The Morals in Sports Debate… Do the ‘RIGHT’ Thing and Enforce Morals

April 23, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

Does it seem that every time you turn on the TV these days, there is some type of moral issue going on in the world of sports? It sure does to us at TSD, which is one of the main reasons why we decided to have this debate. The debate centered on whether or not leagues should have a stricter moral conduct policy, if they even have one to begin with.

Bleacher Fan’s argument, aptly titled ‘Men Behaving Badly‘, focused on the wide variety of immorally wrong episodes that have taken place in recent memory. The three main points highlighted in the argument revolve around the fact that a) sports is a business, b) the athletes have a social responsibility to be role models, and c) that there is a matter of protection, and yes, you can interpret that last phrase however you so desire.

Babe Ruthless, on the other hand, admittedly had a tough argument to make. Nevertheless, some good points were raised and credit is owed to the Babe for that. While hardly anyone condones the scandalous activities done by today’s athletes, it is definitely important to note that these guys are human. As Babe pointed out, we must understand that while we may not have done some of the same things as today’s athletes, we have all done something we would not want the public to know about. And no, I’m not talking about the time when Sports Geek cheated off someone’s paper in his third grade spelling class.

Ultimately, this debate is quite simple – It is a matter of right versus wrong. As Bleacher Fan indicated, these players represent the team they play for. Tiger Woods is not an employee of the PGA Tour, but he is a representative of it. He is known as a golfer by the majority of us first and foremost, not as a spokesman for Nike (for example). It is the player’s responsibility to behave in a respectful manner because that image essentially is tied to the image of the respective league.

Obviously, athletes are entitled to live their lives as they see fit, but they must deal with the consequences, whatever they may be. The rest of us would have to deal with those same consequences if our actions were considered “immoral”. If you or I had been involved in the same type of situation that Ben Roethlisberger found himself in, how would our bosses look at it? Ask yourself that question and it will lead you to my verdict.

Every sports league needs to have some type of code of conduct to let their “employees” know that these types of shenanigans will not be tolerated.

Bleacher Fan is awarded the victory.

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


The Morals in Sports Debate

April 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

Morality is not just an issue in marriages and in real life. It has also become an issue in sports, and unfortunately it has been at the forefront of late.

Unless you’ve been under a rock the past six weeks you know the trouble that Ben Roethlisberger has had recently, so I won’t waste any of your time recounting that story. Though no charges were filed against him for his alleged shenanigans in Milledgeville, Georgia, the damage had been done to his already shaky image. It was not proven that Big Ben did anything wrong, but the NFL and Roger Goodell decided that he violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy, and as of yesterday was suspended for six games.

This, however, is not a debate on whether or not Roethlisberger deserved to be suspended.

This is instead a debate on morality and whether leagues should have some type of moral code in their respective by-laws, whatever that may be. Just look back at the past few years and you will see all types of behavior that is damaging to both the image of both the player and that particular league.

Like Roethlisberger’s highly publicized situation, we also know all about the incidents involving Tiger Woods and his mistresses. After a staged reading of a statement, two arranged interviews, and a press conference at Augusta, Tiger was back on the course to the delight of many and the agitation of many others. Unlike Big Ben’s situation, though, no type of punishment or public reprimand was handed down by the PGA Tour.

Or flash back to the summer of 2003 (has it really been seven years since this happened?). Kobe Bryant was arrested for sexual assault and though the charges were later dropped the damage had been done, both to his marriage (which was eventually repaired) and to his image (which arguably has been repaired also). But again, he received no type of suspension or public reprimand from the league office.

All of that leads to the focus of today’s debate, which is centered on moral conduct policies in sports. Some leagues, like the NFL, may already have personal conduct policies, but it is questionable how much they are enforced. The question for today’s debate is – Should leagues take a stronger stance on moral issues by defining and enforcing a moral conduct policy?

Babe Ruthless will argue that players are grown men and that they can behave however they want as long as it is not proven that any laws have been broken. Bleacher Fan will argue that the players have a responsibility to behave, and that the league should enforce some type of moral conduct policy for its players

Your behavior in this debate will be monitored and I hold the right to enforce The Sports Debates’ moral conduct policy!

My ZimbioBlog DirectorySport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favoritesDigg!
Bookmark and Share


The Morals in Sports Debate… Men Behaving Badly

April 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Here we sit, on the heels of yet another star athlete scandal.

Between Dog fighting, sex parties on boats, domestic violence, rape charges, drugs, drinking and driving, infidelity, and fighting in bars (just to name a few), I find myself thoroughly repulsed by the misdeeds of the athletic elite within our society today. And if the disturbing frequency with which new reports and allegations are released serves as any indication of what is really going on in the private lives of these people, then I am both saddened and alarmed.

Far too often, athletes have made poor decisions (that usually victimize another human being) and it is time that somebody took a SERIOUS stance against this deplorable behavior. A strong, clear, and consistent message must be communicated.

The Business of Sports

The “business” of professional sports is one of image. In a world where visibility and exposure is king, millions of dollars can hang in the balance. If an athlete wants to make millions on the field, they must portray success. If they want to make even more money in endorsements, they must appeal to the public. Simply put – Image is EVERYTHING!

Every business in America, including professional sports organizations, strives to portray an image of being a positive “corporate citizen.” There are plenty of “good guys” in sports today, like Phil Mickelson, who spend much of their time and money in philanthropic endeavors. Those deeds are publicized because they look good for everyone involved – The charity benefits from exposure, the athlete benefits from positive press, and the league benefits through the support of these good deeds.

While those organizations prosper from the radiating glow of being associated with an act of good PR at the hands of one of their representatives, they must avoid the radiating stench of bad press. The last thing that any organization wants to do is to condone or ignore inappropriate and illegal behavior.

The need for POSITIVE corporate citizenship is magnified in the world of sports, though, because of the added social responsibility that athletes have as role models to the public.

Social Responsibility

I don’t care that Charles Barkley uttered his famous line – “I am not a role model.” It is not up to him to decide. The very real fact in today’s society is that athletes ARE viewed as role models, whether they SHOULD be or not. Thanks to marketing campaigns from corporations such as Nike, Gatorade, and Gillette, society is led to believe that they can (and should) aspire to live the same lives as athletes.

And who can blame the youth of America for falling prey to this marketing strategy? After all, what part of life as a superstar athlete does NOT appeal to you? You can date super models, make millions of dollars, be adored by tens of thousands, and possibly be immortalized as a legend, all for playing a game that many would pay to play.

Clearly, people in America (and around the world) aspire to be like these athletes. Most athletes fell in love with a sport because they themselves idolized an athlete during their younger days. Whether it was watching Magic on the court, Montana on the field, or Nicklaus on the links, every single one of them had the same thought… “Someday, I’m gonna be like HIM!”

Fans idolize athletes – it is as simple as that.

A Matter of Protection

Unfortunately, many athletes today do not possess qualities that would make them WORTHY of being a Role Model. As pointed out by ESPN.com writer Tim Keown, there are just some people (like Roethlisberger) who don’t deserve life on the pedestal. Because we don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing the Role Models of society, though, there must be some other way to help protect us all from social rejects who have no regard for anyone other than themselves.

Society must be protected from idiots with too much money and ego, but too little common sense. The leagues must be protected from being associated with these dregs of society, and must take measures to protect their investment into the development of these athletes. And realistically, these players must be protected from themselves, before they do serious and irreparable harm to themselves and others.

This is where a strictly defined and enforced Moral Conduct Policy comes into play.

Keep in mind that I am not proposing that we strip athletes of their freedoms as if they were already criminals. I understand that they are grown adults who deserve the right to act freely. However, because much of their own livelihoods (and the success of the greater organizations that they represent) is based solely upon image, the various sports organizations should take the steps necessary to formally identify those actions that are viewed as being detrimental, and should impose severe penalties in discouragement of those actions.

For example:

Good – Going out to a bar with a couple friends for a celebration

Bad – Going out to a bar with a loaded gun in your pocket while sexually forcing yourself on an unwilling person

This SHOULD be common sense, but that is clearly missing in some people. Because many of these athletes have PROVEN incapability for governing their own behavior, someone must govern it for them. There is far too much at stake today, both from a social and a financial standpoint, for this type of self-destructive behavior to be permitted unchecked. By defining specific actions as appropriate or inappropriate, the officials within each league can establish a platform by which they can correct this disturbing trend.

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


The Morals in Sports Debate… Sympathy For The Infamous

April 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

 

Ben Roethlisberger has opened Pandora’s Box and he doesn’t even know it. No, I am not referring to the NFL quarterback attending the grand opening of a seedy strip club in a drunken blackout state. I am referring to the fact that Roethlisberger’s conduct has sparked a huge controversy that is larger than one might imagine. The allegations against Big Ben are so deplorable that he is being discussed in the same category as Pacman Jones and Michael Vick. In fact, the public backlash against the Steelers’ QB has actually drawn some of the attention off of Tiger Woods, which is saying a lot here lately. The controversy over Roethlisberger’s behavior has prompted many to question whether sports leagues should attempt to crackdown on player misconduct in their personal lives by enforcing moral regulations. This may come as a shock to those who know me, as I am generally seen as a person of high moral character, but I actually do not support this stance that leagues should be involved in regulating the morality of players’ off-field behaviors.

I want to make it clear that in no way do I support the infamous actions of players like Ben Roethlisberger, Tiger Woods, or Pacman Jones. I find the behavior that these stars are accused of reprehensible and hugely irresponsible. I do, however, think that they have a right to a personal life. I take issue with the notion that somehow fans, sports media, and league officials are in a position to pass judgment on stars for actions in their personal lives. Whatever happened to the philosophy of “judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves.” Some of you may be saying “Listen Babe Ruthless, I never did any of the stuff those guys did,” and perhaps you are right. But I am willing to bet there is some mistake in your personal life, large or small, that you would not want plastered on the cover of the tabloids, discussed over the airwaves, and streaming across the bottom line of ESPN. The only reason the public is aware or even cares about these players’ behavior is because they are famous. If Tiger Woods wasn’t Tiger Woods the golfer, but Eldrick Woods the certified public accountant, would you really care that he cheated on his wife? I am guessing not, and I do not think there are many people out there that would feel comfortable with the level of exposure that professional athletes’ personal lives endure.

Similarly, I doubt many people would want their compensation tied to their personal conduct like professional athletes. When professional athletes do something stupid in their private lives they may be fined, suspended, and/or lose sponsors, but when the average person makes a bad personal decision the consequences do not necessarily carry a financial impact. That is a double standard, my friends, and while I do not support their immoral behavior, I think athletes get the short end of the stick on this one. When the average person cheats on their wife the consequences may include losing one’s house, half their possessions, alimony, or child support, but they usually do not get suspended from work or lose their job because of it. Tiger Woods’ extramarital affairs caused him to lose millions in endorsement deals because of his highly publicized personal indiscretions. Athletes’ lives are scrutinized enough without their every action having to pass before a moral police that wields power over their playing time and wallets.

Athletes have every right to be act like jerks. It is practically constitutional. Citizens are entitled to lives free of excessive government entanglement, and their rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Freedoms are granted to the good and bad, the moral and immoral just the same. So long as an athlete’s behavior is neither illegal nor in violation of a league rule, then they should be free to engage in that action regardless of whether it is popular or “moral”. Attempting to micromanage someone’s legal personal behavior is not reasonable for a sports league to attempt, and it is certainly not in keeping with the principles of our democratic government. If we allow the NFL, NBA, and MLB to decide what’s right and wrong, moral or immoral, where does it end? Will they one day get to fine players for not showing hustle? Will they be empowered to dock players for not displaying enough heart? That is a slippery slope that I do not want to see sports go down.

In the end, if off-field conduct is not illegal or directly impacting a player’s on-field performance then it should not be regulated. One day people like Big Ben, and everyone for that matter, will have to answer to The Man Upstairs, and I don’t mean Roger Goodell. Until that time, let’s leave the judgment to the Big Guy because He is qualified and we are not. 

 

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


The 2010 Biggest Early MLB Surprise Debate… Just Call the Game, Joe!

April 21, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

I am a seamhead. I don’t just like baseball, I LOVE baseball. So, as a baseball fan, why in the world would a long game bother me?

Are you ready for an interesting role reversal? The biggest surprise of the 2010 MLB season to this point is an umpire actually calling out some teams. And, the umpire was calling out two great teams for something that should be of no consequence to baseball fans – long games.

For those unfamiliar with this situation, a situation which I believe is the most surprising thus far in the short MLB season, here is a quick refresher. Umpire Joe West – who is as experienced as he is rotund – called a Boston Red Sox-New York Yankees game behind the plate early in the season. The two offenses each employ the same strategy of stepping out of the batter’s box to disrupt the rhythm of the opposing pitcher. They both foul a great many pitches off in order to extend at bats and see everything a pitcher has to throw at them. West called the length of the game, “a disgrace to baseball.” That is an exact quote. Perhaps if West has something better to do, he should just retire from baseball.

It is true that games are lengthy. It is true that, unless Mark Buehrle is pitching, the games are pretty much a lock for over three hours. But it is also true – especially for the teams in question – that the better teams are the ones extending the games. Good teams have good hitters. Good hitters work a pitcher and a count to ensure they see a lot of pitches and have professional at bats that end by getting on base… or touching all of them. Good strategy means disrupting a talented pitcher’s rhythm and sense of timing. The great hitters and teams do this, with no regard for the feelings or comfort of an opinionated umpire.

Plus, Joe West even acknowledged that the Yankees and the Red Sox are two of the best teams in baseball. It is impossible to recognize that reality in one breath, then dismiss their strategy as a negative on the game with the next. The two are related, and Joe West is foolish for painting it as a negative.

Exactly how long are games? Let’s review some recent history. Sports Illustrated’s Joe Posnanski did some helpful research that will shed some further light on our natural assumptions that MLB games, at a minimum, exceed three hours.

According to the research the average game in the American League East division lasts 3:06. That is the longest of any division, which comes as no surprise since the five slowest playing teams in the entire AL reside in that division. The Yankees lead the bunch with an average playing time of 3:16, and the Red Sox are second with 3:12.

The Yankees and Red Sox also boasted the slowest average length of time in games they played against each other last season, at 3:39. There is no doubt that they play the longest games.

But baseball is not a sport for the impatient. Every pitch, every swing, every grounder, is extremely important to the story of the game. We have the luxury of watching professionals make routine plays out of athletically challenging defense and opposite field hits off of biting curveballs. The two best teams employing the best strategy the game has to offer should not diminished, but publically appreciated – regardless of how annoying you may find the teams in question.

What is really dumb about all of this is that why does the length of a baseball game matter so much? To maintain the interest of the casual fan. Casual sports fans are like dead money in a poker tournament. You invite them because their money is green and they put a warm body in a seat, but you don’t really want to chat them up because you know you won’t have much to talk about. I don’t make this statement to be glib or mean. In fact I am a long-time advocate of the casual sports fan. They cheer loudly too, and their presence is a valuable one.

What I do not condone, however, is modifying the rules of a sport to accommodate the casual fan. Sure, they are valuable, but they should not dictate the rules of the game. They should not carry influence because they are not the ones who will be attending the games when the weather turns, or the after the team is 30 games out on June 1. Changing the rules to speed the game up to accommodate a vocal but ultimately insignificant fan base is a major mistake. Joe West should know that. So, why stir the pot?<br.

While the research is interesting, though unsurprising, it is clear that Joe West is not crazy. The Yankees and the Red Sox do play long games, and they probably feel even longer if you’re calling balls and strikes behind the plate. The problem is no one should care. Game length doesn’t matter because the two best teams with the same proven strategy are duking it out. How is that a bad, disgraceful thing?

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


The 2010 Biggest Early MLB Surprise Debate… Is Moneyball Making A Comeback?

April 21, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Babe Ruthless.

Hopefully, on Monday, you gave a quick look to our debate on which general manager was on the hottest seat. If you missed it, here it is. I ended up writing an argument that New York Mets general manager, Omar Minaya, was on the hot seat. Yet, I gave full consideration to Oakland general manager Billy Beane. And I had good reason to, based on recent history. Since winning the division title in 2006, Oakland has won 76, 75, and 75 games in the past three seasons. That’s not exactly headed in the right direction. In conversations with friends, I have been critical of some of the moves made by Beane. But a quick look at the standings in the AL West shows the Oakland Athletics – that’s right, the Oakland Athletics – in first place.

Through Monday’s action, Oakland was 9-5 and led the American League West by 2.5 games. Three teams in the West had gotten some consideration as a contender for the division title. The Los Angeles of Anaheim, Texas Rangers, and Seattle Mariners all got a little bit of Spring Training hype. Oakland was nowhere to be found. Yet, here they are in first place.

A quick look at the offensive statistics for Oakland shows nothing at all. There’s a guy named C. Pennington, and let me give you a hint – Chad Pennington hasn’t traded in his dead arm for a spot on the A’s twenty-five man roster. It is actually Cliff Pennington, and he leads the team in home runs with a whopping two. Former star Eric Chavez has had yet another horrible start to the season. What has carried this team to the top of the division at this point is the starting pitching.

Through Monday’s action all five starting pitchers (Justin Duchscherer, Ben Sheets, Brett Anderson, Dallas Braden, and Gio Gonzalez) have an ERA under 3.50. How many of those starters have you heard of? One? Two? The team ERA of 2.90 is good enough for first in the American League. For me, the key is Sheets. Be honest with me! How many of you scratched your heads when Beane signed the injury-prone pitcher to a $10M contract? I sure did! This guy won the same amount of games last season as you and I, as he sat out the year due to elbow surgery. That immediately puts up a GIGANTIC red flag. But what do we know? It’s early, but in three starts so far this season he has an ERA under three.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t believe the A’s will win the West. They welcomed the Yankees to town last night, and I just don’t see how this team can compete with such a pitiful offense. But so far, the A’s have to be considered the biggest surprise in baseball.

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


The 2010 Biggest Early MLB Surprise Debate… Red Sox Nation On Life Support

April 21, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The biggest surprise in baseball so far is in Beantown with the struggles of the Boston Red Sox. The floundering team is 5-9 on the season at this writing. As of Wednesday morning, only two teams in all of baseball have worse records – the Houston Astros (4-9) and the Baltimore Orioles (2-13). The Sox seem to be absolutely falling apart at the seams (pun intended). Normally an implosion of this magnitude by my favorite team’s greatest nemesis would thrill my soul, but strangely it does not. The Red Sox poor play actually saddens me, and leaves me with an empty feeling. Boston’s floundering robs the rivalry of competition and cheapens victories.

While last season’s long awaited World Series victory was rewarding for me, it would have been that much sweeter had the Yanks had the opportunity to beat the Red Sox in the ALCS. The Red Sox have always had the crutch of the AL Wild Card to fall back on to make it into the postseason, using it five of the last seven years, but if the current situation holds, the Tampa Bay Rays and New York Yankees will assert dominance on the division and the rest of the league, leaving Boston out of the picture. Where is the sport in that!?

It reminds me of a favorite movie from my youth – Hook. In this film, a grown up version of Peter Pan (played by Robin Williams) returns to Neverland, where he is captured and brought before Captain Hook (played by Dustin Hoffman). Captain Hook has waited his whole life to exact revenge on the boy who took his hand, but what he finds is a shell of the warrior he once knew. Older, fatter, and unable to fly or fight Peter is a disgrace to the Captain Hook. He has stolen the Captain’s ability to prove he’s the best. That is the position that the Red Sox are putting the Yankees in right now.

Nothing seems to be going right for the Boston Red Sox right now. As MLB.com writer Tom Singer explains it, “Boston’s new emphasis on pitching, speed, and defense certainly hasn’t worked out.”

It is true that the Red Sox have been hit with injuries and health setbacks to key players in Jacoby Ellsbury and Mike Cameron, but in all probability, with the poor outing by pitchers and lack of power in the lineup, the Red Sox would still be losing many of their games. So far Boston has lost six successive games at Fenway Park and the club is experiencing the worst start since the mid 1990s. What is going on?

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


The NFL Draft Format Change Debate… A Little Change Can Go a Long Way

April 21, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

What an interesting debate this was! It makes me wish I had an extra night to sleep on things before making my verdict…

Because I don’t have that extra night, though, I am forced to make do with the information as best as I can. The winner of this debate is Sports Geek.

Loyal Homer presented some very strong points, specifically with regard to the challenges of airing the first round of the Draft on a Thursday night. Despite Sports Geek’s insistence that this will be top draw on television’s top night, I am not quite as optimistic. Pardon the stereotype, but wives and girlfriends who may be willing to tolerate a little weekend couch potatoing will be much more reluctant to relinquish the remote on a Thursday evening that is loaded with garbage like Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice (or as Mrs. Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek call it – “The best night on television”) just so their significant others can find out who the Ravens will take with the 25th pick in the draft.

As Loyal Homer accurately discusses, the five-hour marathon that is the first round of the NFL Draft will be too much of an endeavor for many casual fans to commit to on a school night.

Something that Sports Geek DID get correct, though, is the assessment that the Draft is not broadcast for the casual fan. It is broadcast so that the football obsessed Super-Fans out there like me, Sports Geek, Loyal Homer, Babe Ruthless, and YOU can get our quick spring-time fix while we wait for OTAs and Training Camps to open back up.

That, however, was not the determining factor in Sports Geek’s winning argument. The game-winner for this debate was the contested point of whether or not the teams themselves will benefit from this new format change.

Loyal Homer intimated that the teams would not benefit from the extra time they now have between rounds one and two, a point that Sports Geek (and I) wholeheartedly disagree with. When teams are in the heat of competition (and yes, the Draft is just another form of competition), they can lose perspective. Under the pressure of a ticking clock and amidst the swirling drama of blockbuster trades and last-minute surprises, it can be easy to lose focus or to drift off course. Half-time adjustments, time outs, and long, slow walks to the mound all exist to serve one purpose – to take a step back, recompose yourself, assess the situation, and adjust accordingly. This break in between rounds one and two of the draft will serve exactly the same purpose.

Teams that previously had to scramble and rush in a flurry of phone calls and deal-making can now take a full evening to absorb the chaos of the first round, and can re-tool their draft strategy in light of the newly changed circumstances. This new format creates an opportunity for additional analysis, and could incite even more excitement in the “value” rounds, through the newfound opportunity for ongoing negotiations throughout the night.

This change will add excitement and depth to the Draft, and will add a new dimension to the chess game that is played every April among the 32 teams of the NFL. I am looking forward to this Thursday evening, when I get my first opportunity to see the newest twist in Draft strategy play out (only during commercials on “Grey’s”, of course)!

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


The New NFL Draft Format Debate

April 20, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

The 2010 NFL Draft will take place later this week at the Radio City Music Hall in New York City. This year, however, it will feature a format change.

Previously, rounds one, two and three were all held on a single day, with the remaining four rounds playing out the following day. For 2010, the NFL has decided to instead host its first round as a lone, premier event, adding a third day to the league’s draft process. Now, the top 32 picks will be made on Thursday evening, with rounds two and three taking place on Friday, and the final rounds playing out on Saturday.

This new schedule of events begs the question – Is the format change a good thing for the NFL?

To break down the NFL’s decision, Sports Geek will argue his opinion that the change was right for the league, while Loyal Homer will contest that the previous format was ideal.

The debaters are now on the clock.

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


The New NFL Draft Format Debate… Too Much of a Good Thing IS a Good Thing

April 20, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

The NFL Draft is not exactly a made for TV event. At least, it wasn’t until ESPN approached then-commissioner Pete Rozelle 31 years ago with an idea. “Broadcast the NFL Draft and people will watch it,” or something like that, was probably the conversation’s opening line. No matter how the conversation started, it ended with Rozelle agreeing to make the NFL more accessible by broadcasting the draft, a decision that helped transform the league into an unstoppable force in American sports culture. The draft is so popular now with football fans that any change in the format runs the risk of being received negatively. Nevertheless, the league and its primary draft broadcasting partner, ESPN, have teamed up to change the format and approach to the NFL draft. And the draft will actually now be better that it ever was before.

To start, let’s just dispel the notion that the draft did not need to change. Of COURSE it needed to change. The world is changing in how people consume media. You can get draft information and content from virtually every sports-related Web site on the interwebs now (including, obviously, this one). ESPN is in competition with those media outlets that wish to compete with them in their distribution of information about the draft. The only logical thing to do is evolve the medium they control in order to retain eyeballs where they – and their sponsors – want them. Changing the NFL draft to a three day long event captivates fans for a longer period of time, in addition to dealing with the modern realities of media consumption.

It is true that overexposure is sometimes a death knell to once popular events. This new draft format, however, is not overexposure. It is an improved product, especially for Sports Geek’s like me.

First, consider that Thursday nights in America are the one night every week where the most people are watching television. What better place for the first night of the draft, especially considering it features its most universally popular off-season content. The most popular sport in the country welcomes players from another sport among the country’s most popular, college football. Casual and diehard fans alike find this first night of the NFL draft quite appealing. For ESPN, and the NFL, to have an entire night devoted solely to the first round sets up for an intense and dramatic evening and creates a new level of achievement in sports… provided that NFL rookie was a first-day draftee. Now, being a “first-day draft pick” carries a certain caché – and income level. It’s up the players what they make of the new sought-after moniker.

As rounds two and three are drafted on Friday night – the rounds often full of the most valuable draft picks, where talent and financial investment are most properly aligned – some of the casual fans fall by the wayside, but the interest from the diehards picks up substantially. In fact, the second round is viewed by some to be just another first round now that the format is changed. Patriots coach Bill Belichick has publically stated his belief that the extra time will afford each front office more time to research players who are still available, evaluate where competitors sit in draft position, and determine if they wish to move up in the second round or trade down to collect picks. Hmm, sounds a lot like how the first round of the draft is treated.

Belichick continued, “In the past, you kind of rolled into that round. Now, to actually stop and have the whole night to sit there and think about it and talk to other teams and develop a new strategy. Everybody does that on the second day; now we have three days. It’s a different dynamic.”

The man knows what he is talking about, having built several Super Bowl championship teams. The idea that teams get extra time to evaluable talent and competitive position means teams gain more control over the draft, and are able to better execute a strategy. As a fan, I love this idea because it appears to give my favorite team a chance to get better. I am in favor of any draft modifications that give my team the opportunity to get better.

If the second round is similar to the first in its approach because of the extra study time, then the fourth round – which drafts on Saturday, along with the remaining rounds in the draft – can be leveraged by teams in much the same way. Teams may have to spend additional time on their respective drafts boards and scouting, but now if a player gets drafted, the decision will have been more carefully considered when teams have another night to sleep on a decision. Overall, this greatly improves each team’s ability to build a winner.

Fans also get additional intrigue and excitement. No longer is the first day of the draft the most anticipated. All of the analysis can be hashed out after the first round, then new needs are uncovered and new strategies hatched. It is as much about football as political and business maneuvering.

Getting drafted as a player means something more than it used to now. Sure drafted players get a contract and longer look than a free agent does, but imagine being a round five draftee this year. Teams will be positioning themselves to get the players they believe have fallen through the cracks of the previous rounds. Every decision is more carefully weighed, so every pick is put through a new, more intense ringer than ever before.

Fans can now not only better judge their team’s decisions and trust that better decisions will be made, they will also get more time to learn about their team’s newest players. The media will have more time to give background stories and information on these new players, to provide scouting reports and discuss a player’s fit within a particular scheme. It is a free country, so fans that are bored by that do not have to watch. But for those that are intrigued, it is a big win.

Fans win, teams win, and players win. Seems like if those three stakeholders are winners, the league is, too.

The new format is good if you’re a Sports Geek like me, a passion-filled loudmouth like Bleacher Fan, a success-at-all-costs fan like Babe Ruthless… and even a heavily biased Loyal Homer, my opponent in this fine debate. Plus, the NFL takes up more airspace in a down time for the league, sells more ad space on the league-owned cable channel, and fills up its own network with more content than it has ever had before. If there was ever a sports-related win-win (win-win-win), the NFL’s new draft format is just that. For fans, organizations, and the league alike.

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.