The Dave Duncan Debate – No One Does More with Less Than Duncan

September 10, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that Dave Duncan is not the best pitching coach of the last 30 years.



If there was ever an unappreciated job in baseball, it is the pitching coach. It is not glamorous. The coach gets no credit when things go well, and a ton of blame when the pitching staff fails to perform.

Unless you are Dave Duncan. Then you get a peculiar silence. The truth is that the position rarely gets noticed unless things are going terrible wrong. In Duncan’s case, that reality is a shame, because he has been the best pitching coach in Major League Baseball for the last 30 years (and counting).

Here are some facts that help demonstrate how great of a pitching coach the St. Louis Cardinals have in Dave Duncan:

  • Dave Duncan has coached four Cy Young award winners over three decades, including LaMarr Hoyt in 1983 (White Sox), Bob Welch in 1990 (Oakland Athletics), Dennis Eckersley in 1992 (Oakland Athletics), and Chris Carpenter in 2005 (St. Louis Cardinals).
  • Between the years of 1988 and 1990 his pitching staffs had the lowest ERA in the American League. For three straight seasons.
  • Coached the St. Louis Cardinals to the lowest staff ERA in baseball in 2005.

The facts are impressive (not to mention the two World Series rings), but the key to his success is his expertise. Duncan’s expertise consists primarily of reclamation. What one team no longer values, Duncan can coach into a solid contributor – and sometimes a Cy Young winner.

Dave Duncan’s manager, Tony La Russa, may have said it best when he told the USA Today in June of this year that Duncan is so good because, “…10, 15, 20 things can go wrong. Most pitching coaches can fix a dozen things. Dave is a 10 in every category.”

Coming into the 2007 season the Cardinals has Joel Pineiro, Todd Wellemeyer – and two time Chicago Cubs reject and a waiver claim from the Florida Marlins – and Kyle Lohse has starters three four and five on the staff. Experts claimed the Cardinals were in for a long year with that group and an injured Chris Carpenter still on the mend.

Wellemeyer, in particular, was a question mark because he had virtually no success in the majors. In three seasons with the Cubs he had an ERA that hovered over six, and with the Marlins his ERA was just below six. After joining the Cardinals in 2007, he posted a 3.11 ERA, and a 3.71 ERA (along with 13 wins) in 2008.

Since 2007, the aforementioned starters have won 53 games against just 31 losses.

Duncan has had several successful reclamation projects, from his transformation of Dave Stewart and Kent Bottenfield from decent to great in the last 1980’s and early 1990’s to the most recent example with John Smoltz.

When future Hall of Fame pitcher John Smoltz received the ignominy of being released by the Boston Red Sox after giving up 25 runs in his final four starts, many experts believed his days as a Major League pitcher were completely over. Not Duncan. So the Cardinals acquired the veteran who was still recovering from major surgery on his arm. After a five minute conversation with Duncan, Smoltz learned the real reason his appearances were ineffective – he was unintentionally tipping pitches. After suffering through problems in Boston where he gave up eight home runs and five walks in his final four appearances in Red Sox Nation, he has given up two home runs and just one walk in his four starts with the Cardinals. Still think the veteran is out gas?

Smoltz is just the most recent example of Duncan’s reclamation genius. He has also cultivated MLB’s third best pitching staff this season with a team ERA of 3.61 and the fewest number of walks given up all season (388). Despite battling injuries for several consecutive years, Duncan has starter Chris Carpenter back at the top of his game with a 2.16 ERA for 2009, staff ace Adam Wainwright has an ERA of 2.59, and third starter Joel Pineiro has a 3.28 on the strength of streak where he won seven consecutive starts. Closer Ryan Franklin has an ERA of just 1.67 on the strength of 37 saves while set up man Trever Miller’s ERA is just 1.86. These are not accidental occurrences. The achievements of these pitchers are tied to the tutelage of their great coach.

As great as some other pitching coaches have been throughout the years, no one has combined Duncan’s capacity for rebuilding a player coming off of injury or and cultivating a young talent into a dominant pitcher. What separates Duncan from all other pitching coaches, besides his amazing consistency and ability to create success no matter what team he coached on, is that he did not have the luxury of working with some of the game’s greatest pitchers. He turned mediocre pitchers into Cy Young winners, or washed up veterans into solid contributors. Simply put, Duncan is the best pitching coach in the last 30 years.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Dave Duncan Debate – Duncan Is Good… But Not That Good

September 10, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that Dave Duncan is the best pitching coach of the past 30 years.



We have not had a baseball debate in awhile, so I am glad we are covering this… and just in time for the important Braves-Cardinals series.

St. Louis Cardinals pitching coach, Dave Duncan, is an excellent coach who is well respected by his colleagues. While he may not be well known by fans, that does not take away what he has accomplished. As Bleacher Fan stated in the intro, Duncan has had the privilege of mentoring several Cy Young winners. However, I am hesitant to name him the greatest pitching coach of the past 30 years when there was a short, grumpy bald-headed fella down in Atlanta who helped turn that franchise around. That guy’s name is Leo Mazzone, and I believe he is the best pitching coach of the past thirty years.

Mazzone, who is perhaps most distinguished by his constant rocking in the dugout, had the honor of working with the great pitching staffs for the Atlanta Braves all the way through 2005. It is worth noting that the Braves have not made the playoffs since Mazzone left after the 2005 season to go to Baltimore, which, as it turns out, was a horrible career move.

While in Atlanta, Mazzone’s pitchers won six Cy Young Awards. Greg Maddux won three, Tom Glavine won two, and John Smoltz won one. He coached nine 20 game winners and ten different Mazzone-coached pitchers made the All-Star team. During his time in Atlanta, the Braves pitching staff finished first or second in league ERA 12 out of his last 14 years as the Braves won 14 consecutive division titles.

Duncan is credited, and deservingly so, of reviving the career of players like Kyle Lohse, Joel Pineiro, and John Smoltz. He also deserves a lot of credit for developing Adam Wainwright, who ironically came up through the Braves minor league system, into a Cy Young contender. But, Mazzone made similar strides with pitchers over the years.

Mazzone turned Denny Neagle into a 20 game winner in 199. He also revived journeyman John Burkett’s career, which quietly led to an All-Star appearance in 2001. It should be noted that Jaret Wright’s career was revived in 2005 as well. Guess what Neagle and Wright did after they left Atlanta? They signed big contracts with other teams… and tanked with both teams. Hmmmmm… coincidence?

Mazzone always held “Camp Leo” a week before spring training. At Camp Leo, the pitchers would start throwing early and slowly build up their arm strength. It obviously worked. Mazzone also has his starting pitchers throw twice between starts instead of once. It is a unique philosophy, but it is hard to argue with the results.

Again, I am not trying to bring down Dave Duncan. He absolutely has flown under the radar and unfortunately, is not well known by the casual baseball fan. You might be able to make the argument that he is the second best pitching coach. But hands down the best is Leo Mazzone. Rock on Leo!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Dave Duncan Debate – If There’s a Great Woman Behind Every Great Man, Then Who Is Behind a Great Pitcher?

September 10, 2009

Read Sports Geek and Loyal Homer’s arguments on whether or not Dave Duncan has been the best pitching coach of the last 30 years.



Think about some of the great pitchers of the past 30 years. Names like Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddux, Dennis Eckersley, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson quickly come to mind.

Much of those pitcher’s success can be credited to talent, but much credit must ALSO be given to the pitching coaches who helped those players develop, hone, and perfect their technique over the course of their careers.

Just as some players are better than others, there are also those coaches who seem to have a certain knack for bringing out the best in those they are coaching. Dave Duncan, pitching coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, is one of those coaches. Over the course of his career as a pitching coach in Major League Baseball, Dave Duncan has helped to develop some of the most dominant pitchers of the era, including several Cy Young Award winners.

Recently, Duncan took the opportunity to prove once again why he is one of the best in the business when pitcher John Smoltz was brought into the Cardinals organization. Smoltz, who was pitching with the Boston Red Sox at the start of the season, had pitched himself to a 2-5 record with an 8.33 ERA by mid-August. Because of his struggles, Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein decided it was time to make a change, so he Designated Smoltz For Assignment (DFA). Whenever a player is named as DFA, he is essentially placed on a 10-day waiting list while other teams within the league can claim him off waivers. If no team claims the player off waivers within that 10-day period, his current team can either release him outright or send him to the Minors. Many thought this was the beginning of the end of a likely Hall of Fame career for Smoltz.

Fortunately for Smoltz, the Cardinals decided to take a shot, believing that the 42-year-old pitcher still was capable of producing on the mound. They signed him as a free-agent for the remainder of the season, then let the master, Dave Duncan, go to work.

During his workout, Duncan and his staff noticed several things Smoltz was doing that lead to some of his recent struggles on the mound. After working with Duncan to correct some of those issues, Smoltz made his first start for the Cardinals on August 23rd against the San Diego Padres.

How did he do?

The “washed-up” pitcher that left the Red Sox was nowhere to be found. Instead, Smoltz dominated on the mound for the Cards, throwing five scoreless innings and striking out nine batters during the outing. It was like the “Smoltzie” of old was back (much to the chagrin of the Padres).

After just a few short days with Dave Duncan, Smoltz was seemingly able to correct several technical flaws and return to his Cooperstown-esque (yes, that IS a word… at least for THIS article) level of performance.

Without a doubt, Duncan is one of the best pitching coaches in baseball, but how does he compare to the other great pitching coaches of the last 30 years?

Is Dave Duncan the best pitching coach of the last 30 years in Major League Baseball?

Sports Geek will argue that none have been better in their role as pitching coach than Duncan. He has produced so many dominant pitchers, over such a long period of time, that he is without a doubt the best of his era.

Loyal Homer will argue that Duncan, who has had an exceptional career, still falls short of being considered the best. While he has been among the best, there are others whose credentials supersede his.

Debaters, the stage is yours.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Rooting For Your Archrival Debate – Winning is The Only Thing That Matters

September 10, 2009

Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument, and Bleacher Fan’s argument.



My verdict for this debate is sure to aggravate the loser. I make this statement because I can feel the passion in every line of Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan’s argument. Perhaps even more in Bleacher Fan’s.

Bleacher Fan obviously refuses to root for any archrival. Bleacher Fan, under no circumstances, can come to grips with rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Baltimore Ravens. There is obviously a lot of built up anger toward both organizations, making it impossible to pull for them under any circumstances. As a fan, I can appreciate that. I also appreciated the He-Man reference. That was admittedly the first time in quite awhile I devoted any thought to the Masters of the Universe!

Sports Geek breaks down the counter argument into three different segments, effectively portraying the opposing side by saying, “the duty of fans is to root for the best possible outcomes for their favorite teams.”

Look, I have teams I hate. As someone who lives in Georgia and supports all Atlanta pro teams, I have a lot of hate for teams like the New York Yankees, the New York Mets, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the Florida State Seminoles. I despise them! Mention names like shortstop Derek Jeter, pitcher Andy Pettitte, and former Bucs linebacker Derrick Brooks and I get rather agitated (much like Bleacher Fan does with Art Modell).

That being said, if one of those teams can do something that benefits one of my teams, I can put aside my anger and put aside my pride. I will root for them. Maybe not PUBLICLY. But, I will root for them.

The bottom line is winning. I have a hard time believing that anyone would be okay with sitting at home during playoff time when a situation arose where a sworn enemy could help the team make the playoffs. The goal in every team sport to make postseason play, right? It certainly is. Winning matters… and if those bad guys on the other side help me out, then so be it! I am going to the playoffs, and if I win the championship, I am going to Disney World!!!

Therefore, I declare Sports Geek the winner.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Rooting For Your Archrival Debate – Rooting For Your Rival Makes Sense, Even If You Feel Dirty

September 9, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument the fans should never root their rival no matter what the circumstances.



I am an Ohio State fan (though my bias will not peak through at TSD. If it does, call me out.). As such, it is my duty – yes, I said duty – to, on the rarest of occasions, root for the despised University of Michigan Wolverines.

(Sports Geek is now on the way to the hospital to get treated for wounds suffered shortly after writing the lead. Please read on. The following is what was dictated from the hospital bed.)

There are three basic reasons why it is a fan’s duty to root for their archrival – when appropriate.

Reason #1: Conference Supremacy

Fans cannot be short sighted or closed minded. The better your conference, league, division looks – whatever your sport, whether it is at the professional or collegiate level – the better your team looks. Rarely do supreme teams emerge from easy games against lousy competition, and every fan wants their team to be a supreme team. For example, the Big East was dominated by Cincinnati in football last season. Yet, when they reached their rightfully earned BCS game they were clobbered by Virginia Tech. As a result, the perception of Big East football suffered a dramatic blow, which creates a cyclical problem for the conference. The worse the conference looks nationally, the harder it is to recruit the type of players that can reverse the perception. In short, when your favorite team is not playing your archrival, it makes sense to root that the archrival does well. The conference’s value and perception depend on it.

Reason #2: Help Your Team’s Cause!

It is the duty of fans everywhere to root for the best possible outcomes for their favorite teams. Therefore, it does not make sense to always root against a team that could potentially help your team reach their goals. Carrying the Ohio State example forward, if Michigan beating Michigan State is what the Buckeyes need to ascend to the top of the Big Ten rankings and secure another BCS bowl berth, then I root for Michigan. I root for my team to achieve the best result out of every season. If that means my team’s archrival must help us out along the way, so be it. If the New York Yankees need to beat the Texas Rangers for the Boston Red Sox to make the playoffs, a Sawwwx fan must cheer for the Yankees. There are countless examples here, but the principle is the same – if any team can help your team make the playoffs, or the championship game, or even capture a high draft pick, you have to root for that team to help.

Reason #3: Preserving the Rivalry

For a rivalry to REMAIN a rivalry – and interesting and relevant in sports as a whole (see reason #1) – both teams must remain excellent. That means the more teams Michigan whoops up on, the better it looks when Ohio State crushes them at the end of the season. Ohio State grows stronger and improves their image (and the image of the conference), when they get to the BCS, or when the conference has two BCS teams (though it ALSO helps to win those important games, fellas). Sometimes a big win over a rival is what it takes to get a team into the discussion for a championship game appearance. A victory over a highly ranked rival is extremely valuable – only if that rival is also highly ranked and has some big wins of their own over the course of the season. The better a rival is, the better the rivalry is in the present and future.

I admittedly joined the frenzy of Buckeye fans rejoicing the Appalachian State victory over Michigan a few years ago. There is something about a glum look on the face of a fan who is also wearing a maize and blue t-shirt. But, how did that one victory change the perception of the Big Ten? Michigan, formerly one of the strongest teams in the conference, was relegated to also-ran status and became an embarrassment to the conference on the first weekend of the season. The conference has not recovered from that negative perception yet (though they seem to be off to a better start this season). Fans must always root for the best interests of their teams, regardless of how awkward and against our nature it may feel.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Rooting For Your Archrival Debate – The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend!

September 9, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that there are certain times in sports when it is okay for a fan to cheer for their team’s archrival.



The worst episode of He-Man I ever watched growing up was the one where He-Man actually teamed up with Skeletor in order to defeat Sh’Gora. It was bogus, and I did not like it! Even as a child, I understood that the good guys should NEVER team up with the bad guys. When they do, the good guys only become bad guys. The same rule applies to sports!

I have three favorite NFL teams – the Cleveland Browns, and whoever is playing against the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens! That is the code of the Cleveland Browns fan.

You can imagine, based on that statement, how little I enjoyed the AFC Championship game last season, when those two teams played. It was not fun for me.

I was actually in Las Vegas for that game. Even though I was on vacation, I had to sit in my hotel room while the game was on because I just could not stand the idea of being near the sports books that were littered with Steelers and Ravens jerseys. I would rather sit alone in a hotel room on vacation than be around fans of the teams that I despise, knowing that one of their teams was about to go to the Super Bowl.

As far as wagering on the game went (I WAS in Vegas), I struggled for DAYS trying to figure out the best way to bet without betraying my Browns. I tried to think of every possible way to justify a bet one way or the other, but none seemed right in my gut. On one hand were the Ravens, owned by Cleveland Public Enemy number one, Art Modell’s family. They were the FORMER Browns who had moved to a new city where they saw success while those of us left in Cleveland had to suffer through a 4-12 season. On the other hand were the Steelers, a team that I was raised to despise before I even knew about football.

Ultimately, I decided to bet the “under” on total points scored. That way, I could bet AGAINST whichever team had the ball (and Steelers safety Troy Polamalu just HAD to run that late interception all the way back for a touchdown, which put the score over the line?! The Steelers ALREADY had the lead, there were only four minutes left in the game, and all Polamalu had to do was go down, but NOOOOOOOOO, he had to score a TD… but, I digress).

The point I am trying to make is that there is NEVER a time when I would cheer for the Steelers or the Ravens.

But what if the Browns were in a Wild Card race, and the team they were racing with was playing AGAINST the Steelers (for example)? In that case, if the Steelers win, the Browns could go to the playoffs. Would you root for the Steelers then?

Still, my answer is no. Rivals should remain as rivals. Fans identify themselves not only by the shared support of their team, but also for the shared dislike of the rival team. It becomes a source of pride for fans everywhere, knowing that you support the “good-guys” and not the “enemy.” The moment that fans of one rival begin cheering for fans of the other rival, it diminishes the value of the entire rivalry.

Personal gain is not a good enough reason to sacrifice personal sense of pride and propriety. Is it ever worth sacrificing your dignity and your pride for a small token of personal benefit? Imagine if you were walking down the street and you found a wallet with $100 in it. You could keep the money, which would be of personal benefit to you. Nobody would ever know, but you would know that you were sacrificing a little bit of your own integrity in order to keep that money. The RIGHT thing to do would be to return the wallet AND the money to its rightful owner, foregoing the “economically” gained short-term benefit.

In much the same manner, the idea of sacrificing your integrity as a fan for your local team would be sacrificed by cheering for your archrivals, the ones you claim to “hate.” The cheap, short-term gain of temporary success for the team would not be worth the long-term knowledge that you, a so-called fan, actually supported the enemy.

Could you imagine a Duke fan EVER cheering for the Tar Heels? How about seeing a Red Sox fan wearing Yankee pin-stripes, even if only for one game?

If the Browns made the playoffs, but only because the Steelers “helped” them get there, it would taint that experience. To me, it would mean that the Browns could not make it on their own, so they had to rely on assistance from their archrivals for help. It cheapens the entire experience.

TRUE fans understand that it is better to lose with dignity than to win in disgrace.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Rooting For Your Archrival Debate – Friend or Foe?

September 9, 2009

Read Sports Geek’s argument that it is okay to root for your sworn enemy and Bleacher Fan’s argument that you should never root for your sworn enemy.



Ahhhh, rivalries! It is amazing how much rivalries energize any sport. It brings out the passion for all fans! You hate them, and they hate you. There is one week a year that you do not speak to your brother, since you root for Auburn and he roots for Alabama. Perhaps you are a big Red Sox fan, but your wife is from the Bronx. Maybe you grew up in Ohio and rooted for the Buckeyes but your best friend absolutely loves the Wolverines (how you and this person became friends is beyond me.) All of these examples present challenges. These rivalries, and many others, definitely make a fan not want to shake an opponent’s hand before a game, as happened in many games this past weekend. It has nothing to do with sportsmanship, but everything to do with thoroughly not liking the guys lining up on the other side.

But sometimes, there is a dilemma.

Sometimes, fans need that team to win a game in order to reach team goals. Perhaps, as a Browns fan, you need Pittsburgh to beat the Jets in order to have the Browns qualify for the playoffs. Maybe as a Tar Heels fan, you need Duke to knock off Wake Forest in order to lock up the number one seed in the ACC Basketball Tournament. At the end of this NFL season, maybe Green Bay needs Minnesota to beat the New York Giants in order to qualify for the postseason (this could happen… check the NFL schedule.) These rivalry situations really pose legitimate dilemmas for fans. What do you do?

Entering from stage left is The Sports Debates.

Today’s question: Is it ever suitable for fans to root for their archrival?

Sports Geek will argue that it is okay for fans to root for their sworn enemy as long as it benefits their favorite team. Bleacher Fan, will argue that it is NEVER – under any circumstances – acceptable to root for a sworn enemy.

I encourage both parties to use specific examples regarding their favorite teams and their sworn enemies. We also encourage reader feedback. If you are Redskins fan, can you root for the Cowboys under any circumstance? We always love hearing from you!

In the meantime, the floor is yours Bleacher Fan. Start us off!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Should the NFL Relax the Blackout Rules Debate – The Policy Is Fair Now, and In The Future

September 9, 2009

Read the debate intro, Loyal Homer’s argument that the NFL should update their game blackout rules and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NFL should not.



It seems that some fans are convinced that the NFL is more interested in being business-friendly than fan-friendly. Certainly it is compelled to be business-friendly, and no fault is passed for that. Fans start complaining, however, when NFL teams are moving games to London, England and the commissioner of the league is talking about having a franchise there in the future. Fans are allowed to be cautious in how they view the league.

In fact, the public relations battle that people in the NFL seem to love is a constant roller coaster. Just look at San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman, currently accused of choking his girlfriend. He released three statements back-to-back-to-back to show how innocent he is. Public relations (as a discipline, not as a literal concept of relating the public) are a big part of the NFL engine. They use their resources to fight fan negativity and convince the Eskimos that buying some more ice is a good idea.

Because of that, fans of the NFL have a reason to gripe about certain issues. However, the NFL’s blackout rules do not give fans fodder for their complaint cannon (side note: how cool would it be to really have a cannon that shoots complaints?). Therefore, Bleacher Fan wins.

It is easy to, as Loyal Homer points out, highlight how it seems regular Joes – average fans – are hard working folks who are punished by their circumstances when it comes to attempts to enjoy their local team. Sports Illustrated NFL writer Peter King even goes so far as to say that Detroit’s “tragic unemployment” has earned a relaxing of the blackout standard – albeit a temporary one.

Bleacher Fan is right, though. The truth behind this blackout rule is that the NFL cares a GREAT deal about its perception (ask Mike Vick), and a fan filled stadium is the strong preference of the league and the owners. Truthfully, an empty, quiet stadium looks terrible on television. It starts to create a negative perception of a team – and by extension, the league. Sell outs are important (and dangerous to refs in Cleveland).

Bleacher Fan makes an excellent point that Cleveland is the second poorest city in America (to Detroit, the focus of Peter King’s proposal). However, the Browns still sell games out, and still fill up the stadium (having that home Steelers game near the end of the season helps, too).

Since Bleacher Fan introduced Cleveland as an example… the fans must demonstrate they care for their team or they risk losing them. The Browns still sell out in part because the fans were starved for football in Cleveland during the Browns’ absence. The Browns (named after that Paul Brown fella) are important to the history of football, and local love is vital. Cleveland fans know that if they want to enjoy the luxury and privilege of having an NFL franchise in their backyard they must support it. And so they do.

No one has a RIGHT to watch an NFL game. Additionally, fans have myriad ways to view games now, and the NFL must be even more protective of its product. The value of the NFL, even on television, starts with, as Bleacher Fan says, “butts in seats.” If fewer butts occupy those seats, more teams will move. And, I hear London is looking.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Should the NFL Relax the Blackout Rules Debate – Does the NFL Get a Bail-Out Too?!

September 8, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that the NFL should amend their blackout rules.



I am a very proud owner of season tickets for my local NFL team, the Cleveland Browns. As such, I can assure you that nobody wants to see a more “fan-friendly” league than I do. Whenever the NFL can make a change to their game that will help attract fans, I am completely in favor of it. Amending the blackout rules is NOT one of those opportunities!

Understanding the Blackout Rules

The NFL blackout rules were created for one reason – to get butts in seats. They were not put in place as some conspiracy to prevent fans from watching their local team play home games. They were ACTUALLY put in place to support the team AND the local economy by encouraging fans to travel to the game, pay for a ticket, eat a hot dog, drink a beer, then celebrate afterwards if and when your team won.

The principle behind the blackout rule is simple – the crowd AT THE GAME should be the primary focus of every team, NOT the crowd at home watching the game for free (blackout rules DO apply to the NFL Sunday Ticket on cable). If you want to be guaranteed that you can see your local NFL team play football, then BUY A TICKET AND GO TO THE GAME!

Many have claimed that the struggling economy is a reason why fans are not buying as many tickets this year. Explain to me, then, why the Cleveland Browns can still sell out their games when they reside in a city that just last year was named the second poorest city in America? If your team is failing to sell out their stadium, the problem is not because of the struggling local economy, and it is not because the NFL lacks a fan-friendly style. It is because your team CANNOT attract fans.

Failing to attract fans is not a problem unique to the Jacksonville Jaguars, who may see their entire home season blacked out this year. It is actually a problem that many businesses across many different industries experience. It is called “offering a poor product” (either in quality, or it might be a good product in the wrong market). When a company offers a poor product, regardless of the reason, the appropriate response should NOT be to change the rules to accommodate that poor product. Instead, the response should be to change (improve) the product, so that it can BETTER attract fans.

Changing the blackout rules for football will not solve the problem.

Do not Bite the Hand that Feeds You!

Who are the most important fans to the NFL? The answer to that question is the season-ticket holder. These are the fans that commit to buying a ticket to every single game of every single year.

As a season-ticket holder for the Browns, I have spent a lot of money to watch a lot of bad football recently. If the Browns ever run into a situation where they struggle to sell tickets to the game, it is my expectation that they will first work to satisfy MY requests as a paying customer. Nothing would upset me more than to know that my team was more concerned about taking measures to make their game more fan-friendly for those people who watch the game FOR FREE than making the game more fan-friendly for those fans who actually PAID for their tickets, and actually ADD VALUE to the organization!

It is spitting in the face of the team’s most LOYAL fans by taking advantage of the fact that they have already paid for their tickets.

How to REALLY Fix the Problem

From a business standpoint, if the team cannot sell tickets, the number of televised games they play is completely irrelevant. So the real question that should be addressed is – Is there a fan-friendly way to attract fans to the stadium to watch football?

If the NFL works to address the root cause of the problem, which is trying to identify why fans are not buying tickets, then they can work on a resolution that will make the game more fan-friendly for ALL of the team’s fans, not just the ones who sit at home and provide no REAL value to the team.

Here is an idea – how about lowering ticket prices?

It is obvious (at least to me) that the residents of Jacksonville do not believe that it is worth the price of a ticket today to see the Jaguars play football. If the Jaguars are unable to improve the quality of play on the field to match the ticket prices, then they should reduce the ticket prices to match the quality of play on the field.

It is an example of supply vs. demand. Teams like the Browns, or the Bills in Buffalo, can sell tickets despite a poor economy. The reason for this is because Browns and Bills have the lowest ticket prices in football. The price matches the value within the marketplace for that product. Right now, demand is low in Jacksonville for professional football. As a result, the value of the product has declined, and the cost for that product should also decline.

By lowering ticket prices, the NFL teams in these cities can acknowledge the recent economic struggles in America. They can help keep their season-ticket holders happy while at the same time making their product more attractive to new customers. In turn, the team would sell more tickets, and the games become less likely to be blacked out. That way, ALL of the fans can then benefit from a more fan-friendly experience.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The Should the NFL Relax the Blackout Rules Debate – Blackouts Hurt the Fans

September 8, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NFL’s blackout policy should remain the same.



Close your eyes and imagine this scenario three weeks from now.

It has been a really hard week at the office, located in Eden Prairie, just outside Minneapolis, Minnesota. The boss is a jerk. He told you to stay late every day during the week. He even told you to come in on Saturday, causing you to miss the first wave of college football games (now he is past the point of being a jer – who does that anyway?!). Now, after going to church on Sunday morning and eating a nice lunch with the family, you plan on getting in your recliner and watching the Vikings -49ers game on local FOX affiliate KMSP. You are really excited because Favre and Peterson had a great first two weeks of the season. Someone offered to sell you a ticket to the game earlier in the week, but with times being tough, you did not feel like you could afford to go. But that is okay, because you like watching it at home with your two boys (ages nine and six) who are reaching that age where football has become a big part of their lives. They are big Vikings fans, also. Adrian Peterson is their favorite player. Twelve o’clock local time comes and… what is this? This is not the Vikings-49ers!!! Why are they showing the Packers-Rams game? What???? You scream “I hate the Packers! Everyone in Minnesota hates the Cheeseheads! The Rams are awful!” (Hmmm, didn’t someone else say the Rams are awful?)

Welcome to the life of a NFL fan in 2009!

In case you have not heard, it appears that the NFL is going to have numerous games blacked out this year. What that means is that if the home team does not sell out its home game, the game is blacked out in the home team’s local market. There are no winners in this situation. The owners do not get the extra revenue from a sold out stadium. The TV station carrying the game suffers lower ratings. But, the real loser is the average NFL fan!

This has obviously been a tough year economically. It is going to continue to be tough. Last year, the average NFL ticket costs $72.20. How many families can afford to go to a game at those prices any year, much less this year?

Here is another question I have always had – and maybe this is because I do not live in a big television market: If I am debating going to a game, does whether or not it comes on TV play into it? Do I sit around thinking, “Hey, the Vikings game may be not be on TV Sunday so I better buy a ticket.” I cannot envision a lot of people thinking that way.

I see no harm in lifting the blackout policy. I really do not think it is going to cause a dramatic decrease in ticket sales. If you are set on going to the game, whether or not it is going to be on TV rarely ever enters the equation when deciding on whether or not to go. Also, how are the teams supposed to build their fan bases to the casual fan, or the new fan, if the games are not regularly on television locally? I bet a lot of fans, especially outside of the home market, are unaware if a game is going to be blacked out. Perhaps it is even true that most fans do not even know the blackout rules.

The NFL is arguably the most popular league in today’s sports landscape. Therefore, everyone should be able to watch their home team play on the tube, no matter what. It is an easy call! Yes they should! The long term benefits outweigh any minimal damage.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.