there’s something I’m missing).

This on the heels of Ethan and Lilah starting to grow distant, itself on the heels of Lilah’s decision to postpone the wedding.

And of course, all of that comes on the heels of the infamous miscarriage.

In case you’re incredibly dense, all that – despite my hopes that the miscarriage would be a one-time bump in the road, and that while CAD‘s Cerebus Syndrome would continue unabated, it wouldn’t continue to descend into angst – would seem to add up to a full-fledged case of First and Ten Syndrome.

For all the hatred Ctrl+Alt+Del has engendered on the Internet over the years, mostly from a few really loud sources, it has, in actuality, been one of the most popular webcomics on the entire Internet. I believe one of Webcomics.net’s last rankings of webcomics by traffic, distilling the results of traffic-ranking services like Alexa, had Ctrl+Alt+Del behind only Penny Arcade in popularity – outpacing such giants as User Friendly, Order of the Stick, even PVP, even the web homes of newspaper comics like Dilbert and Garfield. People didn’t care that Ctrl+Alt+Del had allegedly bad art, or that it overrelied on violence because its jokes were over by the end of the first panel, or that Ethan was allegedly essentially Tim Buckley’s personal self-insertion Mary Sue. They laughed at the gaming jokes anyway, they enjoyed the wacky scrapes Ethan got into, and moreover, they followed the characters, and their trials and tribulations, with rapt attention.

The miscarriage arc changed all that – arguably going all the way back to Lilah’s announcement of her pregnancy back in February, which seemingly went against what everyone knew about the strip. There was no way – no freaking way Ethan would ever be mature enough to be a father. No way in the world. But when that point was rendered moot in the miscarriage arc, it basically broke the Internet, and turned everyone against Ctrl+Alt+Del. The strip went right from wacky hijinks, with basically no warning (and one easily-misinterpreted strip’s worth of buffer), into an angst-filled suckfest where everyone brooded over what had happened, prompting everyone to fear that full-out First and Ten Syndrome was imminent, if not already started… and back again, kicking right into a joke about D&D 4th Edition as though the main characters weren’t engaging in a round of soul-searching. Attempts to be touching and serious about the matter just fell flat on their face. It didn’t help that the miscarriage came across as a response to people’s objections to the pregnancy, as a hackneyed plot device to paint Buckley out of a corner.

And Buckley didn’t do himself any favors with his attempt to explain himself. Sure, he reassured readers that the strip wouldn’t focus on every second of angst, but that’s offset by the revelation that this was in the works at least as far back as the marriage proposal – which itself was planned as far back as the very earliest days of the strip when Lilah was introduced. Like Order of the Stick, Ctrl+Alt+Del‘s Cerebus Syndrome was planned from the beginning – only it wasn’t a transition to a coherent story like OOTS. It looks like this trip into Cerebus Syndrome will just be nothing but misfortune after misfortune – and right there, as he attempted to explain the miscarriage, and as he attempted to reassure readers the angst wouldn’t continue, he also dropped warnings that there was more to come. “I know who moves out and when”? “I know who dies and who doesn’t die”?!?

Characters don’t need to obsess over their misfortune to bring about First and Ten Syndrome (a term, by the way, I think is a bit too much of a finely-grained subset of Cerebus Syndrome for us to appropriate from Websnark, especially when it’s named after a TV show no one my age has heard of, but it’s useful for my purposes here). Recall the definition of First and Ten Syndrome:

A strip falls into First and Ten Syndrome when they take a shot at Cerebus Syndrome and miss. Rather than be a mix of the Funny and the Story with much better developed characters and more of a sense of reality, the strips fall into a suckfest of angst and misery, with bad things happening to characters we like and all sense of fun beaten out with a stick. While webcomics that fall into First and Ten can continue to have good — even great — moments, it’s an exercise in masochism to find them. (emphasis added)

I don’t read that to mean that every moment where something bad doesn’t happen to our heroes, is a moment where they whine about bad things happening to them instead. Nor should it, because a strip that’s nothing but whining has its own problems separate from whatever it’s whining about. What makes First and Ten Syndrome is the general tone or mood. If we’re not having fun anymore, if everything has to become a soap opera, if all the characters are just pathetic, that‘s when a comic can become unbearable to read and that’s when people start leaving in droves.

It’s true that Ctrl+Alt+Del still has moments when it’s fun and funny, but that arguably just makes the problem worse. It creates a dissonance between the gravity, or at least stress, of the situation and the humor brought to it. The Players and the one-shot game commentaries don’t seem to have decayed one iota, which makes it all the more odd that Ethan and Co. have very little to smile about. It almost seems that Buckley launched the Sillies in anticipation of the suckfest the main strip would become. These strips, the size of three-panel daily newspaper strips, are essentially gag-a-day exploits of the CAD characters, essentially frozen in time, with no mouths or even arms. Anyone who doesn’t like how the lives of Ethan, Lucas, and Lilah are collapsing before their eyes can look at the Sillies and pretend it’s still 2005.

It’s a good thing Buckley has the Sillies because otherwise he’d lose his one defense against the critics he already had. Buckley’s stock defense against people criticizing Ctrl+Alt+Del has been to proclaim how many more readers he has than they can ever hope to have, often in a belligerent enough tone to contribute to the hatred. But it’s a good point: Those readers have stuck with Buckley through thick and thin, often defending him against the likes of John Solomon. But for many of them, the miscarriage was the last straw, and for quite a few more of them, the recent events are the last straw for them, and there are many more last straws to come for others. I’m not among them – in fact I’m finally adding CAD to my RSS reader – but I can see it coming from a mile away.

Buckley may have a story he’s always wanted to tell from the beginning, with a path he’s always intended for it to take, but the beginnings of that story’s kicking into high gear have driven off many of his unwilling defenders. Perhaps Buckley is willing to sacrifice all his readers for his artistic integrity, but considering he’ll also be sacrificing the base of Ctrl+Alt+Del‘s financial success and the public face of his excuse to the John Solomons of the world, what will he really have left?

College Football Schedule: Week 2

I haven’t updated the Web site with the new lineal titles yet; it’ll be updated by Thursday, probably Wednesday, but I need to write my NFL post first. No titles changed hands anyway, and now it’s Georgia and LSU most likely to lose their titles, though all of them are likely to retain for next week, when the titles are more likely to change hands, specifically when Georgia faces the other USC, and the first USC – off this week – faces Ohio State. All times Eastern.

Lineal Titles (all games on Saturday)
SE Missouri State @ *Missouri 7 PM PPV
Central Michigan @ *Georgia 3:30 SEC HD
Troy @ *LSU 8 PM ESPN360
This Week’s HD Games
South Carolina @ Vanderbilt 8:30 TH ESPN
Navy @ Ball State 7 PM FR ESPN
Georgia Tech @ Boston College Noon Raycom
Miami (OH) @ Michigan Noon ESPN2
Ohio @ Ohio State Noon ESPN
Connecticut @ Temple Noon ESPNU
Florida International @ Iowa Noon BTN
Marshall @ Wisconsin Noon BTN
Eastern Illinois @ Illinois Noon BTN
Southern Miss @ Auburn 12:30 R’com/Yahoo
BYU @ Washington 3 PM FSN
San Diego State @ Notre Dame 3:30 NBC
Richmond @ Virginia 3:45 ESPNU
West Virginia @ East Carolina 4:30 ESPN
Louisiana Tech @ Kansas 7 PM FSN
South Florida @ Central Florida 7 PM ESPN2
Murray State @ Indiana 7 PM BTN
Minnesota @ Bowling Green 7:30 ESPNU
Miami (FL) @ Florida 8 PM ESPN
Texas @ UTEP 10:15 ESPN2
Other Games
Eastern Michigan @ Michigan State Noon BTN
Northern Colorado @ Purdue Noon BTN
San Jose State @ Nebraska 12:30 PPV
New Hampshire @ Army 1 PM ESPN Classic
Furman @ Virginia Tech 1:30 CBSCS XXL
Oregon State @ Penn State 3:30 ABC/ESPN2
Mississippi @ Wake Forest 3:30 ABC/ESPN2
Cincinnati @ Oklahoma 3:30 ABC
Air Force @ Wyoming 3:30 CBS CS
Utah State @ Oregon 3:30 CSD.TV
The Citadel @ Clemson 3:30 ESPN360
Tennessee Tech @ Louisville 3:30 ESPN360
Eastern Washington @ Colorado 3:30
Sacramento State @ Colorado State 3:30
Akron @ Syracuse 3:30
UAB @ Florida Atlantic 4:00
Texas A&M @ New Mexico 5 PM VS.
Idaho State @ Idaho 5 PM ESPN360
Buffalo @ Pittsburgh 6 PM ESPN+
Western Kentucky @ Eastern Kentucky 6 PM CSD.TV
Western Carolina @ Florida State 6 PM ESPN360
William and Mary @ NC State 6 PM
Norfolk State @ Kentucky 6 PM ESPN360
California @ Washington State 6:30 FSN/FCS
Northwestern @ Duke 7 PM CBSCS XXL
Northern Illinois @ Western Michigan 7 PM CSD.TV
Tulane @ Alabama 7 PM ESPN360
Kent State @ Iowa State 7 PM
Arkansas @ Louisiana-Monroe 7 PM ESPN360
Maryland @ Middle Tenn. St. 7 PM ESPN360
Tulsa @ North Texas 7 PM
Texas Southern @ Arkansas State 7 PM CSD.TV
Northwestern State @ Baylor 7 PM
SE Louisiana @ Mississippi State 7 PM
Stephen F. Austin @ TCU 7 PM
Houston @ Oklahoma State 7 PM
Montana State @ Kansas State 7 PM FCS
Rice @ Memphis 8 PM CBS CS
UNLV @ Utah 8 PM mtn.
Texas St.-San Marcos @ SMU 8 PM CBSCS XXL
Texas Tech @ Nevada 9 PM CSD.TV
Toledo @ Arizona 7 PT
Stanford @ Arizona State 7 PT FCS
Weber State @ Hawaii 9 PT ESPN360

Forget about what I was going to do today. (And forget I mentioned I was going to do something.)

It’s 2:15 as I write this and I decided to try a new place for Wi-Fi and it turns out to use Comcast to supply its connection. And Freehostia and Comcast STILL aren’t getting along. So here’s today’s strip to tide you over until I find someplace else to put it on the site.

In honor of Labor Day, this will probably be my only post of the day, but expect a deluge tomorrow.

Don’t ruin your graphics, ESPN!

I didn’t like ESPN’s new strip for college football last year, thinking the little timeout indicators were too jarring and thrown on at the last minute. They grew on me as the season went on, but I doubt THIS will grow on me quite so much.

(Image taken from ESPN Video.) There’s now a thick red line at the top of the strip, and the space above it is shaded. Statistics that last year were shown on a small translucent trapezoid on top of the strip, in fairly light type, are now shown in this area. I saw this sort of thing, sans thick red line, on lesser NCAA championships last school year, such as in lacrosse, but I can’t help but think it’s distracting, unnecessary, and could obscure the action. It almost makes ESPN look bush league.

Do any of you have any suggestions for improving ESPN’s score strip? I don’t really have much of a problem with their overall graphics package.

This is going to become very meta very fast.

I didn’t intend for this to be YWIB week here on Da Blog. My YWIB post was originally going to be one part to be released last week, with a followup on Powerup Comics this week, but the post on YWIB itself got split into two parts and delayed to this week. Nonetheless, I really thought I was done when I finished my post on Powerup Comics, but – probably unaware of what I was doing – Eric Burns(-White) has a rather interesting and relevant post on Websnark that aims to answer the question: Is it possible to criticize the critic? Hey, that’s exactly what I did on Monday and Tuesday!

Burns(-White) also believes it’s obvious the answer is yes, and starts by identifying three definitions of criticism that, to varying extents, we’re probably all familiar with. The first is your English teacher’s definition, what Burns(-White) calls the “analyst” or “scholarly” definition, deconstructing a work to figure out what it’s saying and how it’s saying it. The second is the “reviewer”, which basically says whether a work is good or bad. The third is “critic” as in being “critical”, essentially bashing whatever you’re, well, criticizing. To broadly oversimplify, Websnark generally tries to be definition 1, while Tangents tends to fall more under definition 2, especially as it’s tried to drift away from definition 1. (We all know what definition YWIB falls under.)

We’ve probably all seen all three of these definitions, and seen them get conflated and confused (especially if we’re aware of and looking for them), but what this post, pretty much unintentionally, put into focus for me was how interrelated these three definitions are, and how these interrelations contribute to the conflation (hey, I lost this post earlier today to a Blogger/IE7 bug and I’m retyping this post from memory while something else is on trying to at least continue to claim I posted it on Friday, and failing, so give me a break – I watch TV pretty much nonstop on Fridays from 2 PM to midnight). It can be hard to review something without giving reasons why you think it’s good or bad, which often means dipping into definition 1, and similarly, it can be hard to focus on what a work does, and certainly how it does it, without slipping into value judgments on whether or not it does it right. As for definition 3, that’s basically a modification of definition 2, and it can be hard to determine whether a disapproving review is definition 3, or a negative version of definition 2. If, as Burns(-White) does, you include “constructive criticism” under definition 3, it essentially becomes a conflation of definitions 1 and 2. YWIB has a lot more to do with definition 1 than definition 2.

Burns(-White) then demonstrates how all three definitions are themselves subject to all three forms of criticism, which I won’t get into except to say that Part I of my YWIB review was more definition 2, and Part II was more definition 1. He then finishes by stating that, to some extent or another, he’s written all three forms of criticism on Websnark, prompting the first commenter to respond:

And, if you’ll forgive me a moment of critique, you fall squarely in the first definition of critic. You’re too polite to go far in the third definition, the snark. And you focus too much on things you personally enjoy (or which are created by your personal friends) to be an effective reviewer for new or unheard of comics. And that’s fine — this is your blog, first and foremost, and people should be aware that they’re getting only what you want to write.

The webcomic world really could *use* a popular, unbiased, and wide-focus reviewer. But you ain’t it, and you should push back against people who want you to be.

This prompted a later commenter to respond: “When there are so many “reviewers/bloggers/news site owners” looking to do little more than get in the good graces of their favorite creators so they can hang out at cons together? Might as well ask for all of Bill Gates’ money while you’re at it.”

First off, I’d have to disagree with both Burns(-White) and that first commenter; if anything, Websnark fairly consistently falls under definition 2, even when it tries not to. It makes a point in the FAQ that the name is somewhat misleading, as it doesn’t really snark so much (other than “You Had Me And You Lost Me” I’d be hard pressed to find a single example of definition 3), and even when attempting to simply do analysis and deconstruction can often incorporate how whatever he’s examining made him laugh or how much he’s enjoying what the strip is doing. On occasion, Burns(-White) has even mentioned times when a strip just isn’t doing it for him, so he doesn’t praise every strip.

The major issue with being a “popular, unbiased, wide-focus reviewer” mostly has to do with the wide-focus part. There are a lot of strips that aim for specific niches. It’s hard to truly appreciate a strip like Penny Arcade or Ctrl+Alt+Del or even User Friendly if you’re not a part of the gaming subculture. On those occasions when xkcd refers to some obscure bit of math, if you’re not a math major you may find it hard to assess properly.

I’m not a definition 1 critic; I’m just too detached from all the esoterica of scholarly analysis to examine comics as closely as Burns(-White) is known to do sometimes. I’m just not that much of an English major. Yet much of what I’ve done so far has been, in fact, best categorized under definition 1, in part because of the areas where definitions 1 and 2 overlap and in part because I’ve seen myself as something of a successor to the once-dormant Websnark. Now that Websnark has started to come back to life again, and with the start of school coming up in less than a month now, I’ve been starting to think about possibly dropping my webcomic reviews.

I think, especially if Part I of my YWIB review is any indication, I’ve started to see myself as a definition 2 critic and even potentially the answer to the commenter’s call. But it’s very hard to be wide-focus enough to properly assess all the webcomics out there, and it’s always very tempting to slip into definition 1. Those are the main reasons there isn’t a truly unbiased popular webcomics reviewer out there, why “the Roger Ebert of Webcomics Criticism” (definition 2) is someone who fancies himself a definition 1.

(And now one of the commenters says another reason is that you’d need to either pay someone or have enough money not to need a job, rendering any other considerations irrelevant. Them’s fighting words.)

Sports Watcher Labor Day 3-day Weekend Special for the Weekend of 8/30-9/1

All times PDT.

Saturday
8-11 AM: College Football, Appalachian State @ defending 2008 BCS title holder LSU (ESPN Classic). Yes, it’s college football season again! Can lightning strike twice for App State?

12:30-3:30 PM: College Football, defending 2007 Boise State title holder USC v. Virginia (ABC/ESPN2). The move of the App State/LSU game could have opened things up for baseball, but this isn’t change, this is more of the same!

5:30-8:30 PM: College Football, Illinois v. defending Princeton-Yale title holder Missouri (ESPN). Once my C Ratings come out, everything is based on relative rating. Until then, you get this.

Sunday
10-12:30 PM: WNBA Basketball, Seattle @ Connecticut (ABC). I’m embarrassed to admit I don’t know whether this is a regular season game or an early-round postseason game.

12:30-3 PM: IndyCar Racing, IndyCar Grand Prix at Detroit (ABC). Normally road course races are a bit of a slog, but I was glued to my TV last weekend rooting for Helio Castroneves to break a lengthy winless streak at Infineon. Too bad it was relegated to ESPN2.

5-8 PM: MLB Baseball, LA Dodgers @ Arizona (ESPN2). Bumped to the Deuce by NASCAR.

Monday
11-3 PM: PGA Tour Golf, Deutsche Bank Championship (NBC). I didn’t realize until this week that the PGA Tour “playoffs” no one cares about had started. I had been thinking this was an important weekend for Sports Watcher with no real big events…

4-6 PM (potentially 4-9 PM on the West Coast): US Open Tennis, octofinal-round action (USA). The Labor Day college football game is mediocre v. mediocre in Tennessee v. UCLA, only of interest to masturbating “my c0nf3rence is teh rulz” spewers, and otherwise I couldn’t get tennis on here.

5-8 PM: College Football, Tennessee v. UCLA (ESPN). Mediocre v. mediocre. How exciting.

This always happens. I start writing a post for a position, and I start coming towards the other position as I write it.

I recently had a lively e-mail conversation with support at Project Wonderful regarding what I should do to advertise on the web site. Well, not in so many words; I spoke of a hypothetical web site with a number of different sub-sites that were all approved, but with a main page that wasn’t. Their response was to simply take the ad box from one page and put that on the main page, and I wrote them back saying this didn’t solve the problem of which page to take an ad box from. Their response to that was:

You can do the following in this case. You can put different ad boxes on each page if you wish. That way advertisers in different industries can bid on pages that apply to them.

However, I wouldn’t advise doing this due to the following reasons

1) advertisers have to start selecting specific pages which may be a problem for them

2) By dividing your ad boxes into specific pages means that potential advertisers are
now dividing their possible exposure against all the other advertisers. Their piece of the pie will become dramatically smaller.

Theoretically, you want as many advertisers bidding for ad boxes across your whole site, not specific pages.

They make this point elsewhere, and I certainly see it. But they only pay lip service to the idea that “advertisers in different industries can bid on pages that apply to them”.

I’ve been approved for ads on Sandsday, a video game webcomic. Yesterday I applied for ads here, a sports site with an emphasis on American football. Specificly, nerdy esoterica relating to American football. Those are two very different constituencies, and an ad that appeals to one may not appeal to the other. Check that: almost certainly will have little appeal to anyone reading the other except me.

(Okay, I know that doesn’t sound like it’s that incompatible, but I imagine a future where I also have a site pertaining to politics, and another pertaining to history. I already have the 100 Greatest Movies Project and the Street Sign Gallery, where the only reason I’m not applying for those sites is because they don’t fit the design of the rest of the site.)

Isn’t Project Wonderful supposed to contain tools to make it easy to bid across several ad boxes at once? Instead of appealing to a+b and only getting some of a and some of b (or alternately, all of a and none of b), shouldn’t there be some people appealing to a and getting all of a, and appealing to b and getting all of b? So they can take advantage of the full value of a+b, and not just a some of the time and b the rest of the time? Doesn’t this negate some of the advantage PW has over, say, Google Adsense, and even give it potentially a disadvantage, because Adsense’s context-sensitive ads can present only the most relevant ads while PW’s preferred model requires you to appeal to however broad an audience is served by the whole site, even if it’s ridiculously broad?

Food for thought. Leave your responses in the comments.

I actually had to type this really short review three times for different reasons.

(From Ctrl+Alt+Del. Click for full-sized pizza guy!)

What… the… hell?

After Wednesday’s suggestion that Kate may have found a new boyfriend, and now the tired old cliche of “selling the store”, I think I really am pushing back the Penny Arcade review back another week.

And wait… is that Scott, or someone else? Or is it… Heaven forbid… Tim Buckley himself?!? The hair is similar to that of Buckley’s avatar, the goatee doesn’t really match Scott’s…

Random Internet Discovery of the Week (a day late but we don’t care)

I had every intention of doing the Random Internet Discovery yesterday, honest, but my schedule has been monopolized this week by the Democratic National Convention, and it ended up slipping. I technically hit the StumbleUpon button last night, but my laptop somehow got unplugged overnight and I have to rewrite the RID.

The discovery itself (I have no use for a gas price list, as I take the bus everywhere – more on that later in the fall) isn’t as important as the fact that before I happened upon it, StumbleUpon prompted me to add 17 more interests for my viewing pleasure, so expect at least a little more variety in the future. I think.