Occasionally, you come across an idea that’s so…shall we say…out-of-the-box that you just have to pass it on.
I was perusing the basketball news yesterday when I found this article on the HalfCourtHeave blog about adding “player cams” to NBA games via TrueHoop:
And that’s where the “player cam” comes in. I propose the idea that players who wear a headband on a regular basis may volunteer to have a small/discrete camera lens installed into the front of it. You’re able to see the game through the “players eyes”. You can see what it looks like to dribble the ball up floor, beat a man off the dribble, and finish at the rim.To put this idea in perspective, it would essentially be like watching basketball from the perspective of a first person shooter video game. And I know people who get flat out nauseated from those games.
They put small lenses in all sorts of surveillance equipment. Hell, phone camera lenses are smaller than the size of a pinky fingernail. Of course, the NBA runs the risk of a player taking an elbow to the head and destroying the camera but for a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they can afford to try the experiment twice a week on national television for awhile. Picture quality would clearly be an issue given the size and discrete size of the lens, but that’s for someone with far more expertise than I have on that matter. I imagine it could be done so that a respectable video replay could be made for on-air reproduction. Headbands twist around, the lens would look ridiculous protruding slightly from the forehead, malfunctions would occur. I get it. But isn’t it worth a shot?
Better yet, it’s like helmet cams in football…check out the ESPN feature below:
Before you laugh and dismiss this idea as absurd, do keep in mind that the growth of the NFL back in the day is often attributed to innovative camera angles to make Monday Night Football interesting.
So I thought to myself, would the WNBA give something like this idea a shot as a way to completely change the way we see sports?
A different camera angle might not draw in the people who are steadfastly indifferent to the league, but might be an interesting way to keep existing fans watching…
…or it could be a completely worthless gimmick that is hardly worth the time and money necessary to bring it to creation (see: NBA floor cam or free flight).
While helmet cams may be useful for analysis of football film, basketball relies so heavily on peripheral vision that I cannot really see a player cam giving us anymore of an authentic viewing experience. Plus the quality can't be that good and basketball heads should be constantly moving... it would seem like a pretty absurd way to watch a basketball game...
I really don’t see much middle ground on this…and I really don’t think the WNBA should be experimenting with gimmicks… but it’s sort of fun to think about anyway…and maybe imagine other innovative (or geeky) ways of presenting women’s basketball…
Transition Points:
The first time I ever heard of a helmet cam? I swear it was Bud Bowl 3 in 1989…seriously. Check this out (clips begins at 1:35):
Colorado University also uses a helmet cam:
Logging you in...
Ethan · 828 weeks ago
WNBA players tend to wear headbands at an angle, so the player cam would show dramatic footage of the nosebleed seats or the ceiling. Maybe Betty Lennox would be the designated cammer, since as I recall she wears her headband more straightforward, as 'twere.
petrel · 828 weeks ago
The great thing about niche sports is that they have the chance to try stuff that the other sports won't touch. I've said more than once that what the NBA should be doing is using the WNBA to try out new approaches in viewing, broadcasting and marketing. The great think about being #2 is that "you try harder" and you don't have a highfalutin reputation to maintain.
Yes, the helmet cam didn't work so great in the XFL - but the field cam from the XFL is now a regular part of football. There's everything to be gained by trying out the headband-cam and there's nothing to be lost by it. I don't think such devices cost that much anyway.
Maybe Betty Lennox or Deanna Nolan would agree to wear the cam for a game or two. I'd watch the game in which the headband-cam was first used for the novelty alone. Yes, peripheral vision would be lacking but even an approximation of a player's eye view would add new excitement.
Q McCall 58p · 828 weeks ago
I actually hate the idea of using the WNBA as a test league... but this idea is really no crazier than the floor cam (which I always thought was pointless). And if there is some way to make an argument that this would enhance the viewing experience, I'm all for it...
kbailey3131 · 828 weeks ago
Floor cam was dumb, I was convinced the only reason they thought that up was so they could roll it out during the WNBA season - which was the season I believe they switched to the untucked uniform look. Helmet cam was not quite as dumb, but dumb nonetheless. The cameras in baseball bases, cameras in home plate, the infamous glowing puck in hockey...the list goes on.
Innovations such as the field cam in the XFL, strobe cam which I think they rolled out in the Olympics do/did add something. The coach and player mics, the in game interviews with coaches and players are intrusive and worthless.
Ask your audience what it wants to know. NASCAR fans seem to love getting the radio feeds of their drivers during the race. I guess that's cool if you're a fan. But huddle cam, headband cam to me don't quite add up to the same benefit. If the WNBA had the same number of cameras used in their production as the major sports, we wouldn't need headband cam to enhance our experience.