Roger Goodell talked about extending the playoff format to include 16 teams instead of the current 12. He hopes to bring it before the competition committee soon. Here's why I don't like it.
First of all, 16 teams is literally half the league. Right now, with the current 12 team format, only the best advance. The top teams make the playoffs and we get superior post season competition. Barring the occasional instances when a division is so weak that a team wins it with a losing record (looking at you, Seattle), or with a .500 record (looking at you Denver and San Diego), you are practically guaranteed to only get winning teams in the playoffs. Adding four more teams is going to practically guarantee you get at least one 8-8 team.
Let's back track a little bit. Let's also pretend that we had this proposed 16 team format in place ten years ago, here's what the playoffs would have looked like. In 2011, you have New England, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston all with winning records. You have the Broncos win that weak AFC West at 8-8. We're counting that as that occasional instance of a weak division pushing a bad team into the playoffs. To add two more teams? Well, there was only one other team with a winning record - Tennessee went 9-7. So the next team has to be among the New York Jets, San Diego, or Oakland, all who went 8-8. Take a look at the NFC side of things, where there were literally only six teams with winning records in the entire conference. All made the post season. Adding two more teams would have brought two 8-8 teams.
Take a look at 2010. In the AFC, there were seven teams with winning records. Only the San Diego Chargers missed the playoffs at 9-7. Add two more teams to the equation, yeah, the Chargers get in, but so does either the Raiders or Jaguars who both finished at 8-8. The NFC was particularly frustrating because that was a year in which the NFC West was so pathetic, Seattle won the division and advanced with a 7-9 record. That year, there were seven teams in the NFC with a winning record. The New York Giants and Tampa Bay Buccaneers both missed the playoffs despite both going 10-6. It sounds at first like this is a good example FOR extending the playoffs. Add two more teams, neither of those teams miss the playoffs. However, no matter how you cut it, you still end up with a losing team. Let's pretend Tampa Bay was in the NFC West and so they won the division instead of the 7-9 Seahawks. Throw in two more teams, you get the 10-6 Giants, but then there literally wasn't even an 8-8 team that year. You'd still have to include the 7-9 Seahawks to take that final Wild Card spot. (More on this later.)
Let's go back one more year to 2009. Extending the format by two teams per conference would have included two more winning teams to the post season in the AFC (Pittsburgh and Houston both went 9-7), but in the NFC, you only had one non-playoff team with a winning record. Adding two more teams again guarantees an 8-8 team. That final spot goes to Carolina, New York, or San Francisco, none of who finished above .500.
It's hard to find a 16 team post season that does not include at least one 8-8 team. 2008 is close. It was another year in which the fact that you advance just by winning even a bad division seems like a flaw as the 8-8 Chargers made the post season why the 11-5 Patriots missed out on a tie breaker. But there were also only seven teams in the AFC with a winning record, so no matter how you cut it, an 8-8 team makes it. A 16 team format in 2007 would have included three 8-8 teams. In 2006, we would have seen four 8-8 teams.
So sure, if the argument against the extended format is that you increase the chances of a losing team making the playoffs, you will have a hard time proving that (though statistically speaking, it does increase the chances - it's still unlikely though.) You have to go back to 2004 to find a situation where adding two more teams per conference would have included a sub-.500 team regardless of divisional winners. To find that 8th team for the NFC, you'd have to look at the Carolina Panthers, who finished 7-9. Same thing in 2002, when you'd need to include the 7-9 Redskins, Panthers, Rams, or Seahawks to reach the 8 team quota. In the past ten years, only in 2005 would you find a 16 team format included only winning teams. 2005 is the last time in which each conference had eight teams with winning records.
Point being, adding two teams doesn't sound like it will water down the competition that much, but it really does. The odds of including a losing team are higher, but still small. However, the other side to the equation is true as well - you aren't going to just include good teams. You will get weak competition that, frankly, doesn't deserve to be there. As it stands right now, we are poised to have another season in which there aren't enough winning teams to fulfill the 16 team format. Currently, there are seven teams in the AFC above .500, while there are nine in the NFC (though we're likely to see that drop to seven by year's end).
It should tell you something that in the past 10 years, we'd have three years in which a losing team made the playoffs, nine years in which at least one 8-8 team made it, and only one year in which all sixteen teams were above .500 if we had a 16 team post season.
The post season is supposed to reward the best teams in the league. By increasing the playoff slots, you demean the value of the regular season. Further, to increase it to eight teams per conference, you then remove the Bye Week for the top seeds. The Bye Week is perhaps the only incentive for teams with nine or ten wins by the final month to keep playing hard. If there's no Bye Week incentive for finishing at the top of the regular season, what incentive is there for say the New England Patriots to keep putting their starters forward? The Patriots currently sit at 10-3. They have already won their division and a playoff spot. They can rest their starters for the final three games of the season, lose them all, finish 10-6 and still potentially grab the 3 seed. The same thing can be said of Denver. What incentive is there for these teams to really put their best foot forward for the final few weeks of the season? The Bye Week is. They are not just trying to get home field advantage throughout the playoffs; they are also trying to get a week off to rest some of their starters and hopefully get a few back from injuries.
The Bye Week is a fair reward for playing the best football in the regular season. In the past ten years, five times has a team that won a bye week also gone on to win the Super Bowl. That's pretty split, and I think that indicates that the bye week is not such a huge advantage. With half the time being won by a team that didn't have a bye, it shows that you don't need it to win out. However, it is a benefit to putting forth a strong effort through the entire season. It is incentive for the best teams to keep playing late in the season.
Another thing to keep in mind is how the NFL has been discussing the possibility of increasing the regular season from 16 games to 18. How can they honestly propose this while also proposing adding an extra game to the post season? Right now, a team that doesn't earn a bye week but makes the Super Bowl plays 20 games in the season. Tack on one more post season games and two additional regular season game, any team that makes it to the Super Bowl is going to have to play 23 games. That's almost six months of football! In a day and age where the NFL is promoting so many different (and often times worse) rules in the name of player safety, how can they possibly justify adding an extra month of football? What is that going to do to these players?
While we're on the topic of adding an extra month of football, you also have the logistical problem of how you air these games. As it stands right now, there are four games in the Wild Card and Divisional rounds. It's a pretty easy break down. You put two games on Saturday, two games on Sunday. Most fans can sit through a double header on the weekends. Increase the format to sixteen teams, no one gets a bye week, that means that we now have eight games. Typically, each game gets its own broadcast time so that there is no other football competing with it. The NFL post season games are completely independent from each other so that we can maximize enjoyment. We don't have to worry about missing a playoff game or have a simultaneous game get spoiled for us as we Tivo it while watching the other game. How are you supposed to put eight games in two days in a way that has each game independent?
I've heard an argument to put three games on Saturday and Sunday (usually CBS gets the AFC games while Fox gets the NFC), and then you put two games on ESPN for their Monday night football. Ok, well, first of all, how do you decide who gets the Monday night game? You can't say that the top seeds get it as a benefit for finishing on top in the regular season, because you also give that extra day's rest to the worst team. Further, that's a LOT of football for a weekend. Sure, you can argue that on Sundays, we get three separate games anyway - the 1:00, 4:30, and Sunday Night football at 8:30. True, and that's a lot of football in one day. How many people actually watch three games in a row? And if so, how many do so because it's just one day a week? You're not just seeing if we'll sit through a triple header on Sunday. You're seeing if we'll sit through a triple header on Saturday in addition to it! I don't know about you, but I have stuff to do on the weekends. I can usually sit through a couple of games on Sunday, but I can't waste an entire weekend watching football. And then on Monday night? You'd have to start the game at 4:30 to ensure that both games finish at or before midnight. (Alternatively, you could minimize commercial breaks to speed the game along, but I think we all know that that is never ever going to happen.)
It's just too much. There's no good way to broadcast a 16 team format. This is part of the reason the bye week is such a good idea in the first place. Never mind the reward for the best regular season teams, it also prevents the weekend from being over saturated with NFL football.
At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with the current 12 team format. It helps create a smooth broadcasting schedule that is fair to most fans and both networks. It helps ensure that only the best teams advance. It puts stock in the regular season. Yes, I hear you, fans who say that some teams are the beneficiary of a weak schedule. By all means, some teams do benefit from it (case in point, this year's Indianapolis Colts). But if you're willing to mess everything up and make things worse because some teams have weaker schedules, where do you stop? What about the divisions? How do you account for teams like the San Diego Chargers who win a division with an 8-8 record because it's a bad division, meanwhile the 11-5 New England Patriots miss out on a tie breaker? It's the NFL. Yes, not all schedules are equal, but it's professional football. Any team really is capable of beating any other. Any given Sunday, and all that. Sure, would we be very surprised if the Kansas City Chiefs beat the New England Patriots? No doubt. Does anyone really think it's impossible though?
If any change is going to be made to the current NFL playoff format, it should be a requirement to have a winning record to advance (or at a minimum, 8-8). I still don't think it's right that a 7-9 team can "win a division," and make the playoffs while a 10-6 team misses out as a result. The "win the division and you're in" should have a stipulation that says, "but if you don't finish .500 or above, you forfeit your spot."
But that's probably just me.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
PSN (phony sports news): David Stern fines Cardinals, Jets $500,000
NEW YORK: David Stern threw the hammer down once again, fining the New York
Jets and the Arizona Cardinals $500,000 each for franchises
"unacceptable for fans." Neither team provided the big names nor
entertainment and - according to Stern - did a disservice to the fans.
This just shows how far Heir Stern's reach extends given that Roger Goodell is the NFL commissioner, not Stern.
Goodell supports the fine and has even considered throwing in his own.
"We take fan safety very seriously," Goodell said in a brief interview after the game. "We feel that not only did the Cardinals and Jets do the fans wrong, they also put their health at risk."
"Those teams metaphorically made helmet to helmet contact with the fans," he continued. "We hope the fans will seek proper psychiatric treatment before returning to the stadiums."
All fans present at the game will have to pass a baseline test before becoming eligible to buy tickets again.
Asked for comment after securing their tenth AFC East title since 2001, rival Patriots coach Bill Belichick had no words. He just couldn't stop laughing.
This just shows how far Heir Stern's reach extends given that Roger Goodell is the NFL commissioner, not Stern.
Goodell supports the fine and has even considered throwing in his own.
"We take fan safety very seriously," Goodell said in a brief interview after the game. "We feel that not only did the Cardinals and Jets do the fans wrong, they also put their health at risk."
"Those teams metaphorically made helmet to helmet contact with the fans," he continued. "We hope the fans will seek proper psychiatric treatment before returning to the stadiums."
All fans present at the game will have to pass a baseline test before becoming eligible to buy tickets again.
Asked for comment after securing their tenth AFC East title since 2001, rival Patriots coach Bill Belichick had no words. He just couldn't stop laughing.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Bigg Question: What is the role of professional sports teams?
Apparently, the NFL no longer holds a monopoly on ridiculous fines. In a surprisingly harsh move, NBA commissioner David Stern fined the San Antonio Spurs $250,000 for sending four of their big name players home in order to give them rest instead of playing them against the Miami Heat. The core issue seems to be that by resting the starters and the big name players, coach Greg Popovich was essentially screwing the fans over - he was taking away what the fans had paid to see.
And this brings up a big question: what exactly is the role of a professional sports team?
There's no real right or wrong answer, of course. Like most things in the world, it walks a balance. At the end of the day, sports exist for our entertainment as both players and spectators. We play because we have fun and we watch it for the same reason.
Still, an overwhelming percentage of us will never make money for playing sports or for writing about sports. For us, it's all pleasure, no business. So then, what is the role of a professional sports team? Is it to entertain us? Or is it, as many say, to try and win championships? What should their primary focus be - winning games or winning fans?
If the argument for the fine is that Popovich screwed over the fans and didn't give them what they paid for, we have to then look at it from two angles. The first being what do the fans pay for? Are they paying to see big name sports celebrities, or are they paying to see a good, competitive, entertaining sports match? I tend to think it is the latter. I would rather have a good game filled with no names than a bad game filled with big names. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. And you wonder what the game would have been if Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were in that game. It could have been more entertaining, but you can't guarantee that because it could have also been worse. When you look at this case in particular, the Spurs played in Miami. The game came down to the final minute and was literally won in the final 30 seconds of the game. The Heat won in thrilling fashion 105-100. It was an exciting game, well worth the price of admission.
So why is Heir Stern fining San Antonio such an exorbitant amount for resting starters and claiming Popovich did a disservice to the fans? Take a look at what Stern said. "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
The only thing one can say in Stern's defense is that he made those comments before the game. Had he waited to see the outcome of the game, maybe this wouldn't be an issue (since, after all, it was one of the more entertaining games of the year). Still, he didn't have to make those comments in the first place. If he truly felt that the Spurs did a major disservice to the NBA fans, he should have waited to see the result of the decision first. (I don't remember him fining LeBron James for his "The Decision," which was a major slap in the face to pretty much any NBA fan except Heat fans.)
The second perspective is which fan base we are looking at this from. Stern claims this decision is unacceptable for all NBA fans. Is it though? So if we argue that people are paying more to see big names than good games, who are the fans that paid to watch the game? Miami Heat fans. Are you really going to tell me that Miami fans are paying $50 to see Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobli? No. They are paying to watch their Miami Heat stars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Ray Allen. They saw James nearly get a triple double. They saw a game in which the Heat won on a late Ray Allen three pointer. The fans got what they paid for. They saw the stars they wanted to see. Maybe you have an argument if this is against the Washington Wizards or the Atlanta Hawks, but not against the Heat who is practically hoarding big name super stars right now.
What about Spurs fans? Their team had just gone on the road for six straight games and were playing their fourth game in five nights. And let's be honest here: the Spurs have a little recent history with maintaining health. Is David Stern apologizing to Spurs fans? I bet Spurs fans think Greg Popovich did absolutely the right thing. He's doing what it takes to ensure San Antonio's chances of a championship are as high as possible. He's doing right by Spurs fans. And Stern claims to be apologizing to "all NBA fans." Really? Do Celtics fans really care about this? Do Lakers fans? Would these fans feel their coach was doing right by them if they rested their starters in order to give the team the best chance of reaching the post season?
Finally, this is the NBA. Anyone playing in that game is top tier talent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. That is why - despite resting their starters - San Antonio still played a competitive game against the star studded Miami Heat. Fining the Spurs for resting their big name players is a slap in the face to any NBA player who is not considered a super star. You can look at a guy like Kendrick Perkins, for example. He's not a super star player - no one is paying to see him play - but he has been a critical piece of the puzzle for Boston and Oklahoma City. How insulting must it be to a Spurs bench player who came out, performed extremely well, gave the fans a great game, and are now getting bashed solely because they don't have the same name recognition?
Which reminds me: you never know what can happen in these games. Maybe someone comes off the bench and steps up. Maybe the coach finds another key role player that he can start to use more. Practice isn't the same thing as game time. There are plenty of benefits for the team, the players, and the fans to resting starters from time to time.
And frankly, if Stern is going to fine the Spurs for resting star players because it's not entertaining to fans, he might as well just kick the Washington Wizards out of the league. How is that franchise not a disservice to NBA fans?
To Popovich's credit, he has acknowledged that he can see both side. He even admitted that if he were taking his son to see a basketball game, he would hope they all had their star players on the court. Still, he was ultimately trying to do what was best for his team. It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks this was a bad call for the health of the team.
Sports can't exist just to win though. Granted, it already is just its own self-fulfilling circle of importance - winning is everything, you always play to win, your greatness is determined by wins, et cetera. Still, it has to be about more than just winning or it would never be fun for players or more importantly, the fans. No one ever seems to have an issue when coaches rest starters at the end of a season to gear up for a playoff run. That is generally "acceptable" because it - theoretically - helps them in the post season. So why is this any different? The logic is exactly the same: rest starters when we can, maintain health throughout the regular season as best we can, win as many games as we can. The Spurs are playing not just for the playoffs, but will likely be looking at a high seeding for home court advantage. Or what about when coaches bench players for "disciplinary reasons"? Did the 76ers get fined for benching super star Allen Iverson just for missing practice? Is that a cause worthy of ensuring fans don't see the stars they paid for?
At the end of the day, sports teams have two purposes - to provide entertainment (which includes providing top talent) and to win championships. They must strike that balance. Greg Popovich might not have provided name recognition against the Heat, but he provided top talent that was competitive. He provided entertainment. And he was doing what he thought he needed to provide the second purpose. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a coach cannot rest players. If you suddenly say that you can't do that, what is to stop Popovich from saying, "Oh, well Duncan was late to practice so I sent him home." Or "Parker twisted his knee in practice, so I sent him home." At least Popovich was honest. "We have played a lot and have been away from home. I wanted them to get a head start on rest." But he clearly didn't give up that game. The San Antonio players and coaches still tried to win that game (even if Pop made a big error by not calling a time out late in the game). The Spurs broke no rules. The home crowd got to see the stars they wanted to see. And all NBA fans got an incredibly entertaining game.
And David Stern is fining someone as a result. Yeah. Makes sense to me. You don't have to like what he did - there are legitimate arguments against it given the dual nature of the league's purposes. Still, he did nothing illegal and no one suffered any harm from it. There shouldn't be a fine, never mind a quarter million dollar fine.
Better watch out, Roger Goodell. You've got competition.
And this brings up a big question: what exactly is the role of a professional sports team?
There's no real right or wrong answer, of course. Like most things in the world, it walks a balance. At the end of the day, sports exist for our entertainment as both players and spectators. We play because we have fun and we watch it for the same reason.
Still, an overwhelming percentage of us will never make money for playing sports or for writing about sports. For us, it's all pleasure, no business. So then, what is the role of a professional sports team? Is it to entertain us? Or is it, as many say, to try and win championships? What should their primary focus be - winning games or winning fans?
If the argument for the fine is that Popovich screwed over the fans and didn't give them what they paid for, we have to then look at it from two angles. The first being what do the fans pay for? Are they paying to see big name sports celebrities, or are they paying to see a good, competitive, entertaining sports match? I tend to think it is the latter. I would rather have a good game filled with no names than a bad game filled with big names. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. And you wonder what the game would have been if Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were in that game. It could have been more entertaining, but you can't guarantee that because it could have also been worse. When you look at this case in particular, the Spurs played in Miami. The game came down to the final minute and was literally won in the final 30 seconds of the game. The Heat won in thrilling fashion 105-100. It was an exciting game, well worth the price of admission.
So why is Heir Stern fining San Antonio such an exorbitant amount for resting starters and claiming Popovich did a disservice to the fans? Take a look at what Stern said. "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
The only thing one can say in Stern's defense is that he made those comments before the game. Had he waited to see the outcome of the game, maybe this wouldn't be an issue (since, after all, it was one of the more entertaining games of the year). Still, he didn't have to make those comments in the first place. If he truly felt that the Spurs did a major disservice to the NBA fans, he should have waited to see the result of the decision first. (I don't remember him fining LeBron James for his "The Decision," which was a major slap in the face to pretty much any NBA fan except Heat fans.)
The second perspective is which fan base we are looking at this from. Stern claims this decision is unacceptable for all NBA fans. Is it though? So if we argue that people are paying more to see big names than good games, who are the fans that paid to watch the game? Miami Heat fans. Are you really going to tell me that Miami fans are paying $50 to see Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobli? No. They are paying to watch their Miami Heat stars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Ray Allen. They saw James nearly get a triple double. They saw a game in which the Heat won on a late Ray Allen three pointer. The fans got what they paid for. They saw the stars they wanted to see. Maybe you have an argument if this is against the Washington Wizards or the Atlanta Hawks, but not against the Heat who is practically hoarding big name super stars right now.
What about Spurs fans? Their team had just gone on the road for six straight games and were playing their fourth game in five nights. And let's be honest here: the Spurs have a little recent history with maintaining health. Is David Stern apologizing to Spurs fans? I bet Spurs fans think Greg Popovich did absolutely the right thing. He's doing what it takes to ensure San Antonio's chances of a championship are as high as possible. He's doing right by Spurs fans. And Stern claims to be apologizing to "all NBA fans." Really? Do Celtics fans really care about this? Do Lakers fans? Would these fans feel their coach was doing right by them if they rested their starters in order to give the team the best chance of reaching the post season?
Finally, this is the NBA. Anyone playing in that game is top tier talent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. That is why - despite resting their starters - San Antonio still played a competitive game against the star studded Miami Heat. Fining the Spurs for resting their big name players is a slap in the face to any NBA player who is not considered a super star. You can look at a guy like Kendrick Perkins, for example. He's not a super star player - no one is paying to see him play - but he has been a critical piece of the puzzle for Boston and Oklahoma City. How insulting must it be to a Spurs bench player who came out, performed extremely well, gave the fans a great game, and are now getting bashed solely because they don't have the same name recognition?
Which reminds me: you never know what can happen in these games. Maybe someone comes off the bench and steps up. Maybe the coach finds another key role player that he can start to use more. Practice isn't the same thing as game time. There are plenty of benefits for the team, the players, and the fans to resting starters from time to time.
And frankly, if Stern is going to fine the Spurs for resting star players because it's not entertaining to fans, he might as well just kick the Washington Wizards out of the league. How is that franchise not a disservice to NBA fans?
To Popovich's credit, he has acknowledged that he can see both side. He even admitted that if he were taking his son to see a basketball game, he would hope they all had their star players on the court. Still, he was ultimately trying to do what was best for his team. It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks this was a bad call for the health of the team.
Sports can't exist just to win though. Granted, it already is just its own self-fulfilling circle of importance - winning is everything, you always play to win, your greatness is determined by wins, et cetera. Still, it has to be about more than just winning or it would never be fun for players or more importantly, the fans. No one ever seems to have an issue when coaches rest starters at the end of a season to gear up for a playoff run. That is generally "acceptable" because it - theoretically - helps them in the post season. So why is this any different? The logic is exactly the same: rest starters when we can, maintain health throughout the regular season as best we can, win as many games as we can. The Spurs are playing not just for the playoffs, but will likely be looking at a high seeding for home court advantage. Or what about when coaches bench players for "disciplinary reasons"? Did the 76ers get fined for benching super star Allen Iverson just for missing practice? Is that a cause worthy of ensuring fans don't see the stars they paid for?
At the end of the day, sports teams have two purposes - to provide entertainment (which includes providing top talent) and to win championships. They must strike that balance. Greg Popovich might not have provided name recognition against the Heat, but he provided top talent that was competitive. He provided entertainment. And he was doing what he thought he needed to provide the second purpose. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a coach cannot rest players. If you suddenly say that you can't do that, what is to stop Popovich from saying, "Oh, well Duncan was late to practice so I sent him home." Or "Parker twisted his knee in practice, so I sent him home." At least Popovich was honest. "We have played a lot and have been away from home. I wanted them to get a head start on rest." But he clearly didn't give up that game. The San Antonio players and coaches still tried to win that game (even if Pop made a big error by not calling a time out late in the game). The Spurs broke no rules. The home crowd got to see the stars they wanted to see. And all NBA fans got an incredibly entertaining game.
And David Stern is fining someone as a result. Yeah. Makes sense to me. You don't have to like what he did - there are legitimate arguments against it given the dual nature of the league's purposes. Still, he did nothing illegal and no one suffered any harm from it. There shouldn't be a fine, never mind a quarter million dollar fine.
Better watch out, Roger Goodell. You've got competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)