Why I'll continue to watch the Super Bowl

Super Bowl LIII was boring. Not defensive struggle-boring, but actually boring. Despite the game being tied or within a single score most of the time, there were barely any exciting, game-changing plays. Neither offense managed to drive into the red zone until the fourth quarter. At one point, CBS announcer Jim Nantz got excited because a record was set for the longest punt. How boring was this game? The Burger King ad in which Andy Warhol ate a burger in the most mundane manner possible was more interesting.

Equally disturbing were some of the ads that aired. The first ad that ran during a break in the action was for a beverage that seemed so absurd I was convinced it was an intentional parody to set up a Geico ad or something. The Stella Artois ad featuring Sarah Jessica Parker, Jeff Bridges and the most interesting man in the world was painful. And the Bud Light ads ranged from controversial to confusing.

The less said about the halftime show, the better.

So was the evening a total loss? No, some of the ads were good. The Microsoft ad showing how technology could help disabled children was pretty good. The Google ad has John Krasinski narrating it, and he's dreamy. The T-Mobile ads were pretty well conceived. And the NFL even managed an inspiring ad to celebrate its centennial.

But my favorite ad, to be honest, was the surprise mash-up of Bud Light and "Game of Thrones," the one in which, according to the Wall Street Journal's Suzanne Vranica, "HBO's marketing chief Chris Spadaccini said he made it clear: 'The Bud Knight had to die.' "

This ad was enjoyable for multiple reasons. First, the entire "Dilly Dilly" campaign has been run into the ground. To see its entire premise - "a really sanitized version of the 'Game of Thrones' world," as one ad person told the WSJ's Vranica - burned to a crisp was both surprising and entertaining.

There is another more melancholy reason, however. Both the Super Bowl and "Game of Thrones" are part of a dying breed: appointment television. The number of television programs that demand viewing in real time is being winnowed over time. The ad commemorates GoT's last season. During its eight-season run, the rise of streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon have changed how we view television. Simply put, far fewer Americans watch the same shows at the same time anymore.

Sonny Bunch explained this development well in a sharp Weekly Standard essay from last year:

" 'Overall, the total series output on television since 2002 has grown by 168 percent,' Variety reported. By way of comparison, America's population is up about 13 percent in the same time. The number of hours in the day has remained static, at 24. Simply put: There's vastly more content (to use a vulgarity that reduces art to a consumable but feels proper when describing the aforementioned torrent) than ever before. ... The fragmented nature of our viewing habits means a TV show on a pay cable station can get by with a few hundred thousand viewers if critics like it and it pulls in awards; the biggest "hits" in the world of scripted entertainment are watched by less than 5 percent of the population, if we are to trust the ratings ...

"The flood of television programming from Netflix et al. since 2013, and the shotgun-blast manner in which new seasons are released, have combined to make it virtually impossible to keep up with everything worth watching. As recently as 15 years ago, a discerning TV watcher only needed to keep tabs on a handful of shows - a Sunday-night drama from HBO or AMC or Showtime; a Tuesday-night drama and a Thursday-night comedy from FX or maybe a broadcast network. But now it feels like there are nigh on infinite offerings from a nearly limitless number of channels."

There are some serious benefits to the proliferation of streaming services and cable channels. Everyone gets the niche they want. The television landscape is far more diverse than it used to be. Watching on streaming services on demand without the need for television ads is also pretty darn convenient.

There is something lost as well. The game theorist Thomas Schelling developed the concept of "focal points" - obvious points of reference that multiple actors, without consulting with one another, would converge on if they were trying to coordinate their behavior. Why a focal point emerges among a wide possibility of options is like knowing the formula for how a television show becomes must-see TV - no one is entirely sure of the alchemy. But one of the joys of watching, say, "Game of Thrones" comes from the knowledge that many others are watching it at the same time.

Another focal point comes from watching the Super Bowl. It is the highest-rated show on television every year. But even it has experienced a ratings decline since 2015. Sunday's game will not help.

I am old enough to remember the world of three networks, in which finding common focal points on television was not hard. The proliferation of serialized television, as well as the change in how we watch it, has eliminated almost all of the focal points. The quality of TV has gone up dramatically. There is, however, some social value in everyone possessing a few common cultural signposts.

Focal points are not always quality focal points - the Super Bowl is proof of that. Indeed, last month many observers were praying that the shutdown would permanently end the practice of televised State of the Union addresses. But I will still watch both, because I value the common conversation that both events generate. Even if it is to agree that they could be a little - or a lot - more entertaining.

Previously:
• 01/17/18: The good news about Hawaii's false alarm
• 08/08/17: Princess Leia, PhD
• 12/05/16: The Orwellian nightmare for policy wonks is coming
• 09/20/16: Could the erosion of trust in government be at an end?
• 08/24/16: HUH!? Grad students at private universities can now unionize
• 08/23/16: What is it about Henry Kissinger?
• 08/09/16: A Very Important Column about . . . cargo shorts
• 07/04/16: 2016 is a fascinating year for politics, and that's awful news for political scientists
• 06/02/16: The twilight of the 'West Wing' economy?
• 05/20/16: A very important column about . . . the global governance of superheroes
• 05/12/16: Why Trump seems invulnerable to the flip-flop charge
• 05/11/16: Confessions of a Luddite professor
• 03/29/16: The trouble with writing about Donald Trump
• 02/29/16: Nobody will admit to the real reason Donald Trump is winning