606 Points In A Season

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

My theory is that they're broadening the base while narrowing the foundation. They're dumbing down the game and making it more popular among non-fans, because it's cool to go to a Super Bowl party and wear official NFL-branded merchandise.

However, this approach is hurting the core of the fan base, those people who will go fill a stadium on Week 15 when the two teams are 6-8.

On its current path, I think the NFL will continue to see TV ratings rise for big games, but they'll see stagnation and then a decline in TV ratings and attendance for teams that aren't winning. The NFL-branded casual fans that the NFL is courting aren't going to care about those games, and the hardcore fans are being driven away. In the end, I think there'll be a business crisis in the NFL as a result of the marketing-driving approach that's being used right now.

You can use marketing to grow the NFL just like you can with any other business. But at the same time you have to recognize that it's a bit different than other consumer goods, and increasing short-term sales at the cost of long-term loyalty carries a price.

Three things jump out at me:

1 - Dumbing down the fan base. Exciting games "sell" tickets and make it a must see experience. I think in time, you'll see a shift back from what we have right now. Nothing that goes back to the 70s/80s, but they're overly sensitive to the injury concerns (concussions, lawsuits, etc) and while safety is a big part of it (right or wrong), it's making more games more fun to watch by a broader fan base... again, I don't think that's dumbing it down though.

2- Core fan base ... honestly, how many teams will sell out or reach a near sell out with two 6-8 teams battling it out for nothing in week 15? You're going to have your diehards that show up, win or lose. If you want to blame weak attendance on something, look at ticket prices, etc - not the rules changes.

3 - Decline in ratings ... see #2 above. Few people want to watch crappy teams play on TV. There are so many things competing for our attention and long gone are the days of just sitting around all weekend and watching whatever games are on TV. There's just too much to do now and you can catch the highlights and recaps online any time after those crappy games are over.

If anything, the rules changes that favor offense makes games between the Browns and Jags late in the season worth watching.

I agree that it's a bit watered down when you view it from a defensive perspective, but big stadiums, suites, crazy contracts... there are big bills to pay and they'll squeeze the fans out of every nickle we want to give them.

You can't just say on a whim "I think I'll take my family to a game in a couple of weeks". You might get tickets, but you're going to pay a ton of money when it's all said and done for a family of 4 to experience an NFL game.

That is what the league has as a major issue... that is why nobody wants to go watch the Jags suffer through a game.

[Rain Man]

Nice response. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, so it's good to get feedback.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Three things jump out at me:

1 - Dumbing down the fan base. Exciting games "sell" tickets and make it a must see experience. I think in time, you'll see a shift back from what we have right now. Nothing that goes back to the 70s/80s, but they're overly sensitive to the injury concerns (concussions, lawsuits, etc) and while safety is a big part of it (right or wrong), it's making more games more fun to watch by a broader fan base... again, I don't think that's dumbing it down though.

I hope we see a bit of a swing back. I like passing as much as anyone, but there has to be some defense involved instead of just pitch and catch. But pitch and catch is what excites the casual fan, so there's no argument from a marketing perspective to swing the pendulum back. 400 yards is good and 500 yards is great, so next year let's be at 550.

I think the best chance is an injury analysis. More passing may be producing more concussions and more knee injuries, because it produces higher-speed collisions. That'll take a few years to play out, though.

The only other argument is for the balance of the game, but I don't think that's an issue for the NFL. They did a show on "The Forward Pass" on NFL Network a couple of months ago, and I was struck when one of the people said, "We may be on the verge of seeing an NFL game where a team doesn't run the ball at all." I think the NFL doesn't mind that.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

2- Core fan base ... honestly, how many teams will sell out or reach a near sell out with two 6-8 teams battling it out for nothing in week 15? You're going to have your diehards that show up, win or lose. If you want to blame weak attendance on something, look at ticket prices, etc - not the rules changes.

Yeah, I probably misstated the "full stadium" part. But my point is that you can count on the diehards if they like the sport, even if their team stinks. However, if you change the game to the point where the sport is less enjoyable, you're going to lose some of them. And every one of them is important in those B- and C-grade games.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

3 - Decline in ratings ... see #2 above. Few people want to watch crappy teams play on TV. There are so many things competing for our attention and long gone are the days of just sitting around all weekend and watching whatever games are on TV. There's just too much to do now and you can catch the highlights and recaps online any time after those crappy games are over.

The TV ratings thing is interesting. If the casual fans just watch the highlights and recaps, then they don't need to watch the games and likely have little interest in watching the games. Therefore, ad revenues decline and the big TV deals decline. Maybe they can make it up by ad revenues on the incredibly annoying nfl.com site, but in the big scheme of things, it seems like a bad thing for the sport if fewer and fewer people watch the games.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

If anything, the rules changes that favor offense makes games between the Browns and Jags late in the season worth watching.

I agree that it's a bit watered down when you view it from a defensive perspective, but big stadiums, suites, crazy contracts... there are big bills to pay and they'll squeeze the fans out of every nickle we want to give them.

You can't just say on a whim "I think I'll take my family to a game in a couple of weeks". You might get tickets, but you're going to pay a ton of money when it's all said and done for a family of 4 to experience an NFL game.

That is what the league has as a major issue... that is why nobody wants to go watch the Jags suffer through a game.

Ticket prices is another big challenge they face. When most people have a high-definition big-screen TV that's indoors, it's harder to get people to buy tickets. And it's worse when those tickets are triple-digit costs. Technology alone may take the crowd out of the game in the long-term, and that dilutes the user experience. I think that's different than marketing issues, but I sure think it poses a problem for all professional sports in the long run.

Do we have a future end game scenario where tickets aren't even sold, and all events happen in a studio setting? Or will stadiums get smaller? How relevant are game-day crowds in the financial models now? And how important is the game-day experience in building a bond with a team that will inspire franchise loyalty? It's hard to imagine that live crowds will ever go away, but I do think we've passed the zenith of live attendance at professional sports.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The only other argument is for the balance of the game, but I don't think that's an issue for the NFL. They did a show on "The Forward Pass" on NFL Network a couple of months ago, and I was struck when one of the people said, "We may be on the verge of seeing an NFL game where a team doesn't run the ball at all." I think the NFL doesn't mind that.

I don't know if you've followed any of the analysis on run-pass balance on Advanced NFL Stats, but it very interesting. For many teams, running the ball is a wasted down.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/sear...ax-results=100

(links within the articles are worth tracking down too).

The article on historical analysis of run-pass balance was particularly good.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...-analysis.html

Especially this passage:

To me, this suggests defenses have largely remained unchanged, despite the focus on pass rushing beginning with players like Lawrence Taylor. Defenses appear to stubbornly focus on the run, making certain that they keep running efficiency under control. But this focus comes at the expense of passing efficiency. Defenses are happy to let passing efficiency 'be what it will be' in their pursuit of stopping the run.

Defenses may not have a choice. Perhaps once running efficiency gets much over 4 YPC, stopping an offense becomes extremely difficult. With 3 tries to get 10 yards, perhaps 4 YPC is a magic number that the basic rules of football dictate. It could be that run defense is simply inelastic. The way modern defensive schemes are constructed, defenses are unable to shift toward stopping passes more effectively. Whatever the reason, defenses appear either unable or unwilling to adapt.

If it the above conjecture about run defense inelasticity is accurate, rule changes would be the only way to restore run-pass balance to the game.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I don't know if you've followed any of the analysis on run-pass balance on Advanced NFL Stats, but it very interesting...

I haven't read that, but it's on my list. It sounds quite interesting.