The St. Louis Rams finished the 2009 NFL season with the worst record. As consolation for that performance they were guaranteed the first pick in the NFL draft. Likewise, the Washington Nationals had baseball’s worst record last season, and now the corresponding first pick in the 2010 draft.
The NBA, though, does things a little differently. This season the New Jersey Nets earned basketball’s worst record, losing 70 of 82 games. They were not, however, granted the first pick in the upcoming draft. Instead they were granted the most OPPORTUNITIES in a lottery for the first pick in the NBA draft.
The NBA draft is structured to give every team that missed out on the playoffs at least a CHANCE at the first overall selection by using a lottery format. Weighted by their standings, teams with worse records are given a proportionally greater number of lottery chances. As fate would have it, the Nets would lose out once again, as two teams were pulled in the lottery BEFORE them, leaving the third draft pick to the Nets.
Through the NBA draft lottery, more teams (that ALSO need a great deal of help) have a shot at the first selection in the draft, but that comes at the possible expense of the “worst” teams – who may not have access to the “best” players coming out of the draft.
Which brings us to our question of the day: Is it really fair to use a lottery format to decide the order of the NBA draft?
Babe Ruthless will argue that the lottery does bring fairness with it, while Loyal Homer will argue against the current format.
Now, if we can just come up with a way for ME to win the lottery…
Read Sports Geek’s argument that the NFL should allow players to ‘sell’ their touchdown celebrations as advertisement opportunities, and Loyal Homer’s argument that guerilla advertising such as sponsored touchdown celebrations should not be permitted.
“He’s at the 20-yard line… the ten… the five… TOUCHDOWN! And here comes the Energizer Bunny Dance!”
Football may be a game, but the NFL is a business. Between sponsorship opportunities, the sale of team merchandise, advertising revenues, and the sale of tickets and concessions, the NFL is constantly on the lookout for ways to make a buck. In support of its players, the league has also been very generous in allowing them the private opportunity to use their name, image and likeness for personal gain. From Gatorade to Sony Televisions, it is easy find the face of NFL players in many different magazine and television ads, all in the interest of selling more products.
One line that the NFL seems reluctant to cross, though, is the allowance of corporate sponsorship during the actual play of the game.
One example is the NFL’s policy regarding corporate sponsorship of team jerseys. It is true that there are a several teams in the league who have sponsored patches on their uniforms, but those sponsorships are limited strictly to use on the practice field during training camps. The NFL does not yet seem willing to follow the lead of organizations such as NASCAR in allowing corporate sponsorships to permeate the action on the field.
The fact remains that the profitability and exposure of the NFL has made it a very appealing avenue for marketing. Corporations are always on the lookout for ways to capitalize on the game, and will often look to exploit new opportunities that take advantage of the league’s reach and marketing influence. The latest chapter in this marketing tug-of-war began during the recent game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Dallas Cowboys during an end zone celebration.
Brent Celek, tight end for the Philadelphia Eagles, caught a touchdown pass during the third quarter of the Sunday Night matchup. After catching the pass, Celek positioned himself in front of a nearby camera, and struck the “Captain Morgan” pose. It was later confirmed that Celek was participating in a promotional scheme for Captain Morgan Rum, which had reportedly pledged to make a donation to the Gridiron Greats charity (an organization designed around supporting retired NFL players) every time a player struck the same pose after a touchdown.
The NFL immediately bristled at this marketing tactic, labeling it as guerilla advertising, and banned players from participating in future stunts. With that in mind, the question posed at The Sports Debates today is: Is it good or bad for the NFL allow corporate sponsorship and celebrity endorsement of end-zone celebrations?
End zone celebrations have been going on for a long time. From the Lambeau Leap and the Ickey Shuffle to Deion Sanders’ touchdown dance, players have made a spectacle of the post-touchdown celebration. Some, such as Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco may take it a bit too far at times, but fans are always on the lookout for what celebration may unfold after a touchdown is scored.
In addition, the NFL already permits some in-game sponsorships, so long as they are transparent and do not draw focus away from the game itself. As mentioned by Josh Alper of Fanhouse.com, Adrian Peterson receives sponsorship money from Nike every time he touches the ball in a Nike uniform during the game.
Loyal Homer will argue that it is not a good idea for endorsements to become intermingled with the play of the game, while Sports Geek will argue that it is a wise decision for the NFL to allow this type of advertising during games.
The marriage of in-game sponsorships and end-zone celebrations seems a sure-fire way to generate sales through “touchdown marketing.” But, is it good for football, and for the NFL?
The NFL regular season is 16 games in length. For the NBA and the NHL, each team will play 82 games. Even the MLS season stops after 30 games. Will someone please explain to me, then, why Major League Baseball feels the need to play 162 games in a single season?! I am not saying I disagree with the length of the baseball season, but I do want to understand it.
Teams in Major League Baseball play ten times as many games as the NFL, and twice as many as in hockey or basketball. They will literally play the length of an entire NBA season, then take three days off for their All-Star “Break” only to start the entire process all over again.
In some instances, such as when you consider the American League Central Division of 2009, a schedule of that length makes perfect sense. At the close of the season’s first half, the Detroit Tigers led the division by 3.5 games over the Chicago White Sox. The Minnesota Twins were actually in third place in the division, trailing Detroit by four full games. After the second half of the season, however, things looked a little different. The White Sox had fallen completely out of contention, and the Tigers made a historic collapse allowing the Twins to climb from third in the division all the way up to claim the division crown. In fact, 162 games was not even enough to settle the AL Central, as it actually took a 163rd game – and even THAT game went into extra innings – before the champion was crowned!
Had the season ended just ONE game sooner, it would have been the Tigers who faced the New York Yankees in the ALDS instead of the Twins.
On the other hand, was it REALLY necessary to play 162 games in order to prove that the best teams in baseball this year were the Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, Los Angeles Angels, Philadelphia Phillies, St. Louis Cardinals, and Boston Red Sox? Were 162 games required to show that the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles were the worst teams in baseball, or that the Cleveland Indians had NO shot of competing for the postseason?
Of the 30 teams in the Major League, 16 trailed their division leader by AT LEAST ten games (that is more than half of the league) at the close of the season. Twelve of those teams trailed by more than 16 games (the full length of the NFL season), ten of whom actually trailed by at least 20 games (that is a full one-third of the league)!
The purpose of MLB’s regular season is to determine which teams should go on to the playoffs. For some teams, that determination is made a long time before game 162 is played. For others, though, every inning of every game counts, with each being a potential difference-maker in deciding playoff fate.
Fortunately, we have the expertise of the writers at TSD to call upon these tough times. Maybe they can help shed some light on the situation…
Is a 162-game season appropriate for Major League Baseball, or is the season too long?
Sports Geek will argue that the season is the appropriate length and Loyal Homer will take the position that the season is too long.
I just hope it does not take 162 debates to determine a winner!
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
