As sports leagues around the world try to figure out when and how they can resume their seasons, NASCAR is about to enjoy the highest ratings in its history. That's because, after two months away, NASCAR is getting set to drop the green flag again, giving a sports-starved population exactly what it needs.
And it's gonna be a heavy dose of racing. Two races at Darlington, followed by two races at Charlotte, including the first mid-week NASCAR races in I don't even know how long. Other tracks in other states have offered to host races, as well, but they're wisely sticking within driving distance of the sport's home base in Charlotte. What they end up doing after this crazy stretch of four races in 11 days is anybody's guess. I can see them continuing this twice-a-week at the same track schedule for a little while, though.
The races will, of course, be held without fans in the stands. So what?! Everyone knew that was going to happen, and frankly, in NASCAR, that's not a big deal. They hold ticketed practice sessions at empty tracks all the time. More importantly, though, most of their money comes from broadcast and sponsorship dollars, making it even more vital to get as many races in as they can.
Memorial Day Weekend is always a significant date on the auto racing calendar, too. Ordinarily, that Sunday will start with the Monaco Grand Prix, followed by the Indy 500, with the Coca-Cola 600 rounding out a full day of racing. Monaco was cancelled and Indy has been postponed until late August, leaving the Coca-Cola 600 as the only question mark.
You can bet NASCAR had plenty of incentive to be back in time for the Coca-Cola 600, though. Especially knowing the other two races won't be taking place as scheduled, this represented a great opportunity for them to be center stage. And, again, in a country that's so desperate for any type of live sporting event, they were right to wait as long as they did. Because if they were able to return to racing by then, why not?
Then, once North Carolina reopened its economy and allowed race teams back into their shops, it became even more obvious that the Coca-Cola 600 would go ahead as scheduled. It wasn't going to be with fans, which mattered far less than the ability to simply hold the race.
I'm in no position to say whether North Carolina's governor made the right decision or not. Just like I'm no position to say whether NASCAR's decision to return is smart. Only time will tell. But, if any sport was capable of coming back this early, it's NASCAR. And that alone makes it worthwhile to try.
Unlike most sports, NASCAR already takes all of the necessary safety precautions. They're part of the sport, so they don't need to do anything differently to implement them. The drivers are all in their individual cars. The guys on the pit crew all wear helmets and fire suits. It's really only the spotters and everyone else in the tower that will need to keep their distance from each other, which will be made easier by the significantly smaller number of people around.
Will some other adjustments have to be made? Certainly! Like everything else, they'll probably require temperature checks and/or tests before entering the track. And I'm sure the broadcasters and crew chiefs and everyone else who isn't wearing a helmet will be required to wear a mask. The drivers may even need to wear masks when they aren't in the car. These all seem like things they'd all be willing to do in order to get back to racing, too.
Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, getting back to racing is something we're all desperate for. Even if NASCAR isn't your favorite sport, you just want to know something is happening. After nearly two months in quarantine, anything that resembles normal sounds pretty good. For both fans and non-fans alike. And NASCAR knows that. So why not come back earlier than everybody else?
No, it won't be the same without the fans. But NASCAR is the sport where performing in front of fans isn't much different than performing without them there. You're still alone in the car, talking to everybody by radio. They're going so fast that, when they pass the grandstand, the fans are only a blur anyway. Sure, it's nice to celebrate in front of the screaming crowd after taking the checkered flag and being surrounded by your crew in victory lane. But, again, that's a small sacrifice I think everyone is willing to make in this situation.
There isn't a single thing in anybody's life that's normal right now. NASCAR races on empty tracks aren't going to feel normal, either. But they're going to feel a lot more normal than working from home and watching classic sporting events or the same news or government press conferences or sitcom reruns or shows from the host's attic.
So, like I said, maybe this is exactly what America needs right now. NASCAR is the lowest-risk sport out there and the one that makes the most sense to come back. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But I have a feeling it'll be just like the virtual WNBA and NFL Drafts and go off without a hitch.
This is much different than a virtual draft. I get that. But it's also much different than a head-to-head contact sport. And, frankly, after weeks of hearing about nothing but cancellations and postponements and contingency plans, wasn't it nice to have a sport say they're actually going to have an event for a change? So, as Darrell Waltrip said on so many FOX broadcasts over the years, "Boogity, boogity, boogity! Let's go racin' boys!"
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Keep the Off Year
With the Tokyo Olympics being moved to next year, it naturally meant that the 2021 Track & Field World Championships would also move back a year. As a result, once we get through all this, we'll end up with a global outdoor championship in five consecutive years. After this summer, there won't be another year without a major outdoor meet for Americans until 2026, which understandably has American track & field fans excited heading into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Ordinarily, there's an "off" year in the Olympic cycle. The World Championships are normally held in odd years, leaving the even year between Olympics without a championship meet in which Americans participate. This has long frustrated a number of American track & field fans who think this schedule change is an opportunity for World Athletics to do something they've wanted for a while...have a World Championships in all three non-Olympic years.
World Athletics President Seb Coe does see this as an opportunity. He isn't exactly opposed to the sport being center stage five years in a row, either. But don't expect it to become more than a one-time thing. Coe is opposed to it. And he should be. Because it's a bad idea!
I love track & field as much as anybody. I'd love to see an outdoor World Championships every year. But I understand why there aren't. Because it would be overkill. And it would water down the competition at the World Championships.
If the World Championships were every year, stars would inevitably take at least one edition off per cycle. Many of them build their training and competition cycles around having that off year. Some take the year off entirely, while others may take advantage of the opportunity to run different events or have a lighter competition load. Still others see that as their chance to go after records.
And in a sport with appearance fees and performance bonuses, that's a chance to make a good amount of money without having to worry about flying to stifling Des Moines in the middle of July for Nationals! Yes, that would give all of the top Americans a reason to actually show up at Nationals, but that's only a "problem" once every four years, so I don't really have much of an issue with it.
Then there's the matter of finding a host. The World Championships are an expensive undertaking. With nearly 2,000 athletes from more than 200 countries, it's the second-largest single-sport World Championships, behind only aquatics (which combines swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming). So, you need to find a country with a big enough stadium and enough hotel rooms that willing to pony up those massive costs every year. And if you're trying to grow the sport globally (which Coe is), you can't just plant them down in Europe every time.
Let's not forget, either, that the outdoor World Championships aren't the only championship event staged by World Athletics. Not even close. All of them are biennial with staggered schedules. World Outdoors, World Relays and World Cross Country are in the odd years. World Indoors and World Juniors (which may not seem like it, but is a major competition) are in the even years, with the Olympics every fourth year in even years.
There's no way they'd have the resources to properly plan and promote each of these championships if they weren't all on an every-other-year cycle. And they're all equally important to World Athletics. So why should World Outdoors become an annual event but not any of the others? And if they were to do that, the other events wouldn't just lose their luster. They might not survive period.
This next point is an important one that some American fans fail to (or choose not to) understand. More countries compete in track & field than just the United States! And the U.S. is the only one that has an "off" year! Everybody else does have a major competition every outdoor season. So they're not clamoring for the World Championships to be more frequent than they already are.
It was the same thing when they were first discussing potential dates for moving the Olympics and a number of people (all American) suggested 2022. The biggest reason why that wouldn't have worked is the same reason why the rescheduled 2022 Worlds are in mid-July: the Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth Games are a huge competition for those nations, many of which are track & field powers. So, the Commonwealth Games are rightfully protective of their track & field program and making sure the best athletes from those nations participate.
Likewise, the European Championships are staggered so that they're opposite Worlds. European Indoors are in odd years, European Outdoors are in even years. Naturally, the top Europeans focus on the Olympics in Olympic years. In the non-Olympic even year? They go all in on Euros, and the competition is sick! And, let's not forget, Europe is the hub of the sport. But I doubt that even European broadcasters would be keen on having three major track & field championships--Euros, World Juniors, Worlds (plus the Commonwealth Games for Great Britain)--in the World Cup year.
TV is another thing that has to be taken into consideration. How much is too much? You don't want to oversaturate the market, and three major championships in the same summer would do just that. It's also highly unlikely that the top athletes would actually compete in all three, either. Especially since there would still be Diamond League and Continental Tour events, which is where they make their money.
So, while having a major international championships every year may sound great in theory, it would be too hard to execute. Too many logistics and too many other factors to consider. You'd also run the risk of people losing interest if the World Championships were annual except for Olympic years. I'm talking both athletes and fans. It would become just another meet on the calendar, not the major event it is. Not to mention the fact that, outside of some American fans, nobody really wants it.
Track & field is a niche sport in America. As much as people may want that to change, it seems unlikely. And, while an annual international meet may help the sport's growth, it could have the opposite effect, too. The World Championships are a big deal. They should be treated as such. They should feel exclusive. But if they were to become annual, they wouldn't feel as exclusive.
Will I enjoy the five straight years of world-class summer outdoor track meets featuring American athletes? Of course! (I'm actually somewhat happy about the delay for the Oregon Worlds, which gives me another year to save up.) But it's the exception. There's no reason for it to become the norm.
Ordinarily, there's an "off" year in the Olympic cycle. The World Championships are normally held in odd years, leaving the even year between Olympics without a championship meet in which Americans participate. This has long frustrated a number of American track & field fans who think this schedule change is an opportunity for World Athletics to do something they've wanted for a while...have a World Championships in all three non-Olympic years.
World Athletics President Seb Coe does see this as an opportunity. He isn't exactly opposed to the sport being center stage five years in a row, either. But don't expect it to become more than a one-time thing. Coe is opposed to it. And he should be. Because it's a bad idea!
I love track & field as much as anybody. I'd love to see an outdoor World Championships every year. But I understand why there aren't. Because it would be overkill. And it would water down the competition at the World Championships.
If the World Championships were every year, stars would inevitably take at least one edition off per cycle. Many of them build their training and competition cycles around having that off year. Some take the year off entirely, while others may take advantage of the opportunity to run different events or have a lighter competition load. Still others see that as their chance to go after records.
And in a sport with appearance fees and performance bonuses, that's a chance to make a good amount of money without having to worry about flying to stifling Des Moines in the middle of July for Nationals! Yes, that would give all of the top Americans a reason to actually show up at Nationals, but that's only a "problem" once every four years, so I don't really have much of an issue with it.
Then there's the matter of finding a host. The World Championships are an expensive undertaking. With nearly 2,000 athletes from more than 200 countries, it's the second-largest single-sport World Championships, behind only aquatics (which combines swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming). So, you need to find a country with a big enough stadium and enough hotel rooms that willing to pony up those massive costs every year. And if you're trying to grow the sport globally (which Coe is), you can't just plant them down in Europe every time.
Let's not forget, either, that the outdoor World Championships aren't the only championship event staged by World Athletics. Not even close. All of them are biennial with staggered schedules. World Outdoors, World Relays and World Cross Country are in the odd years. World Indoors and World Juniors (which may not seem like it, but is a major competition) are in the even years, with the Olympics every fourth year in even years.
There's no way they'd have the resources to properly plan and promote each of these championships if they weren't all on an every-other-year cycle. And they're all equally important to World Athletics. So why should World Outdoors become an annual event but not any of the others? And if they were to do that, the other events wouldn't just lose their luster. They might not survive period.
This next point is an important one that some American fans fail to (or choose not to) understand. More countries compete in track & field than just the United States! And the U.S. is the only one that has an "off" year! Everybody else does have a major competition every outdoor season. So they're not clamoring for the World Championships to be more frequent than they already are.
It was the same thing when they were first discussing potential dates for moving the Olympics and a number of people (all American) suggested 2022. The biggest reason why that wouldn't have worked is the same reason why the rescheduled 2022 Worlds are in mid-July: the Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth Games are a huge competition for those nations, many of which are track & field powers. So, the Commonwealth Games are rightfully protective of their track & field program and making sure the best athletes from those nations participate.
Likewise, the European Championships are staggered so that they're opposite Worlds. European Indoors are in odd years, European Outdoors are in even years. Naturally, the top Europeans focus on the Olympics in Olympic years. In the non-Olympic even year? They go all in on Euros, and the competition is sick! And, let's not forget, Europe is the hub of the sport. But I doubt that even European broadcasters would be keen on having three major track & field championships--Euros, World Juniors, Worlds (plus the Commonwealth Games for Great Britain)--in the World Cup year.
TV is another thing that has to be taken into consideration. How much is too much? You don't want to oversaturate the market, and three major championships in the same summer would do just that. It's also highly unlikely that the top athletes would actually compete in all three, either. Especially since there would still be Diamond League and Continental Tour events, which is where they make their money.
So, while having a major international championships every year may sound great in theory, it would be too hard to execute. Too many logistics and too many other factors to consider. You'd also run the risk of people losing interest if the World Championships were annual except for Olympic years. I'm talking both athletes and fans. It would become just another meet on the calendar, not the major event it is. Not to mention the fact that, outside of some American fans, nobody really wants it.
Track & field is a niche sport in America. As much as people may want that to change, it seems unlikely. And, while an annual international meet may help the sport's growth, it could have the opposite effect, too. The World Championships are a big deal. They should be treated as such. They should feel exclusive. But if they were to become annual, they wouldn't feel as exclusive.
Will I enjoy the five straight years of world-class summer outdoor track meets featuring American athletes? Of course! (I'm actually somewhat happy about the delay for the Oregon Worlds, which gives me another year to save up.) But it's the exception. There's no reason for it to become the norm.
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Why Draft Now? Why Not!
It's purely a matter of timing that the NFL has so far dodged the bullet with the current public health crisis. Unlike the other three major leagues, the NFL is in the midst of its offseason and, assuming this is reasonably under control early enough, may avoid missing games because of it.
They've made some adjustments to their offseason programs, but, for the most part, it's been business as usual for NFL teams. That hasn't stopped critics from accusing the league of "putting its head in the sand," which is not the case at all. They simply aren't in the same situation as the NBA, NHL or MLB. They have the luxury of time, so they have no reason not to prepare for this season as if it'll start on time (while also coming up with a contingency plan if it doesn't, which they have).
That criticism seemed to boil over this weekend, when the NFL Draft was held. That's what led to the "head in the sand" argument. The common belief among that faction seemed to be that there will be no NFL season this fall, so the draft was an "unnecessary" waste of time. With all due respect to that group, they're dead wrong.
The draft is an integral function for each team, and it has to be completed at some point before the season starts! Even if you think the season might be delayed, you don't know that for sure. And if you do postpone the draft, when do you reschedule it? With the amount of planning and coordination required, it's not something you can rush. Not to mention the fact that teams need to know their rosters and rookies need to know what team they're on before anything can start. So you can't just arbitrarily say it'll take place "at some point."
Does the NFL Draft have to be the crazy spectacle that it's turned into? Of course not! Especially with the way things are in the country right now. Which is why they decided not to have the live draft in Las Vegas and held the event virtually instead. And, just like the WNBA last week, the virtual draft served its purpose and then some.
People who've been desperate for any type of live sporting event agreed, too. This was the highest-rated NFL Draft in years. There were probably a few factors for that. There was certainly the curiosity element, and you had those people who watched just because it was sports and it was on. You also had the legions of NFL and college football fans who religiously follow the draft anyway, and, since none of them could actually go to the draft, watching it on TV was their only option.
And there was a certain turn-back-the-clock element to it. The NFL Draft wasn't televised until 1980, when ESPN needed programming and had a crazy idea (there's a great SI article about this). Before then, it was just a bunch of guys on the phone with the commissioner and the public didn't find out the results until after the fact. The virtual draft wasn't much different, with the exception of the picks being announced much quicker.
Just as importantly, there was no reason for the NFL not to hold its draft this weekend as scheduled. You don't need to have everybody in the same room in order to draft. Especially with modern technology. And, again, teams needed players and rookies needed teams, so as long as everyone was willing and capable why wait when you could still do it now, albeit in a different way?
Drafting this way also brought some personality that otherwise wouldn't have been seen. You had Jerry Jones on a yacht, Andy Reid in a hula shirt, and all the other different setups. It gave the fans plenty to talk about beyond just the picks. And that element wouldn't have been possible in a traditional setting, so I'd argue that was actually a benefit of drafting virtually.
As the WNBA and now the NFL have shown us, conducting a virtual draft really isn't that different. Sure, some of the in-person elements that were missing couldn't be replicated in a virtual setting (sorry, but the prerecorded Goodell boos were just stupid), but the virtual drafts served their purpose. Teams drafted rookies, people had something to watch, some fans were happy and some fans were unhappy.
While it's such a simple formula that would've been incredibly hard to screw up, the success of the WNBA's and NFL's virtual drafts is no small thing. Because the NBA and NHL will probably have to do the same thing. The MLB Draft isn't quite on the same scale as the others, so if their draft is held virtually, which seems likely, it won't be too much of a change from what we've seen over the past several years.
Was this the start of a new trend? After the success of the virtual drafts, are we going to see the live, in-person drafts become a thing of the past? Absolutely not! While they were a necessity under the circumstances, I think everyone still prefers the live draft to the virtual draft. And let's not forget the amount of money that goes into it for the NFL! (The NFL Draft is such an in-demand commodity that they bid it out much like the Super Bowl.)
Teams had to change their approach, too, which is another reason why drafts will likely go back to normal next year. They couldn't hold their traditional pre-draft workouts and face-to-face interviews, and they had to get together via online chats instead of in war rooms. Likewise, they have no idea when the players they just drafted will actually be able to physically go their team facilities and take physicals, etc.
But the online draft worked, and that's the bottom line. Whether or not it was "appropriate" at the current time, it was something that needed to be done. And it's something that can be done regardless of if the season starts on time or not. Besides, it was nice to get a break from pandemic coverage and actually have something to look forward to for a change.
They've made some adjustments to their offseason programs, but, for the most part, it's been business as usual for NFL teams. That hasn't stopped critics from accusing the league of "putting its head in the sand," which is not the case at all. They simply aren't in the same situation as the NBA, NHL or MLB. They have the luxury of time, so they have no reason not to prepare for this season as if it'll start on time (while also coming up with a contingency plan if it doesn't, which they have).
That criticism seemed to boil over this weekend, when the NFL Draft was held. That's what led to the "head in the sand" argument. The common belief among that faction seemed to be that there will be no NFL season this fall, so the draft was an "unnecessary" waste of time. With all due respect to that group, they're dead wrong.
The draft is an integral function for each team, and it has to be completed at some point before the season starts! Even if you think the season might be delayed, you don't know that for sure. And if you do postpone the draft, when do you reschedule it? With the amount of planning and coordination required, it's not something you can rush. Not to mention the fact that teams need to know their rosters and rookies need to know what team they're on before anything can start. So you can't just arbitrarily say it'll take place "at some point."
Does the NFL Draft have to be the crazy spectacle that it's turned into? Of course not! Especially with the way things are in the country right now. Which is why they decided not to have the live draft in Las Vegas and held the event virtually instead. And, just like the WNBA last week, the virtual draft served its purpose and then some.
People who've been desperate for any type of live sporting event agreed, too. This was the highest-rated NFL Draft in years. There were probably a few factors for that. There was certainly the curiosity element, and you had those people who watched just because it was sports and it was on. You also had the legions of NFL and college football fans who religiously follow the draft anyway, and, since none of them could actually go to the draft, watching it on TV was their only option.
And there was a certain turn-back-the-clock element to it. The NFL Draft wasn't televised until 1980, when ESPN needed programming and had a crazy idea (there's a great SI article about this). Before then, it was just a bunch of guys on the phone with the commissioner and the public didn't find out the results until after the fact. The virtual draft wasn't much different, with the exception of the picks being announced much quicker.
Just as importantly, there was no reason for the NFL not to hold its draft this weekend as scheduled. You don't need to have everybody in the same room in order to draft. Especially with modern technology. And, again, teams needed players and rookies needed teams, so as long as everyone was willing and capable why wait when you could still do it now, albeit in a different way?
Drafting this way also brought some personality that otherwise wouldn't have been seen. You had Jerry Jones on a yacht, Andy Reid in a hula shirt, and all the other different setups. It gave the fans plenty to talk about beyond just the picks. And that element wouldn't have been possible in a traditional setting, so I'd argue that was actually a benefit of drafting virtually.
As the WNBA and now the NFL have shown us, conducting a virtual draft really isn't that different. Sure, some of the in-person elements that were missing couldn't be replicated in a virtual setting (sorry, but the prerecorded Goodell boos were just stupid), but the virtual drafts served their purpose. Teams drafted rookies, people had something to watch, some fans were happy and some fans were unhappy.
While it's such a simple formula that would've been incredibly hard to screw up, the success of the WNBA's and NFL's virtual drafts is no small thing. Because the NBA and NHL will probably have to do the same thing. The MLB Draft isn't quite on the same scale as the others, so if their draft is held virtually, which seems likely, it won't be too much of a change from what we've seen over the past several years.
Was this the start of a new trend? After the success of the virtual drafts, are we going to see the live, in-person drafts become a thing of the past? Absolutely not! While they were a necessity under the circumstances, I think everyone still prefers the live draft to the virtual draft. And let's not forget the amount of money that goes into it for the NFL! (The NFL Draft is such an in-demand commodity that they bid it out much like the Super Bowl.)
Teams had to change their approach, too, which is another reason why drafts will likely go back to normal next year. They couldn't hold their traditional pre-draft workouts and face-to-face interviews, and they had to get together via online chats instead of in war rooms. Likewise, they have no idea when the players they just drafted will actually be able to physically go their team facilities and take physicals, etc.
But the online draft worked, and that's the bottom line. Whether or not it was "appropriate" at the current time, it was something that needed to be done. And it's something that can be done regardless of if the season starts on time or not. Besides, it was nice to get a break from pandemic coverage and actually have something to look forward to for a change.
Friday, April 24, 2020
Time For Combined Tours
Tennis won't be played until mid-July at the earliest, and it'll likely be even longer than that. The thought of players from all different countries flying to tournaments all over the world seems pretty low on the list of things that are going to happen anytime soon. Former world No. 1 Amelie Mauresmo has even suggested the entire rest of the year may be wiped out.
This extended time off (which, for some players is the longest non-injury break they've had in years) actually creates a great opportunity for both the men's and women's tours, though. Roger Federer's name carries a lot of clout in tennis circles (obviously), and he suggested it might be time for the tours to think about combining into one. And, frankly, he's right. In fact, it's probably something that's long overdue.
While the Open Era started in 1968, there wasn't an official pro tour until 1972, when a group of men's players formed the ATP. There was no equivalent for the women until Bille Jean King famously created the Virginia Slims (now WTA) Tour the following year. There have been separate men's and women's tours ever since.
Combining the tours makes an awful lot of sense, though. And now's as good a time as any to make the move. Because I think it could help players of both genders more than the separate tours do.
One benefit of the separate tours is that they're totally independent of each other. Outside of the Grand Slams and a few other larger tournaments that are considered a step just below the majors (Miami, Indian Wells), they play completely separate schedules. Some cities host events for both the men and women in different weeks, but those are separate events. They aren't combined like you'd see at a Grand Slam.
I'm not proposing any of these events be eliminated. In some cases, especially in the smaller tournaments, it would make sense to keep the single-gender tournaments as-is. But a combined tournament would make more sense in those cities that have two. Running both events simultaneously would save the event organizer money on operational costs while also allowing them to potentially earn more from sponsors and ticket sales. Not every event can have a Federer, Nadal or Djokovic to boost attendance. But if you have some top men AND some top women, that's a much easier sell.
That would potentially carry over into broadcasting, too. You're making it a lot easier on the broadcasters if the men's and women's events are in the same place. They'd only need to have one crew on the ground to cover the two tournaments at once, which will save them on production costs. That would free up more money for them to pay on the rights, and those rights would conceivably go up with the potential for higher ratings that having the men and women together would bring.
More importantly, prize money has been an issue in women's tennis for a while. They make the same amount as the men at Grand Slams, but that wasn't the case until recently. And there's still way too great a disparity in the amount of prize money available to women's players compared to men. If the tours were combined, though, that significantly increases the bargaining power that the women have when negotiating for the equal prize money that they deserve.
A combined tour could go a long way in collective bargaining for all players. For the most part, the ATP and WTA aren't that different. But there are a few distinct rules and other things that are unique to one tour and not the other. While that's not too big of a deal in single-gender events, when they get to the Grand Slams, you've got two different sets of rules. So, combining tours would guarantee the same conditions for everybody--men and women.
Meanwhile, from a fan's perspective, it's incredibly confusing to have completely different ranking systems! The winner of a Grand Slam gets 2000 points. That's consistent between the ATP and WTA. And that's it! The point structure is different for every other round of a Grand Slam, as well as all of the smaller tournaments. The number of tournaments that count towards your ranking aren't even the same! (Not to mention the fact that the men have two separate sets of rankings--the "official" 52-week ranking and a year-to-date ranking used to determine who makes the Tour Championships.)
If the tours were combined, the rankings would be much more straightforward. The points would be the same for both the men and the women. There would still be different tournament levels that offer either more or less points depending on their relative strength, but those distinctions would also be consistent between the men and the women. So would the number of tournaments that count towards your ranking. And, the rankings for both tours will be available in the same place, making them much easier to follow!
Neither tour is struggling financially. That's an important thing to keep in mind. This isn't like beach volleyball, which once had separate men's and women's tours that both went bankrupt. Now the AVP is the pro tour for both men's and women's beach volleyball, and it's never been stronger! Every AVP event is combined and everything is even across the board.
However, the ATP and WTA don't need to be struggling financially to see the benefits of combining forces. In fact, it would probably make things that much better for the players. Things wouldn't be done on behalf of the men or on behalf of the women. They would be done on behalf of all tennis players. Which means everybody would benefit.
The WTA Tour is one of the many, many, many enduring gifts that the legendary Billie Jean King left to the game of tennis. A lot of progress has been made in the last 50 years since she and eight others started the women's tour. And perhaps the greatest sign of that progress--and a real tribute to her legacy--would be a combined ATP Tour, ensuring that men's and women's tennis players are equals in every sense of the word.
This extended time off (which, for some players is the longest non-injury break they've had in years) actually creates a great opportunity for both the men's and women's tours, though. Roger Federer's name carries a lot of clout in tennis circles (obviously), and he suggested it might be time for the tours to think about combining into one. And, frankly, he's right. In fact, it's probably something that's long overdue.
While the Open Era started in 1968, there wasn't an official pro tour until 1972, when a group of men's players formed the ATP. There was no equivalent for the women until Bille Jean King famously created the Virginia Slims (now WTA) Tour the following year. There have been separate men's and women's tours ever since.
Combining the tours makes an awful lot of sense, though. And now's as good a time as any to make the move. Because I think it could help players of both genders more than the separate tours do.
One benefit of the separate tours is that they're totally independent of each other. Outside of the Grand Slams and a few other larger tournaments that are considered a step just below the majors (Miami, Indian Wells), they play completely separate schedules. Some cities host events for both the men and women in different weeks, but those are separate events. They aren't combined like you'd see at a Grand Slam.
I'm not proposing any of these events be eliminated. In some cases, especially in the smaller tournaments, it would make sense to keep the single-gender tournaments as-is. But a combined tournament would make more sense in those cities that have two. Running both events simultaneously would save the event organizer money on operational costs while also allowing them to potentially earn more from sponsors and ticket sales. Not every event can have a Federer, Nadal or Djokovic to boost attendance. But if you have some top men AND some top women, that's a much easier sell.
That would potentially carry over into broadcasting, too. You're making it a lot easier on the broadcasters if the men's and women's events are in the same place. They'd only need to have one crew on the ground to cover the two tournaments at once, which will save them on production costs. That would free up more money for them to pay on the rights, and those rights would conceivably go up with the potential for higher ratings that having the men and women together would bring.
More importantly, prize money has been an issue in women's tennis for a while. They make the same amount as the men at Grand Slams, but that wasn't the case until recently. And there's still way too great a disparity in the amount of prize money available to women's players compared to men. If the tours were combined, though, that significantly increases the bargaining power that the women have when negotiating for the equal prize money that they deserve.
A combined tour could go a long way in collective bargaining for all players. For the most part, the ATP and WTA aren't that different. But there are a few distinct rules and other things that are unique to one tour and not the other. While that's not too big of a deal in single-gender events, when they get to the Grand Slams, you've got two different sets of rules. So, combining tours would guarantee the same conditions for everybody--men and women.
Meanwhile, from a fan's perspective, it's incredibly confusing to have completely different ranking systems! The winner of a Grand Slam gets 2000 points. That's consistent between the ATP and WTA. And that's it! The point structure is different for every other round of a Grand Slam, as well as all of the smaller tournaments. The number of tournaments that count towards your ranking aren't even the same! (Not to mention the fact that the men have two separate sets of rankings--the "official" 52-week ranking and a year-to-date ranking used to determine who makes the Tour Championships.)
If the tours were combined, the rankings would be much more straightforward. The points would be the same for both the men and the women. There would still be different tournament levels that offer either more or less points depending on their relative strength, but those distinctions would also be consistent between the men and the women. So would the number of tournaments that count towards your ranking. And, the rankings for both tours will be available in the same place, making them much easier to follow!
Neither tour is struggling financially. That's an important thing to keep in mind. This isn't like beach volleyball, which once had separate men's and women's tours that both went bankrupt. Now the AVP is the pro tour for both men's and women's beach volleyball, and it's never been stronger! Every AVP event is combined and everything is even across the board.
However, the ATP and WTA don't need to be struggling financially to see the benefits of combining forces. In fact, it would probably make things that much better for the players. Things wouldn't be done on behalf of the men or on behalf of the women. They would be done on behalf of all tennis players. Which means everybody would benefit.
The WTA Tour is one of the many, many, many enduring gifts that the legendary Billie Jean King left to the game of tennis. A lot of progress has been made in the last 50 years since she and eight others started the women's tour. And perhaps the greatest sign of that progress--and a real tribute to her legacy--would be a combined ATP Tour, ensuring that men's and women's tennis players are equals in every sense of the word.
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
A Blessing In Disguise
When FIFA awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a lot of people questioned the decision. Then they scheduled it for November and December, making the decision look even more questionable. But now FIFA should be thanking its lucky stars that the next World Cup will have a late start. Because otherwise they wouldn't have the scheduling flexibility over the next two years that they now suddenly need.
The World Cup draw is typically held in December prior to the tournament in June/July of the following year. That means qualifying has to be done by November, and that's usually just the intercontinental playoffs for the final few spots. They haven't announced an official date for the 2022 World Cup draw. All the FIFA calendar says is "April 2021." Which means they still have the March 2022 window for qualifying. But don't be surprised to see the draw delayed if they end up needing to use the May/June 2022 window. Which they might.
Euro 2020 had to become Euro 2021. UEFA didn't have a choice. But the delay means that European World Cup qualifying will actually start before the Euro is even played, which usually isn't the case. They've also had to reschedule two of the UEFA World Cup qualifying dates because the Euro was rescheduled for the same dates. Fortunately, they can use the international match windows in early 2022 to make them up. If the World Cup was at the same time as usual, they wouldn't. They would have a problem, though.
Not to mention that because of the stupid Nations League, Euro qualifying isn't done yet, either. They lost the March international window when those playoffs were supposed to be played. Who knows when they're actually going to take place, but it obviously has to be before the Euro proper. Even if those qualifiers end up getting pushed into the March 2021 window, they still have some flexibility for the World Cup qualifiers.
Of course, the same delay that applies to the Euro also applies to Copa America, which was also pushed back a year. South American World Cup qualifying is a grueling 18-game double round-robin that takes two full years (with a break for them to all play each other in Copa America). They were supposed to start in March. That obviously didn't happen. They were also supposed to play two games next June, which is now when Copa America will take place. So they've gotta make up four games somewhere.
South American qualifying is supposed to resume in September, but who knows if that's even going to be possible at this point? And they've got the two matchdays in every FIFA international window accounted for, so it's tough to imagine how they'll figure out where to squeeze in those four games (potentially more). The March 2022 window is reserved for intercontinental qualifiers, but they could easily use those and push the date of the draw back to June. (Or, since 60 percent of CONMEBOL qualifies for the World Cup already, they could buy themselves some time by doing two groups of five and only make it eight games for each team instead of 18, but I digress.)
Africa should be OK since the second round doesn't start until October, but they also don't participate in the March playoffs, so they've got plenty of wiggle room. Asian qualifying doubles for both the World Cup and their continental championship, so they were right smack in the middle of it and really need to figure out what they're gonna do. CONCACAF has new tiered qualifying structure, but the Hex isn't scheduled to get underway until late August, so there's no trouble yet (although they do have to squeeze the Nations League finals somewhere in there).
Another area where they got lucky with this late World Cup is with the domestic leagues. That was initially the biggest concern with the 2022 World Cup being scheduled for when it is. The World Cup being scheduled right in the middle of the season causes quite a disruption. But after this year's massive disruption, working around that one will be a piece of cake!
Most European leagues start sometime in August, take a break for a few weeks in the winter (which, coincidentally enough, is right around when the 2022 World Cup is scheduled), then the Champions League final is at the end of May, giving them enough time to join their national teams for the summer tournaments. That schedule has to be altered in 2022, though. Just like this year's does.
Assuming they're able to resume this season (which is no guarantee), it won't be until June at the earliest. If they want to play every game that's remaining on the schedule, it would take upwards of six weeks, and that's assuming two matches a week for everybody. That takes them until the end of July, which obviously doesn't leave enough time to start next season in August, so next season will have to be delayed as well.
That's an argument for cancelling the remainder of the season, which is on the table. They seem committed to playing as many games as possible once it's safe to do so, though. That leads me to believe they'd be willing to delay the start of the 2020-21 season. Although, they'll still have to finish next season in time for the rescheduled Euro, which would be virtually impossible unless they push some games to after the continental tournaments.
Say they play the 2021 Champions League Final right after the Olympics (there's only one available Saturday between the Euro and the Olympics, so before wouldn't work). Then they have an abbreviated off season and start in late September instead of mid-August. You eliminate an off week or two during the season and play the 2022 Champions League Final in late June.
Knowing that you're getting a month-long break in November/December anyway, pushing the 2021-22 season into June shouldn't make too much of a difference. Then you start and finish the 2022-23 season a little later than usual before everything is back to normal in 2023-24, when the Euro starts sometime in June and the Paris Olympics begin in July.
Is any of this ideal? Of course not! But they were gonna have to make some adjustments for the 2022 World Cup one way or another. They certainly didn't anticipate a global pandemic that shuts down all sports worldwide for months, but working around that end up leading to a solution to the 2022 problem. And after that, maybe everything will be back to normal. Hopefully!
The World Cup draw is typically held in December prior to the tournament in June/July of the following year. That means qualifying has to be done by November, and that's usually just the intercontinental playoffs for the final few spots. They haven't announced an official date for the 2022 World Cup draw. All the FIFA calendar says is "April 2021." Which means they still have the March 2022 window for qualifying. But don't be surprised to see the draw delayed if they end up needing to use the May/June 2022 window. Which they might.
Euro 2020 had to become Euro 2021. UEFA didn't have a choice. But the delay means that European World Cup qualifying will actually start before the Euro is even played, which usually isn't the case. They've also had to reschedule two of the UEFA World Cup qualifying dates because the Euro was rescheduled for the same dates. Fortunately, they can use the international match windows in early 2022 to make them up. If the World Cup was at the same time as usual, they wouldn't. They would have a problem, though.
Not to mention that because of the stupid Nations League, Euro qualifying isn't done yet, either. They lost the March international window when those playoffs were supposed to be played. Who knows when they're actually going to take place, but it obviously has to be before the Euro proper. Even if those qualifiers end up getting pushed into the March 2021 window, they still have some flexibility for the World Cup qualifiers.
Of course, the same delay that applies to the Euro also applies to Copa America, which was also pushed back a year. South American World Cup qualifying is a grueling 18-game double round-robin that takes two full years (with a break for them to all play each other in Copa America). They were supposed to start in March. That obviously didn't happen. They were also supposed to play two games next June, which is now when Copa America will take place. So they've gotta make up four games somewhere.
South American qualifying is supposed to resume in September, but who knows if that's even going to be possible at this point? And they've got the two matchdays in every FIFA international window accounted for, so it's tough to imagine how they'll figure out where to squeeze in those four games (potentially more). The March 2022 window is reserved for intercontinental qualifiers, but they could easily use those and push the date of the draw back to June. (Or, since 60 percent of CONMEBOL qualifies for the World Cup already, they could buy themselves some time by doing two groups of five and only make it eight games for each team instead of 18, but I digress.)
Africa should be OK since the second round doesn't start until October, but they also don't participate in the March playoffs, so they've got plenty of wiggle room. Asian qualifying doubles for both the World Cup and their continental championship, so they were right smack in the middle of it and really need to figure out what they're gonna do. CONCACAF has new tiered qualifying structure, but the Hex isn't scheduled to get underway until late August, so there's no trouble yet (although they do have to squeeze the Nations League finals somewhere in there).
Another area where they got lucky with this late World Cup is with the domestic leagues. That was initially the biggest concern with the 2022 World Cup being scheduled for when it is. The World Cup being scheduled right in the middle of the season causes quite a disruption. But after this year's massive disruption, working around that one will be a piece of cake!
Most European leagues start sometime in August, take a break for a few weeks in the winter (which, coincidentally enough, is right around when the 2022 World Cup is scheduled), then the Champions League final is at the end of May, giving them enough time to join their national teams for the summer tournaments. That schedule has to be altered in 2022, though. Just like this year's does.
Assuming they're able to resume this season (which is no guarantee), it won't be until June at the earliest. If they want to play every game that's remaining on the schedule, it would take upwards of six weeks, and that's assuming two matches a week for everybody. That takes them until the end of July, which obviously doesn't leave enough time to start next season in August, so next season will have to be delayed as well.
That's an argument for cancelling the remainder of the season, which is on the table. They seem committed to playing as many games as possible once it's safe to do so, though. That leads me to believe they'd be willing to delay the start of the 2020-21 season. Although, they'll still have to finish next season in time for the rescheduled Euro, which would be virtually impossible unless they push some games to after the continental tournaments.
Say they play the 2021 Champions League Final right after the Olympics (there's only one available Saturday between the Euro and the Olympics, so before wouldn't work). Then they have an abbreviated off season and start in late September instead of mid-August. You eliminate an off week or two during the season and play the 2022 Champions League Final in late June.
Knowing that you're getting a month-long break in November/December anyway, pushing the 2021-22 season into June shouldn't make too much of a difference. Then you start and finish the 2022-23 season a little later than usual before everything is back to normal in 2023-24, when the Euro starts sometime in June and the Paris Olympics begin in July.
Is any of this ideal? Of course not! But they were gonna have to make some adjustments for the 2022 World Cup one way or another. They certainly didn't anticipate a global pandemic that shuts down all sports worldwide for months, but working around that end up leading to a solution to the 2022 problem. And after that, maybe everything will be back to normal. Hopefully!
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Only One Team
In the absence of actual baseball, MLB.com is currently simulating the "MLB Dream Bracket." It's actually a pretty cool idea. All-time teams from all 30 clubs, plus a team of Negro Leaguers and one made up of the best current players under the age of 25 in a 32-team "tournament" (why they couldn't just give the Yankees and Cardinals, the No. 1 seeds a first-round bye I don't know, but I like that they included the Negro Leagues, which is likely the reason).
It really is the ultimate baseball dream. Yankee fans can only imagine what it would've been like had Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle and Jeter all been in the same lineup. What do you think of an Orioles infield with Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken Jr. patrolling the left side? How about a Giants lineup with both Barry Bonds AND Willie Mays (and Mel Ott rounding out the outfield)? And who starts Game 1 for the Braves: Warren Spahn or Greg Maddux?
Although, I do have a small problem with the rosters that MLB.com assembled for this tournament. There are too many players on multiple teams! The Yankees "played" the Mariners in the first round, and A-Rod was in both lineups! He's also playing shortstop for the Rangers! Nolan Ryan is also on three different teams (Angels, Astros, Rangers) and there's a bunch of guys on two.
I understand that a good number of Hall of Famers played for more than one team, and each team they played for has a reasonable claim on him being "theirs." But as the A-Rod vs. A-Rod matchup showed, it doesn't make sense to have them on multiple rosters in this tournament (should the Yankees and A's meet in the "ALCS," Reggie Jackson will be DHing for both teams). So, just like how they make you pick a hat in Cooperstown (did you hear that Mike Mussina?), I'm making them pick a hat here.
When MLB.com constructed the rosters, they took a number of things into consideration. I'm going to make similar considerations when assigning these players to only one team. For example, Gary Carter is starting for the Nationals, but backing up Mike Piazza for the Mets. Because of that, as well as the fact that he's wearing an Expos hat on his plaque, I'm keeping Carter on Washington and replacing him as the Mets' second catcher with Jerry Grote (even though Piazza and Carter are obviously the top two catchers in Mets history).
Likewise, they have Piazza backing up Roy Campanella on the Dodgers. So, that's also easy. Piazza is the Mets' starter and wearing a Mets hat in Cooperstown. He obviously stays in New York and Steve Yeager takes his place on the Dodgers' roster (I wouldn't argue if you wanted to say Russell Martin instead).
Same deal with pitchers, who, admittedly are tougher. Should Greg Maddux be with the Cubs or the Braves? Which team gets Nolan Ryan? And how about Randy Johnson, who's the best pitcher in franchise history for both the Mariners and Diamondbacks? That one I'm actually going against the grain. Because even though he won four Cy Youngs in Arizona, I'm keeping him in Seattle. The Diamondbacks have a deep enough rotation without him. The Mariners don't.
As for the other multi-team guys, here's where I have some of the key ones playing, as well as the reason why:
It really is the ultimate baseball dream. Yankee fans can only imagine what it would've been like had Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle and Jeter all been in the same lineup. What do you think of an Orioles infield with Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken Jr. patrolling the left side? How about a Giants lineup with both Barry Bonds AND Willie Mays (and Mel Ott rounding out the outfield)? And who starts Game 1 for the Braves: Warren Spahn or Greg Maddux?
Although, I do have a small problem with the rosters that MLB.com assembled for this tournament. There are too many players on multiple teams! The Yankees "played" the Mariners in the first round, and A-Rod was in both lineups! He's also playing shortstop for the Rangers! Nolan Ryan is also on three different teams (Angels, Astros, Rangers) and there's a bunch of guys on two.
I understand that a good number of Hall of Famers played for more than one team, and each team they played for has a reasonable claim on him being "theirs." But as the A-Rod vs. A-Rod matchup showed, it doesn't make sense to have them on multiple rosters in this tournament (should the Yankees and A's meet in the "ALCS," Reggie Jackson will be DHing for both teams). So, just like how they make you pick a hat in Cooperstown (did you hear that Mike Mussina?), I'm making them pick a hat here.
When MLB.com constructed the rosters, they took a number of things into consideration. I'm going to make similar considerations when assigning these players to only one team. For example, Gary Carter is starting for the Nationals, but backing up Mike Piazza for the Mets. Because of that, as well as the fact that he's wearing an Expos hat on his plaque, I'm keeping Carter on Washington and replacing him as the Mets' second catcher with Jerry Grote (even though Piazza and Carter are obviously the top two catchers in Mets history).
Likewise, they have Piazza backing up Roy Campanella on the Dodgers. So, that's also easy. Piazza is the Mets' starter and wearing a Mets hat in Cooperstown. He obviously stays in New York and Steve Yeager takes his place on the Dodgers' roster (I wouldn't argue if you wanted to say Russell Martin instead).
Same deal with pitchers, who, admittedly are tougher. Should Greg Maddux be with the Cubs or the Braves? Which team gets Nolan Ryan? And how about Randy Johnson, who's the best pitcher in franchise history for both the Mariners and Diamondbacks? That one I'm actually going against the grain. Because even though he won four Cy Youngs in Arizona, I'm keeping him in Seattle. The Diamondbacks have a deep enough rotation without him. The Mariners don't.
As for the other multi-team guys, here's where I have some of the key ones playing, as well as the reason why:
- Greg Maddux--Braves: The Cubs have plenty of Hall of Fame pitchers. They don't need Maddux. And how can you possibly split up Atlanta's Big Three? You can't!
- Nolan Ryan--Angels: This was probably the toughest call of them all. But I'm going Angels over Rangers because he spent more time in California than Texas, and he was on the Angels in his prime.
- Frank Robinson--Orioles: He's the only man to win an MVP in both leagues, but he's not a Cincinnati legend. He is a Baltimore legend. Plus, this frees up a spot in the Reds' lineup for Tony Perez and Joey Votto to both start, one at first, the other at DH.
- Alex Rodriguez--Mariners: Elvis Andrus can play shortstop for Texas, so it's between the Mariners and Yankees. He spent more time with the Yankees, but when considering alternatives, the Yankees can put Graig Nettles at third while the Mariners don't really have any other options at short.
- Pedro Martinez--Red Sox: There have been some quality starting pitchers in Expos/Nationals franchise history. So many, in fact, that Montreal Pedro would be in a Spring Training competition to be the No. 5 starter. Boston Pedro, however, would be right up there with Roger Clemens and Cy Young himself at the top of the rotation.
- Reggie Jackson--Yankees: Another tough one. Reggie spent a significant portion of his career in Oakland and had his number retired by the A's. But his greatest moments came as a Yankee. That's when he became "Reggie." Plus, they have Reggie starting in right field over Jose Canseco on the A's, and that's just nuts.
- Jimmie Foxx--Athletics: Jimmie Foxx spent roughly the same amount of time with the A's as he did with the Red Sox. But he can't start at first for both! (Fun fact: Foxx usually ended up playing third in the All-Star Game because he was contemporaries with Lou Gehrig and Hank Greenberg.) And because the Red Sox have 85 Hall of Fame left fielders, both Carl Yastrezmski and Jim Rice are on the bench (behind Ted Williams, so you can't really argue there). But Yaz also played a good amount of first, so he can start there instead with Foxx on Oakland.
- Mark McGwire--Cardinals: Following one of my rules from earlier, McGwire is DHing in St. Louis and on the bench in Oakland. Since I'm keeping Jimmie Foxx with the A's, that doesn't change his status there. Thus, McGwire stays with the Cardinals.
- Max Scherzer--Nationals: Remember when Max pitched for Detroit? I don't either! There are about five Tigers starters I could rattle off before I get to Max. For the Expos/Nationals? Steve Rogers. That's about it. Plus, he'll be wearing a Nationals hat once he goes into the Hall of Fame.
- Miguel Cabrera--Tigers: Detroit's dream lineup was constructed in an interesting way. They have Hank Greenberg in the outfield. Part of the reason for that is because they've got Miggy at first. They also have him DHing for the Marlins (you forgot he even played there, didn't you) while Jeff Conine is on the bench, and that just isn't right. Conine is Mr. Marlin. Plus, when you consider Miggy will be a Tiger in Cooperstown, he stays put.
That's just a sampling of the players on multiple all-time teams. I didn't even want to go near Rod Carew, who poses an interesting challenge since he's at second base for the Twins and first for the Angels. But those decisions should've been made. Because you can't have the same guy going against himself on two different teams in the same game! Even if it is pretend!
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Getting It Done Virtually
The WNBA Draft was last night, and I decided to check it out for a few reasons. One, it's the closest thing to an actual live sporting event there's been in the past six weeks. Two, the Liberty somehow managed to get their hands on five of the first 15 picks (at one point, they and Dallas seemed to simply be alternating selections). Third, I wanted to see how the virtual draft would look and whether or not it would actually work.
Spoiler alert: It did. Were there some hiccups? Of course, but that's to be expected when you're dealing with so many different parties in so many different locations with different internet speeds, etc. But for the most part, things went smoothly. Was it different? Absolutely! But we knew it would be. Was it weird to see the prospects all sitting on their couches at home instead of together in the green room? Definitely. But, again, it was either this or no draft at all. And I think they did a great job of still making it a worthwhile experience.
One of the things you noticed immediately was that, even though they couldn't take the customary picture with the commissioner and jersey, they all somehow managed to have the hat of their new team seconds after being drafted. Well, as it turns out, the WNBA sent each of the projected high draft picks a box that included a bunch of WNBA swag, including hats for all 12 teams. So, they heard their name, they put their hat on, then they did an interview with ESPN.
That's the part I was most curious about, and the part where I saw the biggest potential hurdles. For the most part, though, the interviews worked out. Sure, some had awkward delays. Some had feedback because they forgot to turn their volume down. And one couldn't hear because her family was too loud in the background! But it worked!
And the at-home element actually allowed them to bring a refreshing personal touch that we otherwise wouldn't have seen. Living rooms were decorated in so many different ways, and some even had fun backgrounds set up for their ESPN interviews. For the most part, they didn't dress up the way you would normally see on draft night (kudos to Lauren Cox for dressing up anyway), but they were all surrounded by family and they appeared to all be having draft parties.
As in any draft, it was obvious who the top picks would be. The Liberty's Sabrina Ionescu and the Wings' Satou Sabally, who went 1-2, were equipped with ESPN microphones (which I'm assuming were sent separately than the box from the league), while some others had to rely on the strength of their own computer/phone audio. Naturally, the quality of the video was reliant on the quality of the equipment used, too.
Those are minor inconveniences they knew they'd have to deal with while conducting a draft under such unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, it would be leave the green room, go on stage and shake hands, go over to ESPN and do your interview. But, all things considered, there were very few glitches and the interviews, while not perfect, went off pretty well.
While it was obvious the commissioner was at her home, it really didn't make any difference. Her main job is to announce the picks, and that's exactly what she did. Sure, it looked awkward for her to be holding up a jersey as she announced the selections, but that's another consequence of the situation, so what can you do? (Side note: Why is every WNBA jersey horrible? No numbers on the front? Really?!)
It was actually refreshing to see a draft that didn't have all the ridiculous bells and whistles, too. Don't forget, there was once a time when drafts weren't this massive made-for-TV events. And even now, in the era when they are, their main purpose hasn't changed. The entire point is to give teams the opportunity to select from the best available talent. That's something that can still be accomplished during a pandemic, which the WNBA proved.
All of this served as a precursor to next week's virtual NFL Draft. The league took some flak for not cancelling the Draft outright, but again, there was no reason to. A draft can easily be done remotely (it's not much different in practice than how we all draft our fantasy teams), and the networks are desperate for content--any type of content. And they have to plan as if the season is going to happen, which means they need to draft new players, so there really wasn't much of an option.
Outside of the 12 WNBA teams and the players' families, the NFL might've been the most interested party watching the WNBA Draft last night. And they're probably grateful that another league served as the guinea pig with virtual drafting. Because the NFL likely learned a lot that it can take and apply to its virtual draft, which will be a much larger undertaking.
Coordinating all of the details for a virtual NFL Draft will obviously be a lot more challenging than coordinating a virtual WNBA Draft. There were 36 players selected in the entire WNBA Draft. The NFL will have nearly that many in the first round alone. Then you've got 32 teams that are used to having a draft room full of GMs and coaches and scouts that will now have to do everything remotely. Plus the commissioner. Plus three different networks (although, I think ESPN and NFL Network are sharing the same feed).
What the WNBA taught the NFL, though, is that it can be done. It might not be ideal, but it's the best they can do in the situation. No, you won't have the legions of fans in jerseys wildly cheering or booing every pick (or the commissioner). You won't have the awkward man-hugs between Roger Goodell and 300-pound offensive linemen. You won't have the No. 1 jerseys and hats that don't fit, and that will take something away. But it can be done.
We've seen virtually every TV show move to remote productions over the past six weeks, and they're all pulling it off. The WNBA did, too. Now it's the NFL's turn. And I'd expect their virtual draft will go off without a hitch, too. After all, the WNBA gave them the blueprint.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Busy Fall (Maybe)
Depending on who you ask, sports could potentially resume over the summer. Or not until 2022. The mixed messaging from different local politicians is really enough to give you whiplash. But the leagues need to come up with some sort of plan for when and how they'll resume their seasons. And, assuming all the postponed events are able to take place on their rescheduled dates, the fall will be awfully busy.
Whether or not these events actually happen is a different question. They could easily end up going the way of Wimbledon and The Open and outright cancel. But the U.S.-based events have plenty of reason to believe they'll be able to play somewhere, with or without fans, at some point this year, regardless of what some of the politicians might say.
Golf is aiming for a mid-June return and has an ambitious slate with a tournament every weekend from then until November. That includes all three of the remaining Majors. The PGA Championship in August (on the original dates for the Olympic golf tournament), the U.S. Open in mid-September (the week before the Ryder Cup) and a November Masters (just six months before the 2021 edition). Of course, the PGA Championship is in San Francisco and the U.S. Open is just outside New York, so we'll see if they actually take place in those locations, but it's nice to at least see somebody that has an actual plan!
It's probably easiest to maintain social distancing (there's that term again) in golf, so it's reasonable to think the PGA could manage to come back and still follow the guidelines. Another sport with little-to-no physical contact is tennis. Although tennis' return is complicated by its international nature, so travel restrictions will have to be lifted if they want anything resembling full fields of top pros.
With Wimbledon cancelled, the tennis calendar is now empty until the second week in July (the week after Wimbledon would've ended). That's when the US Open Series starts, so they conceivably could actually play those tournaments as scheduled (assuming the facility is open) since there would be no international flights involved once the players are in the U.S. They're going to decide in June about the US Open itself, which has been held every year since 1881 and never been cancelled (including during both World Wars).
Right after the US Open is scheduled to end is the postponed French Open, which the French Tennis Federation controversially rescheduled unilaterally (more on that in a future post). Will France be ready? That's a different question entirely. But the clay court major would be the culmination of an exciting month in France, assuming the country is capable of hosting its two biggest events by then.
The Tour de France recently joined the list of major events that have been cancelled or postponed this spring/summer. It was supposed to start in mid-June (the race was moved earlier this year because of the Olympics), so when France extended its national lockdown beyond that date you knew it would be postponed. But they also wanted to make sure it was finished before the rescheduled French Open. Thus, we'll get (hopefully) a Tour de France that starts in mid-August and sees them riding down the Champs Elysees the day before the Rafa Invitational gets underway.
So far, NASCAR hasn't lost any of its major events. That'll change if the Coca-Cola 600 can't happen on Memorial Day Weekend as usual, but no major event has been postponed as of yet. Although, if the Coca-Cola 600 does end up getting rescheduled, I wouldn't be surprised to see it take one of those two open weekends that was built into the NASCAR schedule for the Olympics (and are no longer needed).
When this all started, I said Memorial Day Weekend would be our benchmark for major events. The Monaco Grand Prix was cancelled (they seem to have much less of a problem cancelling in Europe than we do here), but I was more focused on the Indy 500. Well, they jumped on that early, moving it to the end of August.
May's other big event, the Kentucky Derby, is now Labor Day Weekend. That actually works out well to keep the Triple Crown schedule in tact...just four months later. The Preakness hasn't been postponed yet, but it likely will be. And it can easily be moved to Sept. 19, which would still be two weeks after the Derby. As for the Belmont Stakes, it makes no sense for that to be first, especially when moving it to Oct. 10 keeps the three races in order. I think that's likely what'll happen.
All of the April/May marathons have been moved to the fall, too. The Boston Marathon, which was originally scheduled for this coming Monday, was postponed for the first time in its 124-year history (a remarkable streak). It's now on Sept. 14. London was moved to Oct. 4. Paris hasn't been rescheduled yet, but it's looking like Oct. 18 will be its new date. And, with New York on Nov. 1, that means a major marathon is essentially scheduled every other week during a seven-week stretch in the fall.
None of this takes into account the NFL or college football, which may or may not start on time. Plus, the NHL has indicated its willing to go as late as September and the NBA has no problem going until October, assuming they resume their seasons. And, if baseball ever does get started, it'll be the stretch run and playoff time.
I have no idea how the networks would be able to show all of this, but I'm sure that's a problem they're more than willing to deal with. Those discussions are probably already underway (Jim Nantz has said he'll call the Masters instead of football that weekend, and I'd imagine they'll set it up so Joe Buck is off on the Sunday of the U.S. Open). After not having live sports for months on end until then, I'm sure fans will be more than willing to have multiple major events going on at the same time, too.
Is it overly optimistic to think there won't be further cancellations and postponements? Probably. Will all of these rescheduled events actually take place this fall? Hopefully. Although we all acknowledge that "maybe not" is a very possible option, as well. If they do all go off as (re)scheduled, though, we could be in for a fun couple of months that will almost make up for the incredible void we're currently in. And, frankly, it's worth having something to actually look forward to.
Whether or not these events actually happen is a different question. They could easily end up going the way of Wimbledon and The Open and outright cancel. But the U.S.-based events have plenty of reason to believe they'll be able to play somewhere, with or without fans, at some point this year, regardless of what some of the politicians might say.
Golf is aiming for a mid-June return and has an ambitious slate with a tournament every weekend from then until November. That includes all three of the remaining Majors. The PGA Championship in August (on the original dates for the Olympic golf tournament), the U.S. Open in mid-September (the week before the Ryder Cup) and a November Masters (just six months before the 2021 edition). Of course, the PGA Championship is in San Francisco and the U.S. Open is just outside New York, so we'll see if they actually take place in those locations, but it's nice to at least see somebody that has an actual plan!
It's probably easiest to maintain social distancing (there's that term again) in golf, so it's reasonable to think the PGA could manage to come back and still follow the guidelines. Another sport with little-to-no physical contact is tennis. Although tennis' return is complicated by its international nature, so travel restrictions will have to be lifted if they want anything resembling full fields of top pros.
With Wimbledon cancelled, the tennis calendar is now empty until the second week in July (the week after Wimbledon would've ended). That's when the US Open Series starts, so they conceivably could actually play those tournaments as scheduled (assuming the facility is open) since there would be no international flights involved once the players are in the U.S. They're going to decide in June about the US Open itself, which has been held every year since 1881 and never been cancelled (including during both World Wars).
Right after the US Open is scheduled to end is the postponed French Open, which the French Tennis Federation controversially rescheduled unilaterally (more on that in a future post). Will France be ready? That's a different question entirely. But the clay court major would be the culmination of an exciting month in France, assuming the country is capable of hosting its two biggest events by then.
The Tour de France recently joined the list of major events that have been cancelled or postponed this spring/summer. It was supposed to start in mid-June (the race was moved earlier this year because of the Olympics), so when France extended its national lockdown beyond that date you knew it would be postponed. But they also wanted to make sure it was finished before the rescheduled French Open. Thus, we'll get (hopefully) a Tour de France that starts in mid-August and sees them riding down the Champs Elysees the day before the Rafa Invitational gets underway.
So far, NASCAR hasn't lost any of its major events. That'll change if the Coca-Cola 600 can't happen on Memorial Day Weekend as usual, but no major event has been postponed as of yet. Although, if the Coca-Cola 600 does end up getting rescheduled, I wouldn't be surprised to see it take one of those two open weekends that was built into the NASCAR schedule for the Olympics (and are no longer needed).
When this all started, I said Memorial Day Weekend would be our benchmark for major events. The Monaco Grand Prix was cancelled (they seem to have much less of a problem cancelling in Europe than we do here), but I was more focused on the Indy 500. Well, they jumped on that early, moving it to the end of August.
May's other big event, the Kentucky Derby, is now Labor Day Weekend. That actually works out well to keep the Triple Crown schedule in tact...just four months later. The Preakness hasn't been postponed yet, but it likely will be. And it can easily be moved to Sept. 19, which would still be two weeks after the Derby. As for the Belmont Stakes, it makes no sense for that to be first, especially when moving it to Oct. 10 keeps the three races in order. I think that's likely what'll happen.
All of the April/May marathons have been moved to the fall, too. The Boston Marathon, which was originally scheduled for this coming Monday, was postponed for the first time in its 124-year history (a remarkable streak). It's now on Sept. 14. London was moved to Oct. 4. Paris hasn't been rescheduled yet, but it's looking like Oct. 18 will be its new date. And, with New York on Nov. 1, that means a major marathon is essentially scheduled every other week during a seven-week stretch in the fall.
None of this takes into account the NFL or college football, which may or may not start on time. Plus, the NHL has indicated its willing to go as late as September and the NBA has no problem going until October, assuming they resume their seasons. And, if baseball ever does get started, it'll be the stretch run and playoff time.
I have no idea how the networks would be able to show all of this, but I'm sure that's a problem they're more than willing to deal with. Those discussions are probably already underway (Jim Nantz has said he'll call the Masters instead of football that weekend, and I'd imagine they'll set it up so Joe Buck is off on the Sunday of the U.S. Open). After not having live sports for months on end until then, I'm sure fans will be more than willing to have multiple major events going on at the same time, too.
Is it overly optimistic to think there won't be further cancellations and postponements? Probably. Will all of these rescheduled events actually take place this fall? Hopefully. Although we all acknowledge that "maybe not" is a very possible option, as well. If they do all go off as (re)scheduled, though, we could be in for a fun couple of months that will almost make up for the incredible void we're currently in. And, frankly, it's worth having something to actually look forward to.
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
XFL 0-for-2
In the end, the AAF ended up lasting longer than XFL 2.0. Who saw that coming?! I know it's a little unfair since it's almost entirely a result of our buddy coronavirus, but was XFL 2.0 meeting the same fate as its predecessor a surprise to anybody? Did it happen sooner than we might've predicted? Maybe. But there was little doubt XFL 2.0 wouldn't last. It was really only a matter of time. And, unfortunately, that timeline was only exacerbated by the current state of the country.
The NFL-AFL merger was 50 years ago. Since then, there have been multiple attempts to launch a new football league, either as a direct competitor to the NFL or not. Every one of them has failed. Even the ones that could be considered "successful," the World Football League and USFL, only lasted a few years before shuttering. NFL Europe was funded by the NFL and had a good 15-year run. But even that league fell by the wayside.
Vince McMahon launched two different versions of the XFL 20 years apart. Neither one made it. Neither did the AAF, the FXFL, the UFL or any of the other attempted spring football leagues that have tried and failed. Yet people keep trying.
Every one of these entrepreneurs thinks that they'll be the one. They'll finally have the recipe that works. Their spring football league will be different than all the others. Theirs is the one that will last. Theirs is the one that will "prove" Americans have this appetite to keep football season going after the Super Bowl. They've all been wrong.
Money is the biggest issue that all these leagues face. Simply put, football is an expensive sport. It was a different time, but one of the reasons the AFL actually worked while all these others didn't is because the AFL owners (and they had eight separate owners, which is another important detail) actually had money and were willing to spend it. They knew there would probably be losses early on, but they had the funds and patience to withstand them. And ultimately, it paid off. (The USFL had a similar model and likely would've survived if they hadn't tried to move to the fall and go head-to-head against the NFL.)
Yet these new leagues all try to launch as a single entity, where the league owns every team. In a multi-entity league, a failing franchise can be sold or relocated or (worst case) contracted. In a single-entity league, that puts all of the onus on a single person. And if that person runs out of funds or patience, the league has no option other than shutting down.
So, frankly, it's no surprise that these leagues all suffered from a common problem--lack of money. The start-up cost alone is absurd! Equipment and insurance alone can run into the millions. And that's before even factoring in salaries. Then, throw in the fact that the broadcast and ticket revenue isn't going to be there for an unproven entity with no history, and you're going to lose money. It's a given. Rough estimate, I'd say it would take at least three years to even think about breaking even. And, as we've seen, people will lose interest by then.
It's also worth noting that the AFL had another thing going for it that none of these others did. When the AFL was launched, there were 12 teams in the NFL. There were plenty of pro football-ready markets that didn't have teams and wanted them and, more importantly, enough quality players to make the product legitimate. In a world with 32 NFL teams and nearly 2000 players on NFL rosters, there isn't.
As a result, they're trying to launch a completely new product that pales in comparison to the standard people have gotten used to. There are a handful of NFL-caliber players (it didn't take long for P.J. Walker to catch on with the Panthers), but certainly not enough. And the gimmicks/innovations can only get you so far. People might tune in to see this "new brand of football," but if the product isn't good, it won't keep their interest.
Likewise, the market is already saturated. In the bigger cities, XFL or AAF teams were never going to come anywhere close to their NFL rivals. But if you want only cities that don't already have a team, you're limiting yourself to mid-sized markets. I'd argue that's a better strategy since you're basing your success on TV ratings as much as attendance figures (and it doesn't really matter where the game's being played on TV), but I understand the desire to have larger cities involved for marketing purposes.
I've also said this over and over every time one of these leagues tries to launch: Why does everyone have this idea that Americans are so desperate for spring football? That's often cited as one of the reasons when these leagues are founded, yet it has never proven true. Sure, fans of BCS schools in college towns can't wait until the spring game, but that's a very specific audience. Everyone else pretty much forgets about football from the end of the Super Bowl until right before the Draft, then forgets about it again until training camps open in July.
If that "football appetite" actually existed, people would watch these leagues. But they don't. They may check it out, but they move on. Part of it is the quality of play. But I think the bigger reason is far more simple than that. Football just isn't a year-round sport, at least not in the way soccer and basketball are. You'd think that all of these would-be league-launchers would've gotten that picture by now!
Does this mean we've seen the last of pro football in the spring? Probably not. It might be a few years (especially now that we're heading into a recession), but you know somebody's gonna try again. Even with the AAF and XFL 2.0 both failing within a year of each other, someone will be convinced his formula will work and that he'll be providing America with something it "needs."
But if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that America doesn't "need" pro football after the Super Bowl. I'm not even sure how big of a "want" it is for many people. So, these entrepreneurs should do themselves a favor and not even bother. In the long run, they'll end up saving a lot of money as a result.
The NFL-AFL merger was 50 years ago. Since then, there have been multiple attempts to launch a new football league, either as a direct competitor to the NFL or not. Every one of them has failed. Even the ones that could be considered "successful," the World Football League and USFL, only lasted a few years before shuttering. NFL Europe was funded by the NFL and had a good 15-year run. But even that league fell by the wayside.
Vince McMahon launched two different versions of the XFL 20 years apart. Neither one made it. Neither did the AAF, the FXFL, the UFL or any of the other attempted spring football leagues that have tried and failed. Yet people keep trying.
Every one of these entrepreneurs thinks that they'll be the one. They'll finally have the recipe that works. Their spring football league will be different than all the others. Theirs is the one that will last. Theirs is the one that will "prove" Americans have this appetite to keep football season going after the Super Bowl. They've all been wrong.
Money is the biggest issue that all these leagues face. Simply put, football is an expensive sport. It was a different time, but one of the reasons the AFL actually worked while all these others didn't is because the AFL owners (and they had eight separate owners, which is another important detail) actually had money and were willing to spend it. They knew there would probably be losses early on, but they had the funds and patience to withstand them. And ultimately, it paid off. (The USFL had a similar model and likely would've survived if they hadn't tried to move to the fall and go head-to-head against the NFL.)
Yet these new leagues all try to launch as a single entity, where the league owns every team. In a multi-entity league, a failing franchise can be sold or relocated or (worst case) contracted. In a single-entity league, that puts all of the onus on a single person. And if that person runs out of funds or patience, the league has no option other than shutting down.
So, frankly, it's no surprise that these leagues all suffered from a common problem--lack of money. The start-up cost alone is absurd! Equipment and insurance alone can run into the millions. And that's before even factoring in salaries. Then, throw in the fact that the broadcast and ticket revenue isn't going to be there for an unproven entity with no history, and you're going to lose money. It's a given. Rough estimate, I'd say it would take at least three years to even think about breaking even. And, as we've seen, people will lose interest by then.
It's also worth noting that the AFL had another thing going for it that none of these others did. When the AFL was launched, there were 12 teams in the NFL. There were plenty of pro football-ready markets that didn't have teams and wanted them and, more importantly, enough quality players to make the product legitimate. In a world with 32 NFL teams and nearly 2000 players on NFL rosters, there isn't.
As a result, they're trying to launch a completely new product that pales in comparison to the standard people have gotten used to. There are a handful of NFL-caliber players (it didn't take long for P.J. Walker to catch on with the Panthers), but certainly not enough. And the gimmicks/innovations can only get you so far. People might tune in to see this "new brand of football," but if the product isn't good, it won't keep their interest.
Likewise, the market is already saturated. In the bigger cities, XFL or AAF teams were never going to come anywhere close to their NFL rivals. But if you want only cities that don't already have a team, you're limiting yourself to mid-sized markets. I'd argue that's a better strategy since you're basing your success on TV ratings as much as attendance figures (and it doesn't really matter where the game's being played on TV), but I understand the desire to have larger cities involved for marketing purposes.
I've also said this over and over every time one of these leagues tries to launch: Why does everyone have this idea that Americans are so desperate for spring football? That's often cited as one of the reasons when these leagues are founded, yet it has never proven true. Sure, fans of BCS schools in college towns can't wait until the spring game, but that's a very specific audience. Everyone else pretty much forgets about football from the end of the Super Bowl until right before the Draft, then forgets about it again until training camps open in July.
If that "football appetite" actually existed, people would watch these leagues. But they don't. They may check it out, but they move on. Part of it is the quality of play. But I think the bigger reason is far more simple than that. Football just isn't a year-round sport, at least not in the way soccer and basketball are. You'd think that all of these would-be league-launchers would've gotten that picture by now!
Does this mean we've seen the last of pro football in the spring? Probably not. It might be a few years (especially now that we're heading into a recession), but you know somebody's gonna try again. Even with the AAF and XFL 2.0 both failing within a year of each other, someone will be convinced his formula will work and that he'll be providing America with something it "needs."
But if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that America doesn't "need" pro football after the Super Bowl. I'm not even sure how big of a "want" it is for many people. So, these entrepreneurs should do themselves a favor and not even bother. In the long run, they'll end up saving a lot of money as a result.
Sunday, April 12, 2020
A Month Without Sports
It's only been a month. It's been one of the longest months of our lives. At this point, days feel like weeks, weeks feel like months and months feel like years, so it's tough to know how long it's actually been. But it was a mere month ago that Rudy Gobert got bit by the karma bug big time and became the first pro athlete to test positive for coronavirus.
Back in early March, everything was still quasi-normal. The NBA and NHL regular seasons were winding down, Spring Training games were in full-swing, and March Madness was on the horizon. There were some precautions being taken, and they were planning on playing games without fans in some cities. Then Gobert tested positive and all hell broke loose.
Within the next 24 hours, the NBA and NHL had suspended their seasons indefinitely and MLB shut down Spring Training and delayed the start of the season. Instead of revving up, college basketball conference tournaments were outright cancelled, then the NCAA did the unthinkable and cancelled March Madness entirely...as well as all Spring sports! The PGA finished its round that day, then, they too, halted the season. So did NASCAR, IndyCar, tennis and any other sport you can think of. Suddenly, just like that, there were no sports being played anywhere in America.
For the first time any of us can remember, sports are gone. And who knows when they're coming back? Sports, the very fabric of our society, won't be a part of it for the foreseeable future at a time when we need them the most. We're in uncharted waters here. Because we've never seen anything like this before.
Of course, outside events have gotten in the way of the 24-7-365 sports cycle before. Events went years without taking place during World War II, and natural disasters or national tragedies have also had impacted sports seasons throughout history. We've even had a Stanley Cup Final called after five games because of an epidemic before.
So, no. This isn't the first time sports have seemed so trivial in the grand scheme of things, either. After 9/11, the country was terrified and sports rightfully stepped aside. However, it was only a week before baseball and football returned to help the nation heal. Same thing with the Saints' return to New Orleans a year after Hurricane Katrina decimated the city.
Something like this, though. This has never happened. People want and need their sports at a time when they can't have them. And, as a result, we're struggling to fill the entertainment void.
That, to me, is the biggest difference between this shutdown and any extended sports stoppages that have occurred before is just that. In the past, sports were a nice distraction, but weren't a national obsession like they are now. There are how many 24-hour sports channels and websites that suddenly don't have live events to cover? And how many hours had the broadcast networks allotted for sports coverage that they now need to replace?
Fortunately, they all have a vast library of classic games at their disposal. CBS showed old NCAA Tournament games on the weekends that were supposed to be for this year's NCAA Tournament. This week they were supposed to have the Masters, so they're showing old Masters coverage instead. NBC and NBCSN should be showing playoff hockey right now, so they're giving us Stanley Cup clinchers and classic Olympic moments.
The sports cable networks have it much tougher, obviously. They have to figure out 24 hours of programming to figure out without live games. And, for the most part, they're making use of those archives. They're going way back, too. Those games from the 80s and early 90s that you otherwise would only be able to find on YouTube are suddenly on TV. And, I've gotta admit, watching these classics has been kinda fun!
ESPN may have it the toughest, though. Because SportsCenter is still on like 12 hours a day even though there's no sports! And I have no idea what they talk about on all those shows where "experts" argue with each other over various sports topics. Although, I have to say I've enjoyed their turning ESPN2 into ESPN Classic and the Ocho, and it was a stroke of genius to air old Wrestlemanias!
You know how desperate everyone is getting for live sports, any type of live sports, that athletes playing the video-game version of their sport is being aired in prime time! And if ESPN can finalize details for that NBA HORSE thing they want to try, it'll be very highly watched. I'd bet the ratings for the NFL Draft, which usually draws a good number of viewers anyway, will be through the roof this year, too. Especially with a captive audience that has literally nothing else to do!
Sports will eventually come back, of course. The leagues are all trying to figure out when and how, even though the future is just as uncertain now as it was when this all started. Even if fans physically can't go to the games, that won't even matter. Most of us watch the games on TV anyway. And you know the networks are eager to have some original programming to show!
Hopefully that day will be soon. And when it comes, we'll be on sports overload! Because everything that's being postponed now has been rescheduled for later in the summer and early fall. So, once we get through this, we'll get our reward. Our lives will be normal again and our sports will be back. All of them.
Back in early March, everything was still quasi-normal. The NBA and NHL regular seasons were winding down, Spring Training games were in full-swing, and March Madness was on the horizon. There were some precautions being taken, and they were planning on playing games without fans in some cities. Then Gobert tested positive and all hell broke loose.
Within the next 24 hours, the NBA and NHL had suspended their seasons indefinitely and MLB shut down Spring Training and delayed the start of the season. Instead of revving up, college basketball conference tournaments were outright cancelled, then the NCAA did the unthinkable and cancelled March Madness entirely...as well as all Spring sports! The PGA finished its round that day, then, they too, halted the season. So did NASCAR, IndyCar, tennis and any other sport you can think of. Suddenly, just like that, there were no sports being played anywhere in America.
For the first time any of us can remember, sports are gone. And who knows when they're coming back? Sports, the very fabric of our society, won't be a part of it for the foreseeable future at a time when we need them the most. We're in uncharted waters here. Because we've never seen anything like this before.
Of course, outside events have gotten in the way of the 24-7-365 sports cycle before. Events went years without taking place during World War II, and natural disasters or national tragedies have also had impacted sports seasons throughout history. We've even had a Stanley Cup Final called after five games because of an epidemic before.
So, no. This isn't the first time sports have seemed so trivial in the grand scheme of things, either. After 9/11, the country was terrified and sports rightfully stepped aside. However, it was only a week before baseball and football returned to help the nation heal. Same thing with the Saints' return to New Orleans a year after Hurricane Katrina decimated the city.
Something like this, though. This has never happened. People want and need their sports at a time when they can't have them. And, as a result, we're struggling to fill the entertainment void.
That, to me, is the biggest difference between this shutdown and any extended sports stoppages that have occurred before is just that. In the past, sports were a nice distraction, but weren't a national obsession like they are now. There are how many 24-hour sports channels and websites that suddenly don't have live events to cover? And how many hours had the broadcast networks allotted for sports coverage that they now need to replace?
Fortunately, they all have a vast library of classic games at their disposal. CBS showed old NCAA Tournament games on the weekends that were supposed to be for this year's NCAA Tournament. This week they were supposed to have the Masters, so they're showing old Masters coverage instead. NBC and NBCSN should be showing playoff hockey right now, so they're giving us Stanley Cup clinchers and classic Olympic moments.
The sports cable networks have it much tougher, obviously. They have to figure out 24 hours of programming to figure out without live games. And, for the most part, they're making use of those archives. They're going way back, too. Those games from the 80s and early 90s that you otherwise would only be able to find on YouTube are suddenly on TV. And, I've gotta admit, watching these classics has been kinda fun!
ESPN may have it the toughest, though. Because SportsCenter is still on like 12 hours a day even though there's no sports! And I have no idea what they talk about on all those shows where "experts" argue with each other over various sports topics. Although, I have to say I've enjoyed their turning ESPN2 into ESPN Classic and the Ocho, and it was a stroke of genius to air old Wrestlemanias!
You know how desperate everyone is getting for live sports, any type of live sports, that athletes playing the video-game version of their sport is being aired in prime time! And if ESPN can finalize details for that NBA HORSE thing they want to try, it'll be very highly watched. I'd bet the ratings for the NFL Draft, which usually draws a good number of viewers anyway, will be through the roof this year, too. Especially with a captive audience that has literally nothing else to do!
Sports will eventually come back, of course. The leagues are all trying to figure out when and how, even though the future is just as uncertain now as it was when this all started. Even if fans physically can't go to the games, that won't even matter. Most of us watch the games on TV anyway. And you know the networks are eager to have some original programming to show!
Hopefully that day will be soon. And when it comes, we'll be on sports overload! Because everything that's being postponed now has been rescheduled for later in the summer and early fall. So, once we get through this, we'll get our reward. Our lives will be normal again and our sports will be back. All of them.
Thursday, April 9, 2020
The 40-Year Curse
Last month, when they were still debating whether to postpone the Olympics or not, Taro Aso, Japan's deputy prime minister, called the upcoming Tokyo Games "cursed." Every 40 years, something happens in the world that screws up the planning for the Olympics. Maybe he's on to something. Because, sure enough, the Olympics were postponed for the first time in their history. The 40-year curse rears its ugly head once again!
This curse is so powerful it goes back 120 years! When Pierre de Coubertin founded the Modern Olympics, he wanted to hold the first Games in his hometown of Paris. The rest of the international sporting representatives in attendance (the first IOC members) suggested that the inaugural Olympics should instead be held in Greece, and Athens was selected as the host, with the second edition set for Paris in 1900.
Those 1896 Games (which celebrate their 124th anniversary this week) were a resounding success. Such a success that there were calls for the Olympics to be held in Athens permanently. But de Coubertin wanted the Olympics to move all over the world, so it was off to Paris in 1900.
The 1900 Olympics, however, turned out to be a disaster. They were incorporated into the World's Fair, and that turned out to be a horrible mistake (a mistake that would be repeated four years later in St. Louis)! The Olympics were completely overshadowed and spread out over many months. There was so much confusion over which events were actually part of the Olympics that some of the athletes didn't even know! (There's still uncertainty today. The IOC records include different numbers, simply because they aren't sure which sports and events were actually "official.")
The 1900 Olympics, however, turned out to be a disaster. They were incorporated into the World's Fair, and that turned out to be a horrible mistake (a mistake that would be repeated four years later in St. Louis)! The Olympics were completely overshadowed and spread out over many months. There was so much confusion over which events were actually part of the Olympics that some of the athletes didn't even know! (There's still uncertainty today. The IOC records include different numbers, simply because they aren't sure which sports and events were actually "official.")
I don't know what Tokyo, in particular, did to piss off the Olympic gods, but this is the second time the city has fallen victim to the 40-year curse. The first time was 80 years ago. In 1936, they won the bid to host the 1940 Olympics, which would've been the first to be held in Asia, and began aggressively planning for the Games.
However, war broke out between Japan and China in 1937, forcing the Japanese to forfeit the Games a year later. The Olympics were then moved to Helsinki before being cancelled altogether after World War II broke out in Europe (Japan, obviously, would play a pretty significant role in that war, too). The 1944 Games were cancelled, as well, and Japan (along with fellow losing aggressors Germany and Italy) was actually banned from the Olympics when they returned in 1948. Tokyo, meanwhile, would have to wait until 1964 to get its first Olympic hosting opportunity.
It wasn't World War that affected the Olympics in 1980. It was Cold War. That was the height of U.S.-Soviet tensions, and they cast a huge shadow over the Moscow Games. Such a big shadow, in fact, that the U.S. wasn't even there.
In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, President Carter indicated that the United States would not attend the Olympics if the Soviet troops didn't withdraw by his deadline (which conveniently came after the Lake Placid Winter Games, where the U.S. had its "Miracle on Ice" hockey victory over the Soviets). They didn't and Carter followed through on his threat. A majority of Western countries joined the U.S. boycott, and 65 nations didn't go to Moscow. Others went but refused to march in the Opening Ceremony, while still others (like Great Britain and Australia) allowed their athletes to compete, but under the Olympic flag instead of their own.
As a result of the boycott, only 80 (predominantly Eastern Bloc) nations participated. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union and East Germany dominated the severely watered-down competition, winning a combined 321 medals and 127 golds. Four years later, the Soviets retaliated when the Olympics were held in Los Angeles, leading their own 14-nation boycott that also included the East Germans, giving the U.S. its turn to dominate a home Olympics.
For a while, it looked like 2020 might break the 40-year curse. Tokyo has been praised for its preparations, everything was well ahead of schedule, and we were on track for the July 24 Opening Ceremony of a fully-attended Olympics that promised to be the biggest in history. Then the coronavirus took over all of our lives.
Despite country after country being completely shut down, they kept chugging along in Tokyo and were still planning to hold the Games as scheduled. Even as the calls to postpone the Olympics grew louder, they soldiered on. The Olympic flame was even lit in Olympia and the torch relay began. Eventually, though, Tokyo organizers and the IOC were left with no other choice and succumbed to the inevitable--postponing an Olympics for the first time in history.
They were so well-prepared, in fact, that they thought they might be able to pull it off (probably for longer than they should've) until ultimately determining it wouldn't be possible. As a result, the 2020 Olympics will actually be held in the summer of 2021 and Tokyo will go down in history as the first host city to see its Olympic Games postponed. Through no fault of its own.
Still think curses aren't real? In fact, this curse is so powerful that it carried over into the next Olympics each time (St. Louis had the same problems as Paris, the world was still at war in 1944, and there was a counter-boycott in LA). Although, the 1984 Olympics are regarded as one of the best in history, so there might be hope for Paris 2024 yet.
Good luck trying to find a city that's willing to host in 2060, though. Although, who knows? That might be the one to break the curse!
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
Smaller Budget, Smaller Scale
When the NCAA cancelled March Madness, everyone knew the financial hit would be tremendous. And not just for the smaller schools that rely on their NCAA Tournament money to fund most (or all) of their athletic departments. The Power 5 schools won't feel it as much immediately, but if this extends into football season, it might end up impacting their bottom line, too.
It hasn't come to that yet, and those big football schools are already starting to think of contingency plans in case it does (including moving the football season to the spring). But for the smaller schools, that's already the new reality. So, their changes will likely be a little more immediate. And those changes may actually end up being good for both college basketball and college football.
Under normal circumstances, John Calipari's season would've just ended...and he'd already be back out on the road looking for Kentucky's next crop of one-and-dones. Instead, for the last month, he's been stuck at home like the rest of us. And he doesn't seem to mind!
College basketball recruiting is a year-round job. Outside of the dead periods, which only add up to a couple of weeks total, assistant coaches are on the road virtually every weekend, both during the season (when they also have to do their other duties associated with the current team) and especially over the summer. The months of June, July and August are full of AAU tournaments all over the nation, and coaches jet back-and-forth between all of them.
Why is college basketball recruiting a year-round activity? I have no idea! Does it need to be? Absolutely not! These coaches work so hard during the season that they deserve a few weeks off where they can spend some time with their families. They almost never get that time, of course, since it's always go, go, go and teams can't take the chance of not being out on the recruiting trail while their competitors are.
This year is different, though. It's obviously because of the very different circumstances, but they're finally getting that time off. And who knows when the recruiting cycle will actually begin again?
Once this is finally over and we begin to feel a sense of normalcy again, coaches will be right back on the recruiting trail. And everyone will be more refreshed from finally getting some time off! (I don't kid myself. I know they're still in touch with recruits. But it's vastly different to meet virtually than physically going to a game.)
And, if certain coaches have their way, that additional time off could become a permanent change. It's almost too much. There's no need for recruiting to be a 24-7-365 part of the job. After this forced paused, maybe everyone will realize that. Because nobody's allowed to go out recruiting right now (and there are no games for them to check out anyway), so you're not putting yourself at a disadvantage. Just like you won't be at a disadvantage if six fewer weeks of in-person recruiting ends up becoming the standard!
Another change that may come about as a result of our current situation is fewer coaches out their recruiting. That's not because of any lack of desire. It might come out of necessity. Every school is going to be looking for ways to cut spending anywhere they can. And limiting the amount they spend on recruiting is a very easy way to do that. Whether that means fewer coaches on the road or fewer days on the road (or both), schools will be able to save money by reducing their recruiting budgets.
There's another way to reduce the football and basketball budgets that have gotten overblown at many schools, too. Go to the website of a Power 5 school and look at the coaching staff page for either the football or men's basketball program. There are more people on the bench in suits than in uniform at some of these schools!
The NCAA does have rules for the maximum number of official coaches you can have at the Division I level. Those are the only people allowed to go recruiting and actively "provide skill instruction" to the student-athletes. However, there's no limit on non-coaching support staff. Which is why you see men with such creative titles as "Special Assistant to the Head Coach" and "Coordinator of Basketball Operations" (in addition to the standard "Director of Basketball Operations").
Generally speaking, the larger the program, the more staff members they have. And, frankly, I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what some of them do! Meanwhile, smaller programs don't have the budget for all these extra employees, so they have much smaller staffs and assistant coaches with many more responsibilities. It's just another example of the competitive inequality even within the Division I level.
But, if the budgets become even more crunched, some of these extra positions may end up being eliminated. Salaries are either going to be frozen or reduced in a lot of places, so it's not that crazy to think that shedding entire salaries--especially if they're deemed unnecessary--is possible. Will there be some pushback from the head coaches who are making a million dollars a year and "need" all of these "assistants"? Absolutely! But, either way, there'll likely be some pay cuts.
Is the NCAA likely to step in and enforce a limit on the number of additional support staff programs are allowed to have? Probably not. But some changes to the financial structure of college athletics are inevitable. And if those extra jobs are reduced or eliminated, it just may make the playing feild a little more level.
Saturday, April 4, 2020
An Age-Old Question
Once the Olympics were officially postponed, one of the many questions the IOC and Tokyo organizers had to answer was one regarding age eligibility. Some sports have minimum ages, which means a whole new group of athletes who thought they'd be too young to compete in Tokyo suddenly will be old enough. Meanwhile, in men's soccer the reverse is true. It's an under-23 tournament, so suddenly the birthday cut off went from 1997 to 1998.
The soccer question has already been answered. FIFA announced that the eligibility for the men's soccer tournament will not change. So, instead of a U-23 tournament, it'll be a U-24 tournament. That's important because nations are allowed three "over-age" players. Now the 23-year-olds won't count against that three. Of course, they still need permission from their professional teams to play in the Olympics, but it's good that they clarified it so early.
Fourteen of the 16 spots in the Tokyo men's soccer tournament have already been clinched. The last two will come from CONCACAF, which had its qualifying tournament postponed indefinitely (we all know the reason why). Having that eligibility question answered will be helpful for the CONCACAF teams as they look to secure one of those last two spots. Likewise, the other 14 nations have a year to think about their Olympic rosters. But now they know that the 23-year-olds who helped them qualify will be available.
In gymnastics, it's the other way around. Women must turn 16 in the Olympic year in order to be eligible. As a result, female gymnasts born in 2005 or later weren't thinking about Tokyo. They were targeting Paris 2024 as perhaps their only Olympic shot. Now that might not necessarily be the case. Suddenly they might be able to go to Tokyo after all.
Considering the team competition will only include four gymnasts per nation, that could make a huge difference. Because deep countries like the U.S. and China were going to have tough decisions to make already. Now, if you're talking about the prospect of potentially adding the top juniors to the mix, that makes the competition just to make Olympic teams that much more cutthroat. And, let's not forget, one year can be a long time in gymnastics.
Much like FIFA, the FIG needs to act quickly so that there's clarity about the situation. Because it's gonna make a huge difference if gymnasts who are currently 15 are suddenly eligible for Tokyo. For the sake of everyone, especially the 15-year-olds, they need to answer the eligibility question sooner rather than later. This way, once competition resumes, everyone will know if they have a shot at Tokyo or not.
Just as FIFA kept the qualifying birthday the same, the FIG should, as well. The Olympics weren't postponed until two weeks ago. Everyone went into this season knowing who was eligible and who wasn't. The one-year delay was the result of something nobody could control. It would be incredibly unfair to have all of these additional gymnasts suddenly become eligible in the middle of the qualifying period.
They weren't eligible for Tokyo before, and they shouldn't be now. Until last week, they knew their time would come four years from now in Paris. That shouldn't change. The FIG should keep December 31, 2004 as the cutoff in women's gymnastics.
Soccer and gymnastics aren't the only sports with a decision to make regarding age eligibility. World Athletics does, as well. The World U-20 Championships in Kenya were originally scheduled for July. Like everything else, they've been postponed, likely until 2021. And if they are pushed to next year, the birthday question comes up once again.
There's a lot of overlap in track & field. A lot of athletes are good enough to compete in both their age-group championships and elite-level meets like the Olympics or World Championships. Many do. If the World U-20s are moved to next year, we'll likely see a number of athletes go right from Nairobi to Tokyo. In 2022, it's entirely possible that some could even do the Grand Slam of the World Championships in Oregon, Commonwealth Games in England, European Championships in Munich, and World U-20 Championships (and possibly World Indoors, too).
While not nearly as high-profile as the senior-level meets, the World U-20 Championships are an important stepping stone to that level. Some guy named Usain Bolt first burst onto the scene at the 2002 World Junior Championships (as they were called then) in his home country of Jamaica. He's just one of many stars who went on to bigger and better after starting off at World U-20s.
Anyway, as the name suggests, the World U-20s are generally contested between 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds. Once an athlete turns 21, they're considered a "senior" and no longer eligible for junior competition. So, had the meet taken place this year as originally scheduled, it's pretty easy to figure out what year would've been the cutoff.
However, with the meet likely being moved to 2021, that creates a similar problem as the Olympic soccer tournament faced. It makes everyone who turns 20 this year suddenly ineligible for the meet...through no fault of their own. And, that would mean their only chance to compete internationally is at the senior level, whether or not they're ready for it. That's not exactly fair, is it?
Especially with another World U-20 Championships set for 2022 (which will get them back on the every-other-year schedule), I'd make a one-time exception and have the 2021 meet be a World U-21 Championships. That way, you're not depriving those athletes born in 2000 their opportunity to compete. They've already lost their freshman college outdoor season. Don't take another thing away from them.
However, with the meet likely being moved to 2021, that creates a similar problem as the Olympic soccer tournament faced. It makes everyone who turns 20 this year suddenly ineligible for the meet...through no fault of their own. And, that would mean their only chance to compete internationally is at the senior level, whether or not they're ready for it. That's not exactly fair, is it?
Especially with another World U-20 Championships set for 2022 (which will get them back on the every-other-year schedule), I'd make a one-time exception and have the 2021 meet be a World U-21 Championships. That way, you're not depriving those athletes born in 2000 their opportunity to compete. They've already lost their freshman college outdoor season. Don't take another thing away from them.
Thursday, April 2, 2020
The 17th Game
NFL owners have wanted a 17th game for years. Pretty much ever since Roger Goddell became commissioner, it was really a matter of when they'd finally wear the players down and get them to agree to it. Now the players have. So, starting in 2021, each team will play the most awkward number of games possible. Figuring out how to schedule that 17th game is the next challenge.
Does the NFL need a 17th game? Absolutely not! Does an even number make more sense? Of course! And I do think 17 games is simply a step on the way to 18, which is where they'll eventually settle (you'd have to assume at some point they'll get tired of alternating an extra home game with an extra road game every other year). But until they do, we're stuck with 17 and trying to figure out the math that'll go with it (they might need a full year just for that).
Part of what makes the NFL's current schedule formula so great is how simple and logical it is. That's why, other than a few minor tweaks involving the West Coast trips, it's been essentially the same since the Texans entered the league in 2002. Four divisions of four teams, everything divided evenly. And it's all done according to the formula. You know 14 of your 16 games before the season even starts, with the other two determined by your place the previous season. It really is almost perfect. So, of course, the owners have to take something that works perfectly fine and screw it up!
There's really no easy way to add a 17th game to the schedule. It's one random game for every team, so it'll definitely require some creativity. And it'll almost certainly have to be a fifth interconference game, which either makes it easier or harder.
Some people would like to see the NFL do something similar to what MLB does with interleague play and have natural rivals play each other every season. But that wouldn't work for a few reasons. For one, there's reason to mess with the current rotation, so they'll already face their "natural" rival every fourth year when their division comes up, and they wouldn't want teams playing a home-and-home with an interconference opponent.
Even more than that, though, there are very few "natural" rivalries out there. You've obviously got Giants-Jets and Rams-Chargers, the two matchups where both teams share a stadium, but, outside of a few others, it's really a stretch to find some "natural" rivalries. Now that the Raiders are in Las Vegas, the 49ers don't have a partner. That means Cowboys-Texans, Ravens-Redskins, Steelers-Eagles and Dolphins-Bucs are really the only other ones that make any sense. Sure, you could justify a Bears-Colts or a Browns-Lions, but there would be too many "rivalries" that seem completely random and forced.
Setting up permanent interconference rivals would also unfairly benefit/penalize some teams. The Steelers and Ravens are a perfect example. Philadelphia's good. Washington isn't. Thus, who has the advantage in the AFC North simply because of who their permanent interconference opponent is? Likewise, who gets stuck playing the Patriots or Chiefs every year?
One interesting proposal I saw simply lined the teams up 1-16 in each conference and had you play the team that finished in your corresponding place the previous season. But this would create some of the same issues. Mainly, you could already be scheduled to play each other based on the division rotation. You could also end up playing the same team over and over that way. And one of the reasons they went to the current schedule was because they didn't want teams playing interconference foes more frequently than opponents in their own conference.
The idea of basing it off the previous year's standings does have merit, though. The NFL is all about parity, and I'm sure they'd want to maintain it with the 17th game. Have the good teams play the good teams, which TV wants, the fans want and the league wants. (Although, as that same article pointed out, under the current format, the schedule is actually more balanced than people think. You play four games against a first-place team, four against a team that finished second, four against a third-place team, and four against a fourth-place team.)
My plan is based on that idea, but not nearly as complicated. Keep the current schedule formula in place. There's no reason not to, especially since it accounts for 16 of your 17 games. More importantly, it already has a rotation of interconference opponents in place. That's the key to my formula.
Last season's interconference matchups were AFC East-NFC East, AFC North-NFC West, AFC South-NFC South, AFC West-NFC North. Assuming there is a season this year, the matchups are AFC East-NFC West, AFC North-NFC East, AFC South-NFC North, AFC West-NFC South.
For the sake of this exercise, we'll add a 17th game to this year's schedule. The 16 games based on the current formula won't change. As for the 17th, that's where the division you played last season comes in. Because your 17th game is against the interconference team you played last year that finished in your corresponding place. Using the AFC East as the example, the Patriots would play the Eagles, the Bills would play the Cowboys, the Jets would play the Giants and the Dolphins would play the Redskins in their extra game.
Assuming they don't tweak the formula too radically, the AFC East is scheduled to play the NFC South in 2021. So, they'd all play the Saints, Falcons, Panthers, Bucs and one team (according to place) from the NFC West next season. In 2022, they'd play all four NFC North teams and one NFC South team. In 2023, all four NFC East, one NFC North. In 2024, all four NFC West, one NFC East. Then back to the beginning in 2025.
This also makes it easy to determine who gets the extra home game. The only fair way to do it would be to give the entire AFC the extra home game one year and the entire NFC the next year (you can't have two teams fighting for a playoff berth where one played nine home games and the other played eight, especially now that only the No. 1 seed in each conference will get a first-round bye).
That could easily be incorporated into the formula. It's an eight-year cycle (corresponding with the rest of the schedule formula). The AFC gets the extra home game in the first, third, sixth and eighth years. The NFC gets the extra home game in the second, fourth, fifth and seventh. (You can't simply alternate years since then you'd have the same home team every time one division plays another, so you'd have to go back-to-back somewhere in the cycle.)
As for when the 17th game is scheduled, the NFL really only has two choices. They either move the Super Bowl to the second Sunday in February, which I'm not sure the networks or other sports leagues would be too keen on. Or, more likely (and much more reasonably), they go back to playing on Labor Day weekend. Yes, that could mean the season ends up starting in August. But that's still preferable to the mid-February Super Bowl. Especially since that's when the fourth preseason game (that they're eliminating) was played, meaning it won't be too much of a change for the players.
Does the NFL need a 17th game? Absolutely not! Does an even number make more sense? Of course! And I do think 17 games is simply a step on the way to 18, which is where they'll eventually settle (you'd have to assume at some point they'll get tired of alternating an extra home game with an extra road game every other year). But until they do, we're stuck with 17 and trying to figure out the math that'll go with it (they might need a full year just for that).
Part of what makes the NFL's current schedule formula so great is how simple and logical it is. That's why, other than a few minor tweaks involving the West Coast trips, it's been essentially the same since the Texans entered the league in 2002. Four divisions of four teams, everything divided evenly. And it's all done according to the formula. You know 14 of your 16 games before the season even starts, with the other two determined by your place the previous season. It really is almost perfect. So, of course, the owners have to take something that works perfectly fine and screw it up!
There's really no easy way to add a 17th game to the schedule. It's one random game for every team, so it'll definitely require some creativity. And it'll almost certainly have to be a fifth interconference game, which either makes it easier or harder.
Some people would like to see the NFL do something similar to what MLB does with interleague play and have natural rivals play each other every season. But that wouldn't work for a few reasons. For one, there's reason to mess with the current rotation, so they'll already face their "natural" rival every fourth year when their division comes up, and they wouldn't want teams playing a home-and-home with an interconference opponent.
Even more than that, though, there are very few "natural" rivalries out there. You've obviously got Giants-Jets and Rams-Chargers, the two matchups where both teams share a stadium, but, outside of a few others, it's really a stretch to find some "natural" rivalries. Now that the Raiders are in Las Vegas, the 49ers don't have a partner. That means Cowboys-Texans, Ravens-Redskins, Steelers-Eagles and Dolphins-Bucs are really the only other ones that make any sense. Sure, you could justify a Bears-Colts or a Browns-Lions, but there would be too many "rivalries" that seem completely random and forced.
Setting up permanent interconference rivals would also unfairly benefit/penalize some teams. The Steelers and Ravens are a perfect example. Philadelphia's good. Washington isn't. Thus, who has the advantage in the AFC North simply because of who their permanent interconference opponent is? Likewise, who gets stuck playing the Patriots or Chiefs every year?
One interesting proposal I saw simply lined the teams up 1-16 in each conference and had you play the team that finished in your corresponding place the previous season. But this would create some of the same issues. Mainly, you could already be scheduled to play each other based on the division rotation. You could also end up playing the same team over and over that way. And one of the reasons they went to the current schedule was because they didn't want teams playing interconference foes more frequently than opponents in their own conference.
The idea of basing it off the previous year's standings does have merit, though. The NFL is all about parity, and I'm sure they'd want to maintain it with the 17th game. Have the good teams play the good teams, which TV wants, the fans want and the league wants. (Although, as that same article pointed out, under the current format, the schedule is actually more balanced than people think. You play four games against a first-place team, four against a team that finished second, four against a third-place team, and four against a fourth-place team.)
My plan is based on that idea, but not nearly as complicated. Keep the current schedule formula in place. There's no reason not to, especially since it accounts for 16 of your 17 games. More importantly, it already has a rotation of interconference opponents in place. That's the key to my formula.
Last season's interconference matchups were AFC East-NFC East, AFC North-NFC West, AFC South-NFC South, AFC West-NFC North. Assuming there is a season this year, the matchups are AFC East-NFC West, AFC North-NFC East, AFC South-NFC North, AFC West-NFC South.
For the sake of this exercise, we'll add a 17th game to this year's schedule. The 16 games based on the current formula won't change. As for the 17th, that's where the division you played last season comes in. Because your 17th game is against the interconference team you played last year that finished in your corresponding place. Using the AFC East as the example, the Patriots would play the Eagles, the Bills would play the Cowboys, the Jets would play the Giants and the Dolphins would play the Redskins in their extra game.
Assuming they don't tweak the formula too radically, the AFC East is scheduled to play the NFC South in 2021. So, they'd all play the Saints, Falcons, Panthers, Bucs and one team (according to place) from the NFC West next season. In 2022, they'd play all four NFC North teams and one NFC South team. In 2023, all four NFC East, one NFC North. In 2024, all four NFC West, one NFC East. Then back to the beginning in 2025.
This also makes it easy to determine who gets the extra home game. The only fair way to do it would be to give the entire AFC the extra home game one year and the entire NFC the next year (you can't have two teams fighting for a playoff berth where one played nine home games and the other played eight, especially now that only the No. 1 seed in each conference will get a first-round bye).
That could easily be incorporated into the formula. It's an eight-year cycle (corresponding with the rest of the schedule formula). The AFC gets the extra home game in the first, third, sixth and eighth years. The NFC gets the extra home game in the second, fourth, fifth and seventh. (You can't simply alternate years since then you'd have the same home team every time one division plays another, so you'd have to go back-to-back somewhere in the cycle.)
As for when the 17th game is scheduled, the NFL really only has two choices. They either move the Super Bowl to the second Sunday in February, which I'm not sure the networks or other sports leagues would be too keen on. Or, more likely (and much more reasonably), they go back to playing on Labor Day weekend. Yes, that could mean the season ends up starting in August. But that's still preferable to the mid-February Super Bowl. Especially since that's when the fourth preseason game (that they're eliminating) was played, meaning it won't be too much of a change for the players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)