The Firing Jeff Fisher Debate Verdict

February 8, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Optimist Prime.

Just when we thought the annual NFL coaching carousel was finished, the Tennessee Titans threw us all for a loop when the organization announced the sudden departure of long time head coach Jeff Fisher. I’ve always been someone who has been in Jeff Fisher’s corner. He comes across as a hard nosed guy, having served under the likes of Mike Ditka and Buddy Ryan – two hard nosed guys themselves. He also comes across as a nice guy, which, judging by the full-page ad he placed in the Nashville Tennesean, he apparently is. But, enough of that emotional stuff. Save that for Valentine’s Day next Monday. Did the guy deserve to get the heave ho?

We can all agree that the timing of this move was dreadful… even Al Davis made a move before the Titans did. What Jeff Fisher did in between the end of the regular season in early January and his dismissal in late January to cause his ouster is beyond me. Nonetheless, we’ll be seeing him on a T.V. network in all likelihood this fall, provided there is a season.

Sports Geek felt that Fisher went wrong by giving owner Bud Adams too much say so. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mr. Adams, feel free to take a peek at this clip… makes me laugh every time!) Adams is the guy who essentially gave the keys to the car to Vince Young. Unfortunately, it was Jeff Fisher’s car before Young got there. Fisher and Steve McNair nearly won a Super Bowl in that car, and that caused friction right off the bat between the two. Fisher lost his authority and therefore was possibly undermined in the locker room.

Optimist Prime places a lot of the blame on the organization’s handling of the Vince Young saga. Adams continuously said that Young was his guy, and his persistence lead to a lot of uncertainty regarding Fisher’s future. The firing also brings an uncertain future as it has been a long time since a guy not named Jeff Fisher has been roaming the sidelines in Nashville. Besides, as Prime points out, the Titans did post double digit wins in 2007 and 2008.

Here’s where I decided to go with this verdict. Optimist Prime states in his argument that, “… the whole Young/Fisher saga makes me wonder what kind of organizational leadership the Titans have these days.” Hmm… isn’t Jeff Fisher part of that organizational leadership? He is the head coach after all. It is ultimately his responsibility to get those 53 guys ready to play for 16 games every season.

Unfortunately, something had to give. Adams has decided to move on from both Young AND Fisher, and it’s the right move. Besides, for all the hoopla surrounding Fisher, look at his overall record as a head coach. It’s not like we’re talking about Vince Lombardi. He’s 146-120, made it to ONE Super Bowl (and lost), made it to the post-season six times in 17 seasons, and hasn’t won a playoff game since 2003! Someone besides fantasy football owners need to take advantage of having Chris Johnson on a team.

Maybe Tennessee takes a step back this year with new coach Mike Munchak. But perhaps he will also provide some stability. This year, at least, you really could see Fisher lost that team, and it was obvious a change was necessary.

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


The Firing Jeff Fisher Debate

February 7, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Optimist Prime.

Perhaps somewhat lost amongst all the Super Bowl build up and hoopla was the departure of Jeff Fisher from the Tennessee Titans. We were long led to believe that either quarterback Vince Young or Fisher had to leave Music City, and when it was announced that the Titans were moving on from the Young era, it was widely assumed that Fisher had won the tug of war inside Titans camp. Young and Fisher had never seemed to be on the same page, but now they are, because that page is headed out of town. The change at the top has left the Titans organization scrambling to find a suitable replacement for Fisher.

The news of Fisher’s departure was definitely surprising considering the timing. Obviously, it got the staff here at The Sports Debates wondering if the move was a mistake. Should Tennessee have fired Jeff Fisher?

Sports Geek feels that the Titans made the correct move by moving on from the Jeff Fisher era while Optimist Prime feels like the Titans made a mistake by parting ways with such a long tenured and well respected coach.

In the words of last night’s Super Bowl halftime entertainment performers Black Eyed Peas, ”Let’s get it started in here.”

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


The Firing Jeff Fisher Debate… A Captain-less Ship

February 7, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

Many football fans were surprised by the Tennessee Titans’ sudden dismissal of head coach Jeff Fisher. His dismissal came after the generally accepted “silly season” of coaching staff turnover and led many to question not only the timing of the decision, but the thinking behind the decision as well. I was definitely one of those people, and I’ve happily accepted my assignment to throw a few more logs on that fire. I do not believe the Titans should have fired Jeff Fisher.

I accept the Titans definitely do not fall into the category of being one of those teams that grew impatient with a coach and jettisoned him too early. Fisher was the coach of the Titans for 17 years, so it’s definitely hard to make the argument that the organization just didn’t give him enough time. Beyond that, what made the decision even stranger was the obvious affinity that the Titans organization has for Fisher. If you see any of the media availabilities surrounding his firing, all involved (even Fisher himself) seemed to act exactly the opposite of the way you would expect surrounding a firing.

That all throws the firing into question, I believe. There are two arguments that the Titans should have hung onto Fisher. First, I think it’s very difficult to make an argument that the Titans were slipping into oblivion as a football team. While the 2010 season record was a disappointing 6-10, two of the previous three seasons saw the Titans register double digit wins. Based on those statistics (and Fisher’s over .500 winning percentage as a head coach), it’s very difficult to say the team and the organization was headed in a negative direction.

The second argument for why the Titans should not have fired Fisher rests on the organization’s handling of the Vince Young soap opera during the 2010 season. There were many conflicting statements from ownership and organizational leadership regarding how the Titans were going to handle Vince Young after his antics began to affect the team. That all came to a head in a game on November 21 when Young apparently threw his shoulder pads into the stands and stormed out on his team after telling off Fisher. Bud Adams, the 88-year-old Titans owner, made statements after that saying the team intended to hang onto Vince Young, seemingly leaving Fisher dangling in the wind. It seemed obvious to outside observers that Fisher and Young would not be able to co-exist. The organization continued to contend that both would stay. However, there were soon very loud whispers that the Titans were attempting to trade Vince Young, and those loud whispers were eventually followed by the Titans’ surprising announcement that Jeff Fisher had been fired.

That whole Young/Fisher saga makes me wonder what kind of organizational leadership the Titans have these days. Given their aged owner and somewhat schizophrenic public statements, don’t you think they would have benefitted from having a steady hand on the tiller during this time of change? They’ll obviously have a changeover at quarterback, and the team’s public statements do not give fans a sense that a steady hand is on the tiller anywhere in the organization. The organization should not have escorted their one symbol of stability out the door.

However, this situation will end up benefitting Fisher in the end. He’ll be long gone when the Titans struggle through a change at quarterback and coaching staff upheaval, with his well-regarded reputation intact. Do I think this was a positive move for Jeff Fisher’s career? I do. However, it was one of the worst things the Tennessee Titans could have done this off-season.

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


The Firing Jeff Fisher Debate… Hire Slow and Fire Fast

February 7, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Getting fired sucks. There is just no way around that. But, getting fired after 16 years on the job? That sting has to feel worse, like when you bang a knee playing football outside in 20-degree weather. That is the kind of sting that stays with a person for a while. That is what Jeff Fisher is likely still experience after he was fired by Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams.

Granted, the timing was terrible. But as the old, tried and true business axiom goes – hire slow and fire fast. Once a team realizes a coach is not the right coach for the team – regardless of the reasons – leadership should act quickly and fire the head coach. The Tennessee Titans acted prudently in their firing of Jeff Fisher, setting the team, and the entire organization, on a much better path for success. Even though it may be difficult to see that right now.

It is unfortunate that the seeming majority of upper echelon coaching candidates were off the market by the time Fisher was let go. But if Fisher wasn’t the right coach for the long term, his firing was unavoidable – no matter what other potential coaching candidates were available.

There are some organizations in sports where owners have far too much influence. In fact, they meddle. Fisher was willing to put up with Titans’ owner Bud Adams and his opinions about personnel. But Fisher erred early in his relationship with Adams by allowing the owner too wield much influence. That early mistake opened the door for the beginning of the end for Fisher, and drafting Vince Young sped up the inevitable.

Vince Young’s bad attitude and ability to receive and miraculously maintain an advocate in Bud Adams prevented Fisher achieving the success he enjoyed early in his head coaching career. But that situation was Fisher’s fault.

Fisher failed because he was unable to oust Young after Young churned through three of his offensive coordinators – including the very well respected Norm Chow. Regardless of how much affection Bud Adams has – or had – for Vince Young, Fisher should have not given into Adams. Adams is not a head football coach, and Fisher should have played the coaching card. It was clear to Fisher early on that Young was not the right quarterback for his style of team. Instead of just standing up for his beliefs and style, he relented to keep his job. It’s hard for a coward to lead a football team.

Without an advocate for a head coach, the team began to take on the persona of its supposed star player, Vince Young. Young’s flighty, unreliable approach to the game infected the rest of the players. The players – it was clear- were given far more power and influence than they should have received. Fisher failed to maintain his hold on authority for his team. They were desperate for a leader able to unite the team, and Fisher could not longer do that. When a leader fails to lead in a business, that leader must be replaced. And Fisher has now rightly been replaced.

Fisher was a good coach at one point. He led a team to within the nose of the football of defeating the vaunted Best Show on Turf in the 2000 Super Bowl. But over time Jeff Fisher allowed his influence and respect to be undermined. He failed to live by his core values, and it is very hard to lead when that is the case. He had to be replaced, though he was once considered one of the game’s best coaches – and probably will be again.

Bud Adams should have fired Jeff Fisher. But in doing so he must also take time and address other issues that are plaguing his organization. The Titans needs a leader who is able to unify the locker room. If the Titans expect to have a fighting chance when they return to the gridiron (whenever that will be), Bud Adams needs to reflect seriously on the management style of his next coach. Hire slow, and fire fast. The timing stinks, but Adams must now take his time and architect a winning organization from the ground up.

But, one thing is clear – Jeff Fisher was not the coach to lead the team anymore. Once that decision is made, it’s best to cut ties. Fisher’s firing was justified.

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


The Greatest NFL Franchise Debate Verdict

February 4, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

It’s Super Bowl Friday. I hope you all have big plans for Super Bowl Sunday, and good luck with winning your Super Bowl pools!

I knew what I was getting myself into when I signed myself up for this debate. One of our debaters totally despises the Steelers and their legion of fans, so I knew there was a possibility of me irritating one of my distinguished colleagues with my verdict. But, my mission – which I chose to accept – was to decide if the Pittsburgh Steelers were indeed the greatest franchise in the NFL.

Bleacher Fan stated much of the Steelers success has come since the Super Bowl was created. In fact, the six Lombardi trophies won by the Steelers were won in two separate dominant stretches in the 1970s and the 2000s. The fact that the Steelers didn’t win any championships in the first 44 years of the league was a new fact presented to me.

Babe Ruthless, on the other hand, relies on the easy argument of Super Bowl championships. Winning truly is everything, right Babe?

In addition to everything that was stated in these two arguments, I think other factors come into play. If it’s not the Steelers, then who is it? Bleacher Fan stated that the Green Bay Packers had 12 overall championships since the formation of the NFL in 1922, but nine of those were in the pre-Super Bowl era. The bridge from Lombardi to Favre truly was frozen as the Packers were merely an afterthought, with only two playoff appearances between 1967-1993. The Dallas Cowboys? The Chicago Bears?

The Steelers franchise cannot be a topic in a debate without mentioning the Rooney family, the family that owns the Steelers. The fact that the team has only has had only three coaches (Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher, and Mike Tomlin) in the past 41 years speaks volumes about the stability of the franchise, even more so in this day of free agency and lack of patience.

I just fail to see where there is a better franchise in the NFL than the Steelers. That doesn’t mean that I always root for them, by any stretch. And I don’t totally disregard history, in this instance, pre-Super Bowl history. But, when looking back at a team’s legacy, I do think it’s legacy is LARGELY – though not totally – defined by Super Bowl championships because that truly is the general measuring stick. In fact, I’m putting more stock in six Super Bowl championships than anything that happened before the creation of the greatest championship spectacle known to mankind. Despite, Bleacher Fan’s impressive statistical breakdown of pre-Super Bowl data, I was not convinced that another team deserved the honor of being called the greatest franchise in NFL history. Therefore, I am awarding the victory to Babe Ruthless.

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


The Greatest NFL Franchise Debate

February 3, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

All indications are that we are going to be treated to an entertaining Super Bowl on Sunday night. Putting aside all the pomp and circumstance that comes with Super Bowl media day (which Bleacher Fan loves, by the way) and all the build up to kickoff, we should see a good game featuring two of the sport’s most distinguished franchises, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers. Both teams have national followings, and I, for one, will be looking forward to seeing the overnight ratings on Monday.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are arguably the greatest franchise in NFL history. And, whenever a sports conversation involves the word “arguably,” this is the forum to ARGUE it. That’s what we’ll do today with the following question: As it stands right now (not taking into account what happens on Sunday night), are the Steelers the greatest franchise in the history of the NFL?

Babe Ruthless will argue that, despite the presence of other great franchises in the league, the Steelers are in fact the greatest NFL franchise. Bleacher Fan, who is a known Steeler basher, will never admit (on or off the record) that the Steelers are the greatest franchise in NFL history. But, he must also convince the judge, as well.

The winner will not receive a Lombardi Trophy, but the loser could very well be slapped in the face with a terrible towel!

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


The Greatest NFL Franchise Debate… Yinz Got a Long Way To Go

February 3, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

We have heard all the numbers.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have won six Super Bowls, and could win their seventh on Sunday. The franchise has also tied the Dallas Cowboys for the most Super Bowl appearances (eight) and playoff victories (33) in NFL history.

If the award for being the greatest franchise in league history was given for Super Bowl success, then the Steelers would win the title hands down.

That, however, is not the case.

Perhaps an argument can be made that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the greatest franchise of the Super Bowl era (and even that is based only on the quantity of Super Bowls won). But for a league like the NFL, whose rich history and tradition extends FAR beyond just the league’s current championship game, the assumption that the Super Bowl is the only standard by which franchise greatness can be determined is completely absurd.

Furthermore, making the statement that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the greatest franchise in NFL history, because they have the most Super Bowl success is like saying that Florida is the greatest college football program because it has won the most BCS national championships.

Break down and assess the qualities of the Pittsburgh Steelers that are lauded as justification for the title of “Greatest Franchise in NFL History.” Analysis shows that the Steelers are actually lacking in both quality AND quantity.

We Got Six. How Many Yinz Got?
Ask anyone in Pittsburgh why they think the Steelers are the greatest franchise in NFL history, and that is the response that you will get. Of course, they are referring to their unprecedented six Super Bowl championships (with a possible seventh on the way).

When you consider the fact that there are still five franchises that have never won a single Super Bowl – let alone six Super Bowls – I cannot deny the impressive stature of that claim.

But let’s add the perspective of history to that claim, and see where it REALLY stacks up.

Professional Football in America began in 1920, with the official formation of the NFL coming two years later in 1922. Since then, there have been 88 different NFL championships awarded, only 44 of which were titled Super Bowls.

That means the Super Bowl era only accounts for HALF of the league’s ACTUAL history. So what about the OTHER half?

During that 44 year stretch, the Pittsburgh Steelers won exactly ZERO championships, while teams like the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, and Cleveland Browns owned the gridiron.

In fact, when you look at the total number of professional football championships won, the Steelers six titles ranks them as FIFTH on the list, behind the Green Bay Packers (12), Chicago Bears (nine), Cleveland Browns (eight), and New York Giants (seven). That means that, with a win on Sunday against the Green Bay Packers, the “alleged” greatest Franchise in NFL history will climb to the lofty peak of being tied with the New York Giants for only the FOURTH most championships in history.

Conveniently Ignoring History
While the Pittsburgh Steelers have been among the most dominant franchises of the second half of the league’s 88 year history, the team’s first-half performance was ABYSMAL. But the “Yinzers” seem to have forgotten about THOSE years.

For the first 37 years of the franchise’s history the Pittsburgh Steelers played to a combined record of 168-270-18. That’s a HORRIBLE winning percentage of just .368. During that same period the Steelers recorded only five seasons with a winning record (that means 32 losing seasons), and only one post-season appearance, a 1947 blowout at the hands of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Then came Chuck Noll and the Steelers’ Dynasty of the 1970s, when the franchise earned four Super Bowl Championships between 1974 and 1979.

Again, the 1970s marked a very impressive run, and the accomplishment cannot be ignored. But when you consider that five year stretch in the context that the league had already crowned 52 OTHER NFL champions before it happened, the accomplishment loses some if its significance historically.

Similarly, the present-day Steelers organization has essentially dominated the league for a period of five years, from 2005–2010.

Therefore, in the 88 year history of the NFL, the Steelers have been dominant for two five-year stretches. THAT’S IT!

The VAST MAJORITY of the Steelers’ 77 year history was spent in pathetic futility.

Other Historical Comparisons
The Pittsburgh Steelers may be tied with the Dallas Cowboys for the most post-season victories in NFL history, but again, many of those victories came at a time in the league when more post-season games were played each season. Using the 2005 Super Bowl championship as an example, that year alone accounted for FOUR different post-season victories.

In terms of historical context, getting four post-season victories in one year is not nearly as impressive as getting a playoff victory in four consecutive years. The team that can consistently sustain post-season success over an extended period of time is by far the greater franchise.

  • The Pittsburgh Steelers, in a 77 year history, have reached the post-season 26 times. By comparison, the Dallas Cowboys have reached the post-season 30 times in a history that spans only 50 years. That’s more appearances by the Cowboys in fewer seasons, and simple math will tell you that the Steelers reach the playoffs only 34 percent of the time, while the Cowboys have done it 60 percent of the time.
  • As for total franchise victories, the Steelers are once again fifth on the list with 541 total victories, behind the Washington Redskins (547), the New York Giants (636), the Green Bay Packers (664), and the Chicago Bears (704).
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers boast a franchise win percentage of .520, ranking them 14th out of 32 active franchises.
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers have had a total of 19 Hall of Famers. Compare that to the Chicago Bears (26), or the Green Bay Packers (21).

Keeping Things in Perspective
No matter which way you slice it, the Pittsburgh Steelers fall WELL SHORT of historical superiority. The franchise does not have the most championships, the most Hall of Famers, the most wins, or the best win percentage. And, for the first FOUR DECADES of existence, the Steelers were the bottom-feeders of professional football.

They are a team that was founded before World War II, but not until the mid-1970s did they have ANY success. The only REAL success came in two very different five-year periods that have book-ended the last 40 years.

Yes, the Steelers may have won the most championships in the NFL over the last 44 years, but do they deserve the title of Greatest Franchise in NFL History?

Not by a Cleveland Mile!

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


The Greatest NFL Franchise Debate… Steel Strong, Forever

February 3, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

It has been a while since I have unveiled one of these to the world. Brace yourself, as I am about to share Babe Ruthless’ Universal Truth #2:“The only measure of greatness is championships!”

Given the fact that the Pittsburgh Steelers have won more Super Bowl championships than any other NFL franchise, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Steelers are unquestionably the greatest franchise in the history of the NFL.

Look, I don’t like this news any more than the next non-Steeler fan, but it is a fact. Sure, Ben Roethlisberger is about as reputable right now as a Lindsey Lohan and Charlie Sheen love child, but his team has a knack for winning the big game. Since he entered the league in 2004, he and his teammates have won two Super Bowls and will work to add a third in six years on Sunday.

When the two Super Bowl victories are added to the franchise’s four others from the mid-late 1970s, it becomes clear that the Steelers have a legacy of dominance. However, the Steelers do not simply have a legacy of winning the championship game often, rather they have won more times than any other franchise in the history of the NFL.

This is incalculably important, as championships literally mean EVERYTHING in sports. They are the reason that sports have seasons. Without a championship to declare, sports seasons would merely be a worthless series of exhibition play, a perpetual pre-season. And what is the point in that?

Championships determine who is the greatest between a group of competitors. To determine who is the greatest of all time, one simply needs to establish which competitor has won the most cumulative championships, and in the NFL that team is clearly the Pittsburgh Steelers.

I am sure there are some readers that would take issue with my insistence that the only measurement of ultimate success is winning a championship, and they might be asking themselves, “But aren’t there other meaningful indicators of greatness?” I say, “No! No there aren’t.”

That’s why I won’t even recognize an accomplishment unless it comes with a championship trophy. So take that Jonas Salk, you may have “cured polio,” but that doesn’t exactly compare with my 2008 rec league slow pitch softball championship, now does it?

Anything less than a championship victory is a loss. That has nearly always been the mantra of the New York Yankees, and it has worked well. The Yankees have accumulated 27 World Series championships – the most in MLB – which also makes them the greatest franchise in baseball. Trying to explain away failure to bring home a championship with some sort of justification is an unacceptable excuse.

Sure there are other ways that individuals can attempt to make a case for the greatness aside from championships, but they are flawed. Any statistic that measures an individual’s performance – such as a record or an individual accolade – is invalid because it reflects an aspect of performance of subjective worth. Passing touchdowns mean nothing to teams focused on the run. Being the defensive player of the year means nothing if it does not translate to wins.

Still others might point to stats like the total number of franchise wins or hall of famers, both of which would favor the Chicago Bears. The first statistic is not valid because regular season games are nothing more than a qualifier for the playoffs. They are especially meaningless as of late as we watch teams clinch a playoff berth, and then take resting players at the expense of the victory in the hopes of getting rested for the playoffs. It is a statistic that simply does not hold up.

The second statistic is merely a comparison of the individual, and not the team as a whole. For instance, a decent defensive player’s production on a team with an awful offense is sure to see a boost in stats simply because they are on the field more often, as was the case when Jason Taylor won the defensive player of the year a few years back. In general, individual player and team stats have no bearing on the greatness of a given team as they are a subjective category that may not have any bearing on the overall successfulness of a team.

There simply is no substitute for winning, and it really only matters in the playoffs. The Steelers have done that more than any other team, so like it or not they are the best until someone hoists more Lombardi Trophies in the air than dominant black and gold.

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


The Shorten NASCAR Races Debate Verdict

February 2, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

It is very easy to dismiss the notion that a sport should be able to exist outside of any third party influences. If this were an ideal world where were played inside a vacuum, where the playing field is always equal, and where life doesn’t constantly interrupt with the its relentless imperfections, then this debate would be an open and shut case.

But, life is complicated. And, as a reflection of life, sports are complicated as well. Thank goodness! That is what keeps us all so entertained, so tuned in for all 365 days on the calendar.

This debate was, in theory, simple. Prove or disprove that NASCAR – and by extension all major sports – should not change format or rules at the behest of influences outside of a sport’s governing body or representative participants.

Interestingly, Optimist Prime is dead wrong about the core of this debate. It is about whether NASCAR should bow to outside interests to change its sport. I think it’s clear that races should be shorter.

Both arguments made it clear that NASCAR needs to shorten races. No argument from me – that is not even debatable. Look at the most popular racing in the world, Formula One. Races are 2-2.5 hours. They NEVER extend beyond 2.5 hours. It’s easy for TV, for sponsors, for fans – for everyone involved.

With NASCAR, rain, and weather in general, are no small influence on the races. If it rains late in the second hour of a race, the race – and its coverage – will be extended indefinitely until the race is over. OR, the conclusion of the race will be postponed a day or two and rescheduled. That’s good for fans. The fact is, FOX (or any network, for that matter) doesn’t want that to extend its entire schedule into its primetime lineup, so it behooves the network to pressure for shorter races.

Okay, shorter races it is. But should NASCAR bow to outside influences?

Starting with Optimist Prime, I must admit that I am rightly skeptical of the notion that FOX is choosing to listen to fans more than sponsors. That simply is only half the story. Fans do dictate ratings, but FOX is likely full up with diminishing ratings as races go longer and longer. Fans speak, and sponsors react. Optimist Prime IS correct, however, in implying that any counter reaction from NASCAR is inherently a reaction to both fan and sponsor.

Optimist Prime makes a good point about the nature of NASCAR races, and how tuning cars in-race does not appeal to the vast majority of the audience. There is SO much broadcast time to fill in a race, however, that car tuning gets a healthy dose of coverage. Frankly, FOX doesn’t even do a good enough job of covering tweaks in race with their sideline crew. The strategy of NASCAR probably isn’t as appealing as it would be to, say, Formula One fans. Therefore it makes sense to shorten races to force the cars into more of a REAL sprint mode – a style that would have broad appeal.

Fans speak through TV ratings and attendance, which inherently impact sponsorship and advertising revenue. It makes sense for that to influence the sport, then.

But, fans are an outside interest. The sponsors and businesses the fans’ action influence is also outside interests. Both have earned a voice in shaping the sport.

Ironically, after misdiagnosing the true meaning of this debate, Optimist Prime still does an excellent job of proving that fans and sponsors should be allowed to change a sports, which is enough to win my vote for debate winner.

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


The Shorten NASCAR Races Debate

February 1, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. NASCAR can now be considered an official sport now that outside interests – include one of its broadcast partners – is now trying to influence the actual sport and how it is conducted.

Fox Sports Chairman David Hill publically said that NASCAR races are too long. Yep, that’s the guy that controls which sports are shown on his network, and the millions – sometimes billions – of dollars that are shelled out for broadcast rights. To him, less is more.

But this debate is not about whether or not Hill is correct (I mean, is there much argument AGAINST races being shorter?). No, this debate is about whether Hill’s opinion should carry any weight.

For today’s arguers, should sponsors and/or broadcasters be determining the length of the races?

Loyal Homer will argue that NASCAR – and NASCAR alone – should influence and render final decisions about how the sport is run and governed. Optimist Prime, on the other hand, believes that outside opinions can improve a sport and should not be arbitrarily dismissed.

Who is right? Read the arguments and you decide. See if you can influence my verdict tomorrow.

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.