2013 College Football Ratings Wrap-Up

Obviously I’m several months late with this, but here are the ratings and viewership for all 347 FBS football games on a Nielsen-rated national network for the 2013 season (note that CBS Sports Network is not rated by Nielsen). Sports Media Watch has a list ordered by week; this list is ordered by number of viewers, with the number in gray interpolated. Bowl games are separated out into a separate list. All times Eastern.

Ratings and viewership for broadcast networks from SportsBusiness Daily and Sports Media Watch, for cable networks from Son of the Bronx. 18-49 ratings, when available, from TVbytheNumbers and The Futon Critic.

Read more

CBS Releases Announcer Pairings for the 2014 NFL Season

The retirements of Dan Dierdorf and Marv Albert from NFL coverage, and the move of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms to covering Thursday Night Football, have forced a shakeup of the announcer teams for CBS’ NFL coverage for the coming season.

Nantz and Simms and the team of Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts are the only teams that remain intact from last year. As previously reported, Eagle and Fouts will move to the broadcast team and will call CBS’ top game on weeks when Nantz and Simms do not.

Greg Gumbel will drop to the team and work with Trent Green, who directly replaces Dierdorf, while the remaining teams will consist of Kevin Harlan and Rich Gannon, Spero Dedes and Solomon Wilcots, and a three-man booth of Andrew Catalon, Steve Beuerlein, and Steve Tasker. Previously, Gannon worked with Albert, Harlan worked with Wilcots, Tasker worked with Bill Macatee, and Dedes worked with Beuerlein. Late in the season when an eighth team became necessary, Catalon worked some games with Adam Archuleta.

A seventh team has not been defined, but Brian Anderson and Tom McCarthy will work play-by-play during the season, alongside analysts Archuleta and Chris Simms, Phil’s son. Anderson is another in a line of Turner Sports talent to cross over and work for CBS since the alliance between the two entities for the NCAA Tournament; Albert also started working NFL games after the alliance started, and Harlan has long juggled NBA coverage for Turner with NFL duties for CBS. McCarthy is the Philadelphia Phillies’ play-by-play announcer and has called NFL games for Westwood One.

It is not clear why Macatee is no longer calling NFL games for CBS, but he does have numerous other duties for the network.

CBS will also bring sideline reporters back to its broadcasts full-time. Tracy Wolfson will move from SEC duties, where she will be replaced by Allie Laforce, to working NFL games alongside Nantz and Simms, and Jenny Dell and Evan Washburn will also work the sidelines for CBS.

Report: Ian Eagle, Dan Fouts to be Promoted to #2 Broadcast Team for NFL on CBS

“The Bird and the Beard” are moving up in the world. Sports Illustrated‘s Richard Deitsch reports that CBS will name Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts its broadcast team for the upcoming NFL season.

Eagle and Fouts had received widespread acclaim over the past few seasons as CBS’ team from both the media and fans. CBS’ previous team consisted of Greg Gumbel and Dan Dierdorf; Dierdorf retired from broadcasting after this past season. Deitsch reports that Gumbel and Trent Green are expected to be the new team. The full NFL on CBS announcing lineup will be released later this week.

The broadcast team is a big step up from the team; when their network has the doubleheader, they will usually call the most prominent of the early games, leaving the big late game for the top team, and Eagle and Fouts will now call a divisional-round game for CBS in years when CBS has two divisional games. (Starting this season, NBC will have one divisional game, with CBS and Fox alternating between one and two games.) The spot is even more plum at CBS this year, as Eagle and Fouts will now call the top game of the singleheader, as the top team of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms focus on their new Thursday Night Football duties.

The Nexus of Television and Sports in Transition, Part II: College Sports’ Faustian Bargain: A Case Study in ESPN’s Influence

No one could have imagined just how much the NCAA v. Board of Regents decision would end up changing college football. The colleges who brought the suit simply wanted more control over the television contract, and for most of the 80s the CFA didn’t offer much that was different from what the NCAA had been offering. But ESPN began offering more and more games to a nationwide audience, and in 1991 Notre Dame broke from the CFA and signed a contract to air its games nationally on NBC. The SEC and Big East followed suit in breaking from the CFA in 1995, and the floodgates opened. College football was no longer a regional phenomenon played out on Saturdays throughout the fall; now it was a national sport played nonstop for three months.

Before 1984, the national championship was a sideshow, something that people paid attention to and debated over but that was of secondary importance to people’s regional rivalries and conferences. Every year the AP and coaches’ polls were taken at the end of the season and whoever got the most votes was declared the national champion. It was an extra crown to wear at the end of the season on top of the prizes that really mattered, winning your conference or at least winning your rivalries and going to a bowl game. Now people could follow the best teams and conferences all season long, and the sport’s basically nonexistent national championship, in a sports landscape littered with playoffs and certain championship games, became unacceptable. After co-champions were crowned in 1990 and 1991, the conferences that housed the CFA schools (the Big Ten and Pac-10 had separate contracts) plus Notre Dame formed the Bowl Coalition to attempt to force a “national championship game” between the top two teams in the nation. This was superceded by the Bowl Alliance in 1995 and finally by the Bowl Championship Series in 1998 following the CFA’s demise. The BCS managed to get the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl on board, putting decades of the Rose Bowl pitting Big 10 and Pac-10 champions against one another at risk (or throwing it out entirely every fourth year, at least at first), but meaning for once it could claim to really and truly be the true national championship of college football.

Except it wasn’t. Despite many tweaks to the formula over the years, the BCS only focused attention on just how much college football wasn’t set up to crown a true national champion. Controversy over the national champion – and if not that the championship game matchup, and if not that the teams in the other BCS bowls – appeared nearly every year of the BCS’ existence, and beyond that teams from the so-called “mid-major” conferences were utterly precluded from playing for the national championship. Their ability to play at the level of the major conferences had long been in doubt, but a series of high-profile wins over major-conference teams on the occasions they did make BCS bowls made more people wonder whether they – or at least, the Mountain West’s Utah, TCU, and BYU, and the WAC’s Boise State – really did deserve to play for national championships. Calls for a true playoff mounted over the years, and eventually the commissioners relented, instituting the new six-bowl, four-team College Football Playoff system to begin next year.

ESPN also created proliferation in the bowl system in general. There were only eleven bowl games in 1975, sixteen in 1983, and nineteen as late as 1994 (and eighteen for the next two years); for perspective, there were 107 teams in Division I-A in 1994, and any team with a winning record was eligible for a bowl, so you would expect 53-54 teams to be eligible for 38 invitations, most of them going to members of the power conferences. By 2000 there were 25 bowls; luckily Division I-A had grown to 116 teams as schools sought the vast amounts of television money pouring into college football’s top division, so there were 58 teams to fill the 50 spots. In 2002 three new bowls were added, bringing the total to 28, but only one team had joined I-A, so the 58-59 teams now had to fill 56 spots – in other words, you were nearly guaranteed a bowl if you finished with a winning record.

Then the NCAA decided to add a twelfth game to FBS teams’ schedules and allow 6-6 teams to go to bowl games, meaning the way was clear for more than half of teams in FBS to go to bowl games; four games started up in 2006 alone, opening 64 bowl spots for the 119-team FBS. As of the 2013-14 season there were 35 bowl games – only two of which are not on an ESPN platform – and a further flurry of teams entering the FBS ranks has expanded their number to 124, with five more to come. Naturally, although the new CFP will remove the BCS Championship Game from the slate of bowl games, there are already four games lined up to take its place, with several more looking to join their ranks.


ESPN and NCAA v. Board of Regents also shattered tradition and stability in the very makeup and identity of conferences. In 1984, no major college conference had more than ten teams, and most of them had most of their lineups remaining the same for decades. But in the 1980s, many members of the Southwest Conference, made up mostly of Texas schools, were hit with NCAA sanctions, including SMU’s infamous “death penalty” in 1987. In 1992, Arkansas left the SWC for the SEC, which had found a loophole in the NCAA bylaws that would allow it to split into two divisions and hold a conference championship game if it had 12 members, and so added then-independent South Carolina as well to hit the 12-team mark. That inspired Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor – half of the SWC’s then-membership – to join with the members of the Big Eight conference, including Oklahoma and Nebraska, to form the Big 12 conference, complete with their own title game, starting in 1996. The remaining four schools fell into mid-major conferences.

Television money and the BCS meant your conference defined your prospects. The more appearances on national television your conference, and thus your team, had, the more visibility you had in the public eye and the more attractive your school was to recruits. And if your school was a member of one of the six “BCS conferences”, the financial benefits couldn’t be counted; the worst team in a BCS conference made much more money off the BCS than the best team in a non-BCS conference could ever hope for. Independence – there were 26 independent schools in the 1990 season, five of which were ranked, more than any single conference – was no longer a viable option unless you were Notre Dame, whose independence survived only because of a combination of being one of the five most storied programs in the country (if not the most storied), its alumni being dead-set against joining a conference for any reason, and the fact NBC was willing to pay it to air its games and only its games.

The Big East, a basketball conference that had been formed primarily with monetary considerations in mind and greatly benefitted from ESPN’s money and exposure, only formed its football conference in 1991, adding five schools to fill out an eight-team football lineup, meaning only three of its prior members were members of the football conference. Though it enjoyed BCS status (thanks to initially having powerhouse Miami and later adding some of the better teams from Conference USA like Louisville), the Big East saw repeated defections to the ACC and the tension between its football and basketball sides ultimately caused it to split in two. Conference USA itself was only formed in 1996, composed mostly of independents whose previous non-football-sponsoring conferences had just merged. The WAC briefly expanded to 16 teams at the same time, taking in three of the SWC’s refugees, but that proved to be too unwieldy a size and it soon broke in two, with half its schools leaving to form the Mountain West in 1999; the MAC, meanwhile, added two schools in 1997 and also started staging a conference title game.

By 2007 only three independents remained in FBS – Notre Dame, Navy, and Army – and Army had spent several years in Conference USA. As early as 2004 Notre Dame and Navy were joined as the only independent schools by Florida Atlantic, which had just made the move to what was still called Division I-A and would join the Sun Belt the following year.


But 2007 would also completely and fundamentally redefine the nature of television money and make what conference you were in more important than ever. That year, the Big Ten, in association with Fox, launched the Big Ten Network. The Mountain West had launched its own network the previous year, but the BTN was the first network devoted to and owned by a major college conference. Much like the professional teams that launched and controlled their own networks, the Big Ten would control half the advertising and subscription revenue for the network that aired their games, rather than just collect a rights fee. Within three years, the BTN was making almost as much money for Big Ten schools as the conference’s contract with ESPN, resulting in Big Ten schools making $22 million each per year – more than three times as much as a school in any other conference, BCS or no, outside the SEC. For all its tradition and history, the Big Ten was now, more than anything else, a moneymaking alliance.

With Big Ten schools making so much money, the Big Ten could have its pick of just about any school in the country that would leap at the chance to get in on the action. In the past, even when driven by television money, realignment had been based primarily on geography and rivalries; the four Texas schools were a natural addition to the Big Eight, besides the existing bitter rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma; the additions of Arkansas and South Carolina were natural outgrowths of the SEC’s existing footprint; the Big Ten itself had added Penn State, a natural fit to its Midwestern roots. Now all that mattered to schools was the value of the conference’s television contract, and all that mattered to conferences was how an addition could maximize that value. If the Big Ten could add Texas and the bounty of television households it added to the Big Ten Network (and an inroad into those fertile recruiting grounds), or add a school that could help it make inroads into the lucrative New York market, it would. Too much geographic fit was now actually a bad thing if it didn’t help the BTN get into any new households.

Even the Big Ten’s role as a conference became less important than its television contracts to its identity. It could easily expand to a 16-team “superconference”, maybe even 20, doubling the size of what any conference might have looked like just a generation earlier, despite there still being only 12 games in an FBS season and some of those needing to be nonconference games, to say nothing of the impact such an unwieldy conference would have on other sports, including basketball. Indeed, the Pac-10 came close to recruiting three Texas schools, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to form a superconference itself, with the arrangement only falling apart when Texas A&M elected to join the SEC instead and ESPN guaranteed the value of the Big 12’s contract to keep it together, leaving the Pac-10 with only Colorado.

The spectre of ESPN and TV money in general hovered in the background throughout the process, and sometimes moved very much into the foreground. ESPN saving the Big 12 was far from the end of it. The Big East rejected a massive TV contract from ESPN, only to lose two of its most prominent schools, Syracuse and Pittsburgh, to the ACC – and then listened to Boston College’s athletic director make comments about the move that included the money line “TV – ESPN – is the one who told us what to do”. The AD and all parties involved quickly backed off the comments, but for many bloggers it seemed an admission that ESPN was pulling all the strings on conference realignment and, in this particular case, may have given the Big East the proverbial “offer they couldn’t refuse” and the departures of Syracuse and Pittsburgh were the metaphorical horse’s head in their bed. The Big East effectively divorced from itself, the conference’s Catholic schools seceding and winning the rights to take the Big East name with them, while the remnants that were left behind – those that didn’t decide they didn’t want to join after all – were left to take much less money from ESPN and go forward as the American Athletic Conference.

Longstanding rivalries were thrown by the wayside in this round of realignment in the name of chasing the almighty dollar. The “Backyard Brawl” between West Virginia and Pittsburgh was quite possibly the biggest college football rivalry in the Northeast, with only World War II interrupting it since 1919. Didn’t matter: the Big 12 needed teams to make up for defections and decided West Virginia had the best combination of a strong school and a strong football program known nationwide despite being hundreds of miles from any other team in the conference, while the ACC decided they needed to shore up their claim to being the conference of the Northeast and added Syracuse and Pittsburgh despite how far those schools were from the Atlantic coast or the rest of the conference. The “Border War” between Kansas and Missouri reflected a bitter rivalry between those states that dated to before the Civil War. Didn’t matter: the SEC needed a 14th team to go with Texas A&M and valued the population Missouri could add to the conference and the overall quality being enough to make up for adding another mouth to feed.

The Big Ten ultimately decided to add Nebraska, a team from a small market but a football powerhouse with a national following and another natural geographic and cultural outgrowth for the conference, while the Pac-10 added Utah to complement Colorado and decided to start their own conference network without help from anyone else and retaining a considerable amount of inventory for itself. The result earned so much money that the SEC reconsidered their position on conference networks. The SEC’s contract was up for renegotiation shortly after the BTN was unveiled and ESPN effectively bribed them away from starting their own network by paying them over a billion dollars, taking control of virtually their entire inventory, and giving them one of the most widely-distributed syndication packages in the country, but the SEC, despite having the richest contract and in the midst of an unprecedented run of national championships, added Texas A&M and Missouri in part as a pretext to renegotiate the contract to start a network, even if the terms of the contract effectively made partnering with ESPN the only way to do so.

Meanwhile the Big Ten, despite sitting at twelve teams (in a much-commented-on irony, the Big 12 sat at ten), the sweet spot to hold a conference championship game, decided they needed to expand further, and while in the past Penn State and Nebraska had been good cultural fits for the rest of the conference, this time they added Maryland and Rutgers, two schools on the eastern seaboard a good distance away from any other Big Ten schools, Maryland a rising basketball power that had recently started a budding intra-ACC rivalry with Duke but facing massive financial problems, Rutgers a school that had played in the first-ever college football game and had had a brief flowering of success but was still an uninspiring school with an apathetic at best fanbase. More than anything else, the addition of Maryland and Rutgers showed how the priorities had changed: it was more than anything about preventing the ACC from having an undisputed claim to the Northeast and putting the BTN on cable systems in the big markets of Washington, DC and New York City respectively.


ESPN has had near-monopoly status over the sports landscape for a long time – and by the mid-2000s, it had reached the point that the Justice Department began looking into it. At issue was the notion of “warehousing” inventory with college conferences: ESPN was signing deals left and right with just about every collegiate conference, taking in way more inventory than they had space to air it on ESPN and ESPN2, but refusing to sell their excess to anyone else. Many smaller conferences accused ESPN of hoarding inventory to keep it away from potential competitors and limit conferences’ exposure.

The issue was brought to a head by a fledgling network named College Sports Television, or CSTV, which had launched in 2002. CSTV, the first network dedicated entirely to college sports, was too small to have any shot at any rights from the major conferences, but it hoped to pick up some rights from the better mid-majors – only to find that ESPN had all the rights they were looking for and weren’t giving them up, and threatened any conferences that looked to do business with CSTV.

In 2004, CSTV took their case to the Justice Department. Though then-President George Bodenheimer recently dismissed the importance of the investigation, ESPN’s lawyers took it seriously and cautioned executives to tread lightly. ESPN was in the midst of negotiations with the Western Athletic Conference at the time, whose commissioner wanted to make a deal with CSTV that would yield more money and TV appearances, while the school presidents wanted a deal with ESPN that could offer wider exposure. Reportedly, when the commissioner asked an ESPN executive, how ESPN could continue its warehousing practices in the wake of the Justice Department’s investigation, the executive dismissed the idea.

Clearly, though, the investigation had an effect. CSTV would soon lure the Mountain West Conference away from ESPN, and ESPN agreed to share rights to Conference USA and the Atlantic 10 with the upstart network. Shortly thereafter, CSTV would be acquired by CBS, giving it big pockets and a major media corporation to help it make inroads on cable systems; it has since metamorphosed into the all-purpose CBS Sports Network. And the following March, ESPN would launch a new network, ESPNU, that would be its answer to CSTV but – more than that – would provide more space for ESPN to show content it had under contract and thus reduce warehousing complaints. The fact that it would provide more fuel for Disney’s bundle and a new revenue stream certainly didn’t hurt.

Today, ESPNU is in 75.6 million households and collects a 20-cent subscriber fee, putting another $15 million in ESPN’s coffers every month, or $181 million a year. CBS Sports Network, meanwhile, only recently crossed the 50-million mark and collects a slightly lower subscriber fee, netting just over $10 million a month or $120 million a year – and it doesn’t have the deep pockets ESPN has from its myriad of other networks.


No sport has been influenced more by television, and specifically ESPN, over the last few decades than college football, and the proof is printed right on the tickets – or rather, it’s in what’s not printed: the kickoff time. The dates and opponents may be scheduled months or years in advance, but for most of the season, nearly every Saturday game in a power conference has its kickoff time up in the air, waiting for its TV partners to inform them what games will air when and on what networks, which occurs twelve days before game day, in some cases only six. Other sports and leagues have embraced this notion of “flexible scheduling”, but none have taken it as far as college football, where fans (and coaches, and players, and school officials) have literally no clue when their game will kick off until less than two weeks in advance.

College football, in other words, has become a made-for-TV event. After the Board of Regents decision, ESPN convinced smaller conferences to break from tradition and play games on Thursday; today, Thursday is a destination night populated mostly by the biggest conferences, and ESPN has populated most of the week from Tuesday to Saturday with college football. ESPN has even gotten into the business of playing matchmaker, finding schools with holes in their nonconference schedules and booking matchups between them to create attractions people will watch every week of the season. In an age where schools are constantly maximizing their wins in order to increase their chances of qualifying for bowls or playing for the national championship, such ESPN creations are just about the only place where quality nonconference matchups happen in the regular season outside of regularly scheduled rivalries. ESPN even owns the software used by virtually every school – and even competing networks – to schedule games, known as the Pigskin Access Scheduling System (PASS).

The “BCS busters”, such as TCU and Boise State, could owe their success to ESPN and their willingness to play games when ESPN asked them to, even if it fell in the middle of the week and heavily inconvenienced fans. Those games meant exposure, exposure that could be golden for a school that couldn’t otherwise count on it. TCU was mired in the dumps a few years after being left behind by the Southwest Conference’s collapse, but it built its way back up by accommodating ESPN and playing all throughout the week, even playing on Friday and thus competing against high school football, a religion in Texas. It paid off: even after the Mountain West left ESPN in 2006, TCU had such success it made repeated trips to BCS bowls, even the vaunted Rose Bowl, and eventually made it back to the big time, rejoining several of its fellow Southwest Conference-mates in the Big 12 in 2012, where they scored a Thanksgiving-night upset win over mighty Texas.

Boise State followed the same formula upon joining the Western Athletic Conference, a conference that had weekday slots to fill on ESPN, in 2001, just five years after entering Division I-A. Before long, Boise State scored a landmark victory over Oklahoma in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl, and the WAC’s rights payments from ESPN were the envy of most other non-BCS conferences. But once Boise State decided to make even more money in the Mountain West, it was the beginning of the end for the WAC. Its rights fee from ESPN plummeted to less than a third of its former value, and as the Mountain West lost teams to other conferences, it repeatedly raided the WAC’s best schools, and soon the WAC became almost unrecognizable. With only seven football-playing schools left, 2012 was the WAC’s last year even sponsoring a football conference, and now as a non-football conference it’s populated by such schools as Seattle University, which only recently even returned to Division I.

Louisville was one of the first to boast of the benefits ESPN provided it. In 1995, it had just joined Conference USA, and decided to construct a new, state-of-the-art football stadium to replace one that was pushing 40 years old. After finishing 1-10 in 1997, it hired a new coach that brought a television-friendly pass-happy offense to the football team, a ticket Boise State would also use to attract ESPN’s attention. Conference USA signed a contract in 2001 that made it the first conference to colonize Tuesday and Wednesday nights for football, but most of its schools balked at the notion of going so far against tradition, at a time when even Thursday night games were only grudgingly accepted. Louisville, then mostly a commuter school, was not one of them. They played as many as five or six games in the middle of the week the first two years of the contract, or half of their entire schedule. The school effectively had to blaze its own trail for how to prepare with such an unusual schedule, but it paid off in exposure and in wins. Louisville became a national name in a way it never had been before, and by 2006 it not only found itself in a BCS conference (the Big East), it wound up going 12-1 and playing in (and winning) the Orange Bowl. Two Thursday night games against other national-caliber opponents that year became some of the highest rated college football games in the history of ESPN, convincing more prominent schools Thursday nights were worth the disruption.

This year Louisville will join the vaunted Atlantic Coast Conference, and with it will come much more television money – but even beyond that is the ability to hit up local businesses and alumni for more donations to improve the athletic department’s facilities off the back of its national-caliber programs. And on-field success has also built Louisville into an academic power as well: better students and professors, more students living on campus, more scholarships, more academic achievements.

ESPN has also gotten into the business of owning many of its own bowls, because it knows how important bowl games are to filling up its December schedule, no matter what teams play in them. The nine bowls it owns are some of the lowest-rated of the season, and many might not exist without ESPN propping them up. But prop them up it does, because even the lowest-rated bowls still attract millions of viewers, viewers even ESPN would struggle to attract any other way, viewers drawn to the live programming that is ESPN’s biggest strength. Those millions of viewers are now one of the biggest rewards of trips to bowls, which can help a mediocre program draw recruits and stay where they are or even move further up the chain. They help explain why a school whose team goes 6-6 leaps at the opportunity to go to a bowl, even a tiny one, even if the vast majority of schools end up losing money on the enterprise.

In general, success in college sports has become a high-stakes game of blackjack for schools increasingly facing tight budgets and rising tuition costs. Every school seeks to match the rise of Boise State in football or Gonzaga in basketball, becoming a national name that makes money directly for the university and gets their name into the minds of potential students. Most end up losing money on the enterprise. Of 340 Division I schools, only about 23 end up making a profit and sending money back to their schools’ general fund.


With so much at stake, academics is increasingly left by the wayside. The NCAA’s insistence on referring to its players as “student-athletes” – and its incessant commercials during the NCAA Tournament that proclaim that “most of [them] will go pro in something other than sports” – increasingly rings hollow. Conference realignment and weekday games increasingly means longer travel-times and less time to attend classes and take tests. Once a way to help build healthy bodies as well as healthy minds, college athletic departments are now professional sports teams within academic institutions – except they don’t have to pay their players.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend the amateur status of student-athletes, once considered the core principle of collegiate athletics, when seemingly everyone else is making money from the system hand over fist. Not that student-athletes are necessarily coming away empty-handed; these days it seems like a program and its alumni should be assumed to be paying its players under the table until proven otherwise, and the NCAA seems to be a bunch of Keystone Kops, seemingly helpless to enforce its own rules (if not actively looking the other way) and its punishment seemingly arbitrary and capricious, if not completely random, when it does come. The notion of paying for a student-athlete’s “full cost of attendance” above and beyond a player’s scholarship, room and board, is enjoying increasing popularity among college athletics’ gatekeepers, but for many, it’s far from enough.

Ed O’Bannon was a star player on UCLA’s 1995 national championship team before having a short NBA career. One day, he discovered that his likeness was being used on NCAA-branded video games, yet he wasn’t seeing a dime in revenue from them. He brought a class-action suit against the NCAA that could have a tremendous impact on the NCAA’s money flow and how college athletes are treated. So could the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling last month that Northwestern football players meet the definition of “employees” and so are allowed to form a union – implicitly allowing the same for all private universities. (Student-athletes at public universities would have to go through individual states’ labor boards.)

Lost in the increasingly heated debate over the treatment of student-athletes is the fact that the entire reason the NCAA’s claims of being an educational, amateur enterprise ring so hollow, and why the whole issue has come to a head to begin with, is because of the millions if not billions of dollars pouring into collegiate athletics that have already wiped out the purity of college sports the NCAA claims to be defending in the eyes of all but the most idealistic, deluded, or self-interested observers. That money is coming in partly to fill time on ESPN and other networks, but it wouldn’t be nearly as much if college sports weren’t so incredibly popular, with college football providing America’s most popular sports programming outside the NFL and Olympics.

Similarly, the NCAA will point out that if football or basketball stars were really so exploited by not being paid beyond the costs of their scholarship, they could play in minor leagues or, in the case of basketball, abroad, or if they wanted to, the NFL or NBA could start their own developmental leagues akin to the minor league baseball system. But players don’t go to those leagues, and the NFL shut down its developmental league, NFL Europe, not that long ago, because no one cares about them – nor do they really care all that much about minor league baseball, for that matter, despite its own history and tradition. But they care mightily about their college teams, and in turn, those audiences allow players to build their brand and starpower and grow their exposure in ways nothing else out there can.

And the reason that people care so much about college sports is the connection between the team and the school that inspires people to root for “their school’s” team regardless of who the players are and in spite of the fact all the players would much rather be in the NFL or NBA. That passion has inspired, and continues to sustain, a multibillion dollar industry that has severed the very connection that built it. Big time college athletes don’t care one whit about the school they attend beyond the team that represents it and only go to class because the conditions of their scholarship demand it. They are only there to develop their game and their brand for the professional leagues. In essence, big-time college sports consist of developmental teams for the NFL and NBA (that those leagues don’t have to pay for) that have sold their naming rights for a fanbase. Jerry Seinfeld’s crack about how professional sports fandom, especially in the post-free agency era, amounts to “rooting for laundry”, is all the more apt in modern college athletics.

That professional sports leagues have managed to survive and thrive in the post-free agency era in spite of Seinfeld’s observation suggests the same could be true of college athletics if the players were acknowledged as paid employees. Still, what could happen if the façade were lifted on the system and college sports became, if they weren’t already, professional teams whose only difference from the actual professional teams were the quality and limited career of the players and the mostly arbitrary connection to the school you attended? (At least professional teams have to have some sort of connection to a location; many college teams play well off-campus and some share arenas or fields with pro teams.) The NCAA – and ESPN – might not want to find out.

Tomorrow: How other media companies are trying to copy ESPN’s lucrative business model.

2014 NFL TV Schedule

Here is the schedule of games on Fox, NBC, CBS, ESPN, and NFL Network for the 2014 season, which will kick off with the Packers visiting the Seahawks.

There are several changes to the NFL’s TV landscape this season. ESPN will air a Wild Card playoff game for the first time, while NBC will trade in one of its Wild Card games for a Divisional round game (the full postseason schedule will be announced at a later date). NBC will be able to flex in games as early as Week 5, but will be able to flex in no more than two games before Week 11. CBS and Fox will be able to air games from the other network’s conference, allowing this year’s Thanksgiving slate to consist entirely of NFC divisional matchups. Finally, CBS will simulcast the first half of the Thursday night slate with NFL Network, in addition to producing the entire slate.

Games marked with an asterisk (*) may be flexed out for any of the CBS or Fox games earlier in the day. Games marked with a cross (†) may also be flexed out, but no more than two games with a cross may be flexed out in this fashion. Follow the SNF Flex Scheduling Watch category for more information throughout the season. Games may also move to the network marked with a 4:25 ET start time. Networks in bold are cable. All times Eastern.

Read more

Making sense of the Thursday Night Football deal

After over two years of speculation, the NFL has finally sold half of its Thursday Night Football slate… in a way no one could have anticipated.

As the NFL started ramping up the bidding process for the new package over the past month, some of the details that started coming out were head-scratching. The NFL expressed its preference to put the games on broadcast, not cable, which eventually grew to the point of basically insisting on it. The NFL also expressed its desire to simulcast the games on NFL Network.

Neither of these made any sense to me. The whole point of selling the games, I would have thought, was to get networks like NBCSN or FS1 to pony up the subscriber-fee-backed dough to take on programming that could boost those subscriber fees to the moon, to say nothing of ESPN protecting its own turf or Turner propping up TruTV or giving a boost to TNT. Broadcast networks have started catching up to cable with their retransmission consent fees, but the possibility of cord-cutting, or technologies like Aereo, could always be lurking in the background, and their owners continue to put their emphasis on cable wherever possible; the first twelve years of the college football playoff, after all, will still be on ESPN. Certainly the big four broadcast networks would fall over themselves to get the package, though it’s still the bank of crappy games NFLN has had for the past two seasons, but they wouldn’t pay nearly as much as cable networks would. And what did the NFL expect to gain by simulcasting games on NFL Network? Did they really think Time Warner Cable and Cablevision were so stupid they would treat NFLN as though it still had a full-season schedule despite the fact they could get 6-8 of its games anyway on a broadcast network? The NFL seemed to want it both ways.

I wonder if the key to the NFL’s thinking was the fact that this was a one-year deal (although the eventual deal also contains an option for a second year). I wonder if the NFL was floating a trial balloon to see how much money the Thursday package was worth, while also seeing what the reaction of cable companies might be to NFLN losing a bunch of games without actually having NFLN suffer too much – perhaps not wanting to lose people used to turning on NFLN on Thursday nights. The NFL might also want to see how much of TNF’s ratings, which are substantially behind those of the NFL’s other packages, are because of NFLN’s limited distribution or the crappy bank of games, while trying to build an audience for the games on the broadest distribution platform available and get more people used to watching the NFL on Thursday night. Perhaps they floated out feelers to Comcast, Fox, Turner, and ESPN and didn’t like the potential bids they got, so they decided on a different approach that could boost the value of the package and help them determine what balance of rights fees to boosting NFLN to strike. Depending on what the ratings are on CBS and NFL Network for each half of the package, as well as what the reaction of cable companies will be, the NFL may decide to sign a longer-term deal with a cable network, or keep more games on NFL Network again, or something else entirely.

But I can’t help but wonder if this marks a turning point in the bigger picture. The last few years have seen more and more events move from broadcast to cable and the accompanying explosion of the sports TV wars. Now the kingpin of American sports has seemingly moved in the opposite direction, and put a package on broadcast that might otherwise have seemed destined for cable. It may be a small step, but I hold out hope that when we look back, it marks the point the tide started to turn in broadcast’s favor – though the NBA could end up having a bigger impact on that later this year.

(I am surprised at CBS’ win, not because of their strong Thursday primetime lineup, but because of the same reason I didn’t see FS1 winning the package: it was just too awkward for CBS to take on a conference-agnostic package alongside having all the non-primetime AFC games. I thought NBC was the favorite, more because of synergy with their Kickoff and Thanksgiving night games than because of their weak Thursday primetime lineup, with ABC being second favorite by default.)

2014 Pro Football Hall of Fame Watch – The Top 50 Active Resumes

Surefire first-ballot players:

  1. QB Peyton Manning
  2. QB Tom Brady

These two stand far and away on top of the pack.

Borderline first-ballot players:

  1. TE Tony Gonzalez
  2. S Ed Reed
  3. CB Champ Bailey
  4. QB Drew Brees
  5. DT Kevin Williams

Tony Gonzalez, who just completed his last season, is by most standards, the greatest tight end of all time. Will that be enough to get him into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot?

The problem is not merely that no tight end has done so before, the problem is that pretty much every tight end had to wait multiple years to get in. Shannon Sharpe was snubbed twice before finally being inducted. John Mackey placed about three spots ahead of Gonzalez when the NFL Network did their “Top 100 Greatest Players” some years ago, after Sharpe’s first snub but before he got in, but didn’t get into the Hall of Fame until twenty years after he retired, when his eligibility was close to up. Gonzalez has likely passed Mackey in the intervening time, and I doubt Gonzalez will have to wait any later than the second ballot, but will the voters be willing to take that big a leap?

On the other hand, Sharpe’s first snub attracted considerable outrage in several corners, suggesting there’s considerable support for the notion of voting a tight-end in first ballot, support that would be even stronger for Gonzalez. For the Hall of Fame voters to continue their past position on tight ends ignores the nature of the position in today’s NFL, where it has basically become a variant of the wide receiver position (see: the ongoing controversy over what position Jimmy Graham would be franchised under). If any tight end merited the honor represented by first-ballot Hall of Fame status, it would likely be Gonzalez. I would be very surprised, maybe even shocked, if Gonzalez didn’t go in first ballot. But I can’t say it’ll happen with absolute certainty. We’re talking about unprecedented territory here, both with the player and the circumstance we’re ascribing to him.

Surefire Hall of Famers:

  1. TE Antonio Gates
  2. S Troy Polamalu
  3. CB Charles Woodson
  4. TE Jason Witten
  5. DE Julius Peppers
  6. DE Dwight Freeney
  7. LB DeMarcus Ware
  8. RB Adrian Peterson
  9. WR Andre Johnson

I was torn on whether or not to keep Richard Seymour on the list; rumors swirled around him potentially being sought out by teams as late as October, but he’d also indicated he was fine with retiring if he wasn’t picked up at any point in the season. My thinking is that Seymour’s career is almost certainly over, but the main thing that convinced me to remove his name from the list was to remove some awkwardness on the Players to Watch list.

Borderline Hall of Famers:

  1. WR Larry Fitzgerald
  2. WR Steve Smith
  3. WR Wes Welker
  4. DE Jared Allen
  5. WR Calvin Johnson
  6. QB Aaron Rodgers
  7. WR Reggie Wayne
  8. LB Patrick Willis
  9. OT Joe Thomas
  10. RB Jamaal Charles
  11. DE Haloti Ngata
  12. DE John Abraham
  13. CB Darrelle Revis
  14. RB LeSean McCoy
  15. QB Eli Manning
  16. QB Michael Vick
  17. P Shane Lechler
  18. WR Brandon Marshall
  19. RB Arian Foster
  20. QB Ben Roethlisberger
  21. QB Philip Rivers
  22. FB Vonta Leach
  23. KR Devin Hester
  24. K Adam Vinatieri
  25. RB Maurice Jones-Drew

You may be wondering why Calvin Johnson and Aaron Rodgers aren’t on the surefire list, when you probably see them as first-ballot guys. This is what’s so interesting about looking at players’ resumes if they retired right now. Johnson could threaten several of Jerry Rice’s records, but he’s only made the Pro Bowl (without getting in as an alternate) four of his seven years in the league – pretty good, and his less-good years can be chalked up to playing for bad Lions teams (much as with Fitzgerald and the Cardinals), but he might need one more good year to make the leap (certainly the surefire list could use him). Rodgers is especially interesting, and a possible cautionary tale for Johnson, as he had shockingly elevated himself in just a few years into one of the best QBs in the league and a surefire first-ballot HOFer if he kept it up… but one wonders if he’s starting to get overshadowed. He had a Pro-Bowl-caliber year in 2012, but a far cry from his masterful 2011, and missed a good chunk of 2013. Both could still end up being remembered as flashes-in-the-pan who were, for a brief time, two of the best at their positions in the entire league, Johnson inspiring people to mention his name in the same sentence with Rice, Rodgers a figure on par with Brady and Manning who picked up a ring along the way, and two of the great what-could-have-been stories. Would that be enough to get them into the Hall of Fame? Maybe… but it’d be a pretty long wait.

Even more interesting would be Vinatieri: very few non-quarterbacks have been propelled into the Hall of Fame on the strength of their Super Bowls… but Vinatieri could be one of them, despite being a kicker, a position with only one other representative in the Hall at all. And while every quarterback with multiple Super Bowl wins is in the Hall of Fame except Jim Plunkett, they all have substantially better resumes than Roethlisberger (who has only two Pro Bowl selections), which is why he’s so low.

Need work:

  • RB Chris Johnson
  • RB Marshawn Lynch
  • DT Justin Smith
  • S Adrian Wilson
  • OT Jahri Evans
  • LB Lance Briggs
  • CB Nnamdi Asomugha

When I put Maurice Jones-Drew on the “borderline” side of the list I agonized endlessly over what side of the line he fell on. Chris Johnson was on the “players to watch” list with an exclamation mark next to his name last year and I believe the year before as well. Now that it was time for him to graduate off that list, I realized he had the same or better resume than Jones-Drew. (Keeping Jones-Drew off the Players to Watch list may have played a part in my motivation.) But when I started this I swore that I would never bump anyone down a category once they made it to a given category (except for “needs work” players falling out of the top 50) or to move anyone up a category unless they actively improved their standing, and neither happened. On the other hand, I’m no longer sure how much Ray Rice ever deserved his exclamation mark last year…

Players to watch for the future (exclamation marks indicate players with resumes already strong enough to be among the top 50):

  • LB Clay Matthews (5th year)
  • DE Cameron Wake (5th year)
  • DT Ndamukong Suh (4th year)
  • C Maurkice Pouncey (4th year)
  • TE Jimmy Graham (4th year)
  • LB Navarro Bowman (4th year)
  • S Earl Thomas (4th year)!
  • QB Cam Newton (3rd year)
  • LB Von Miller (3rd year)
  • WR A.J. Green (3rd year)
  • DE J.J. Watt (3rd year)
  • LB Aldon Smith (3rd year)
  • CB Patrick Peterson (3rd year)!
  • CB Richard Sherman (3rd year)
  • QB Andrew Luck (2nd year)
  • QB Russell Wilson (2nd year)
  • WR Josh Gordon (2nd year)
  • LB Luke Kuechly (2nd year)
  • RB Eddie Lacy (Rookie)
  • WR Keenan Allen (Rookie)

No rookies wowed everyone the way they have the past few years, with the possible exception of Eddie Lacy.

Players to watch for the Class of 2018:

  • LB Ray Lewis
  • WR Randy Moss
  • DT Richard Seymour
  • LB Brian Urlacher
  • CB Ronde Barber
  • G Steve Hutchison

This is a loaded class even if Seymour’s career isn’t over. Lewis is a surefire first-ballot guy, and as explained last year that’ll provide cover for the voters to hold Urlacher back a year when he doesn’t really have a first-ballot resume anyway; Moss has a chance to join him, depending on how the voters feel about his extracurricular activities and the state of the WR backlog, but Seymour does not. Barber and Hutchison were the two names at the very back of the surefire list last year, so they may have lengthy waits.

Predictions for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2014

The Pro Football Hall of Fame’s selections are performed by a panel of 44 leading NFL media members including representatives of all 32 NFL teams, a representative of the Pro Football Writers of America, and 11 at-large writers.

The panel has selected a list of 15 finalists from the modern era, defined as playing all or part of their careers within the last 25 years. A player must have spent 5 years out of the league before they can be considered for induction into the Hall of Fame. Players that last played in the 2008 season will be eligible for induction in 2014.

During Super Bowl Weekend, the panel will meet and narrow down the list of modern-era finalists down to five. Those five will be considered alongside two senior candidates, selected by a nine-member subpanel of the larger panel last August, for a total of seven. From this list, at least four and no more than seven people will be selected for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

My prediction for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2014 is:

Andre Reed
Michael Strahan
Derrick Brooks
Jerome Bettis
Will Shields
Ray Guy

Hall of Fame Game: Steelers v. Giants

How to Fix the Hall of Fame (And How Not to Fix It)

Maybe it was the fact that Keith Olbermann now has a sports-oriented platform with which to rail against the “banana republic” that is the Baseball Hall of Fame. Maybe it was Deadspin’s stunt where they turned over what turned out to be Dan Le Batard’s Hall of Fame ballot to the public for them to vote on. Maybe it was the continued hand-wringing over the steroids issue, or the fact not a single modern-era player was inducted the previous year, or the ballots and accompanying grandstanding and sanctimonious moralizing that made Le Batard’s stunt seem reasonable. Or maybe it was some combination of the above. Whatever the reason, despite the induction of three very worthy first-ballot candidates, this year’s Hall of Fame election became as much about how broken the election process supposedly is than about the election itself.

It strikes me, though, that many of the reforms that many writers and other commenters propose to fix the Hall miss the reasons for the rules they want to change. Doubtless the voting could be expanded beyond merely sportswriters, and writers who throw away their ballots in ways more outrageous than Le Batard did should lose them. But for example, Deadspin elected the top 10 candidates that received a simple majority of the people’s vote, rather than the 75% the Hall requires, explaining that the high threshold helps allow the process to be “hijacked by cranks, attention-seeking trolls, and the merely perplexed—people who exercise power out of proportion to their numbers due to the perverse structure of the voting.” But it should be difficult to get into the Hall; someone should only get in if there’s some sort of consensus that they’re deserving.

Nor do I buy the argument that because there are already cheaters and general assholes in the Hall of Fame, that justifies inducting the steroids users as well. Yes, the general public is ambivalent at best about the steroids issue, but the sport’s history is more important to baseball than any other sport; the steroids users have irrevocably tainted that history, and it seems odd to play up that history in one breath while backing the induction of the steroids users with the other. The single-season and career home run records, once the most hallowed in sports, will forever be untrustworthy and have an asterisk mentally if not physically attached to them, and many other records besides. Of all the players blackballed from the Hall, only Shoeless Joe Jackson might have done more damage to the game. (There’s an argument to be made that players that had Hall-worthy credentials without steroids should be inducted, which would put Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and possibly Mark McGwire in, but not Sammy Sosa, who no one had heard of before he came from out of nowhere in the summer of ’98, or Rafael Palmeiro, who actually received few enough votes to be dropped from the ballot this year. That a player like Sosa could effectively juice his way into a Hall of Fame career underscores why the steroids issue can’t be simply swept under the rug. I would bet Gaylord Perry would be in the Hall of Fame regardless of whether or not he spit.)

Many commentators, including Olbermann, faulted the 10-person limit for forcing voters to make very difficult choices on a loaded ballot, resulting in part in Craig Biggio missing induction by two votes. What would be the harm, they say, in allowing as many people as the voters find worthy to get in? Theoretically, if someone isn’t one of the ten best candidates on the ballot maybe they aren’t that strong a candidate after all (again, it’s supposed to be difficult to get in); but even beyond that, it’s not so much having a ton of people getting in at once than losing those people in future years. Craig Biggio will be inducted into the Hall of Fame, possibly as soon as next year. But if not next year, it’s very possible he (or someone like Mike Piazza or Jeff Bagwell) may end up saving the Hall from a repeat of 2013, when no one was inducted. It’s worth noting that even with a supposedly loaded ballot, only three people were actually inducted, and only seven even received more than half the vote. Clearly there isn’t that much consensus over which candidates are more deserving to get in over which other candidates.

Perhaps the baseball Hall could take a cue from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which repeatedly cuts down all the numerous candidates for induction down to a list of 15 finalists, then brings the voters together Super Bowl Weekend to debate the merits of those fifteen candidates and further whittle them down to five. Result: the Pro Football Hall of Fame always inducts the maximum five modern-era players despite actually having a higher threshold for induction at 80%, and so actually tries to clear its backlogs. Obviously, given the fact that the BBWAA has hundreds of people voting, it’s impractical to get them all together to discuss the candidates, but what would be wrong with a two-stage voting system, where the first ballot cuts the list down to 10-15 finalists, who are then subject to a straight up/down vote?

Underlying the last complaint, however, seems to be the notion that someone either “is a Hall of Famer or he is not“, that it’s ridiculous for someone who wasn’t considered a Hall of Famer X number of years in the past to suddenly be a Hall of Famer now. Presumably many of these people would prefer to hold a single up/down vote on a candidate five years after their retirement, induct anyone who crosses the threshold of induction, and keep out everyone else. It’s an attractive prospect, but it seems cruel to subject a player’s destiny to a single vote at an arbitrary point in time, especially if the rules may be different at a different point in time; should Edgar Martinez’s chances be based on the luck of how the voters feel about the DH issue in one particular semi-random year? The Hall of Fame voting window allows candidates to be looked at fairly and with some degree of historical perspective; five years after retirement allows voters to vote somewhat dispassionately without being too close to the player’s career, but leaving their fate in the hands of the Veterans’ Committee after fifteen years ensures that a player’s fate lies in the hands of those who actually saw him play. That’s why I’m leery of giving Bill James a Hall of Fame vote. Bill James is awesome; he may well go in to the Hall of Fame for the way he revolutionized the way we look at the game. But Bill James perfectly encapsulates why there’s a statute of limitations on how long a player can wait before it gets much tougher for them to get into the Hall of Fame. We don’t need him engaging in historical revisionism to justify why some random player from the 30s no one at the time would have ever dreamed of getting into the Hall should get in using statistics no one at the time could have ever conceived of. It’s disingenuous for someone to complain about, say, Bert Blyleven getting in without any change in his resume in one breath and argue for Bill James to get a Hall of Fame vote with the other. It’s called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Great.

When figuring out how to fix the Hall of Fame (in any sport), there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • The fate of players should be in the hands of a group of electors who experienced their career as it happened, that is, not making a post facto judgment. They should also, however, have a good grasp of the standards by which someone should be considered a Hall of Famer and the historical perspective to assess players by those standards in a relatively unbiased fashion, at least as a whole. The selection process should facilitate striking a balance between these competing concerns.
  • Reasonable people will always disagree over someone’s Hall credentials. They also disagree over how stringent the standards should be for induction, with some “small Hall” people arguing that only the very best of the very best should be honored.
  • Once a player is inducted into the Hall, they become a benchmark for any other player to get in; i.e., “if player X is in the Hall, player Y should be too.”
  • Once a player is inducted into the Hall, they are never un-inducted. The body of electors should be very sure of themselves if they wish to induct somebody.

With these challenges in mind, we can begin to sketch out a proposal for organizing a Hall of Fame that reflects some level of consensus over who does and does not belong. There will, of course, continue to be debate over who does and does not belong, but hopefully even those who disagree with the Hall’s selections can agree that it reflects the consensus of those who lived through the era on the matter of the best and most important players and other figures.

One place to start would be to adopt Bill Simmons’ pyramid idea, that is, assigning all Hall of Famers to one of five tiers, with the top tier (“the Pantheon”) reserved for the very best of the best and each subsequent tier containing progressively less esteemed players until the players with the shakiest cases show up on the bottom level. I know a lot of people don’t like the idea of “ranking” the best players, feeling it makes things too much of a competition and that it becomes a case of splitting hairs between specific players as you get further down the list; shouldn’t it be enough that a player is considered a Hall of Famer? Why belittle the guys perceived to have shakier cases by placing them on a lower level or considering them not “real” Hall of Famers? However, I think this would be a good compromise between the “small Hall” guys and the more liberal guys. The “small Hall” guys would have only the guys they would allow in on the top one or two levels, while still having all the other players on the lower levels. It would serve as a way to refocus and rekindle the debate and provide some necessary clarity to the Hall, reorganizing it by players’ importance to the game and thus better allowing people to appreciate its history. Depending on what kind of Hall of Fame we’re talking about, we could use different terminology to distinguish the levels, even naming each level (for example, Bronze/Silver/Gold) if circumstances warrant.

I have a couple of issues with Simmons’ specific implementation. First, Simmons’ pyramid distributes Hall of Famers across five physical floors of the pyramid. Actual Hall of Fames, however, tend to throw all their Hall of Famers into a single literal hall; they are museums first and Hall of Fames second. The Hall may be the room everyone gravitates to and even the most prominent room, but it’s still a single room. Even the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a place that already vaguely looks like Simmons’ pyramid (and, incidentally, by all accounts a place that makes Cooperstown look like the model of integrity) throws all its Hall of Famers onto a single level of a six-level building; the closest thing to what Simmons might be talking about might be the Hollywood Walk of Fame. There are some points in this model’s favor, even from the perspective of the Halls themselves, as it provides a single place for you to be overwhelmed by the prestige and the eminent personalities all around you, to take it all in all at once, besides the fact it allows the Hall not to overwhelm the building’s place as a museum. But this consideration doesn’t completely invalidate the model; physical differences in the honoring of each Hall of Famer, such as a plaque made of different materials or placement on the floor, could distinguish players of different tiers, which could be indicated by the personality used. For example, each plaque could have one to five stars on it and we could refer to Hall of Fame members as one-star to five-star Hall of Famers. Or we could arrange the Hall as a spiral going around a larger building, connecting with the exhibits on each floor with each full turn or half-turn, each tier arranged in chronological order or in rough order of importance within each tier, up to the Pantheon taking up the entire top floor, with statues instead of mere plaques for each Pantheon member, and if the sport has a Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, or Wayne Gretzky, one single undisputed best player of all time, they get their statue in the center. This could be considered taking a cue from the Guggenheim Museum, which arranges its artifacts in a spiral one browses starting from the top and working their way down.

A simpler but perhaps more challenging problem has to do with the process of assigning a level to each member, which Simmons would do by taking the average score each member gets from an assignment committee, “rounded up”. The problem should be obvious: if the assignment committee consists of 50 people, 49 of them votes a member to level 1, and the 50th votes them to level 2, their average is 1.02, which gets rounded up to 2. That one single voter got them bumped up to level 2! It would seem that very few people would be selected to level 1 unless their election to the Hall at all was so tentative as to make it unlikely they would be elected in the first place. Considering part of the appeal of the pyramid for Simmons is to throw all the borderline candidates to level 1, this seems counterproductive. Even if we made a post facto argument that past decades were undeniably mistaken in putting someone in, and everyone votes them to level 1 because even those who would have voted for them agree it’s ridiculous to put them any higher, it’s hard to see how the bottom level would grow. Simmons seems to be counting on the assignment committee to disagree with the selection committee, and specifically to agree with his own judgments. (Rounding up has another, similar problem: it’s very easy for someone to get into the Pantheon just by racking up enough level 4 votes and a couple of level 5 votes to get their average just over four. “Small Hall” people would much rather round down, making it more difficult to get into higher levels; while that gives the Pantheon the opposite problem, requiring induction to be unanimous, a case could be made that if your average can’t top 2 you don’t deserve to be in level 2 or above anyway.)

Instead, I prefer to see each level and the ones above it as its own sub-Hall of Fame within the Hall of Fame. If you wish, you can consider only those in tier 2 and above “real” Hall of Famers, and “small Hall” people would prefer to restrict it to the top one or two tiers. As such, the procedure would go as follows:

  • The Selection Committee consists of a mixture of sportswriters (including bloggers), fans, players (possibly including existing Hall of Famers), coaches, historians of the sport, and other people involved with the sport and the media. The vote is weighted towards the writers, fans, and other people who have a good grasp of what it takes to get to each level and are familiar with each candidate’s case.
  • On the ballot, each voter must give each candidate a number from 1 to 5, signifying what level they would induct each candidate to, or leave it blank or mark it with a 0 to indicate that they would not elect that candidate at all.
  • A player must be given a number on 70% of the votes to be inducted, at which point they are inducted to the level at the 70th percentile of their vote. For example, to be inducted to the Pantheon at least 70% of the votes must vote you to the Pantheon. To be elected to level 3 at least 70% of the votes must put you on level 3 or above, and so on. This keeps it difficult to get inducted to the Hall and to each level; I originally considered making the threshold 60%, but I don’t want someone to get into the Pantheon when only 60% of voters agree he deserves it.
  • There may or may not be a limit on the number of players to be inducted (I would support limiting Pantheon inductions to one a year), but there is no limit on how many people may be voted in or voted to a particular level. A player that has received the necessary votes to be inducted to a particular level but is excluded due to yearly limits may have their induction postponed to the following year, but generally cannot fall below the lowest or highest level they were ever voted to.
  • If there is a difference between the median level a player is voted to and the 70th percentile, the player remains on the ballot in subsequent years; as with players pushed out due to yearly limits, they cannot fall below the lowest or highest level they were ever voted to. A player not inducted to the Hall must be chosen for induction on at least half of all ballots just to remain on the ballot the following year; a player with the votes to make the first tier must have at least half the votes naming him to the second tier in order to remain on the ballot for the chance to move up to the second tier, or else their future fate is remanded to the Historical Committee where it gets much tougher for a reassessment to find that a player was wrongfully kept out or elected to too low a level. A player may appear on fifteen ballots; once they have appeared on fifteen ballots, they are either inducted to whatever level they are voted to their final year, or the highest level they were ever voted to. (Alternatively, once a player has the votes for induction and aren’t kept out by numerical limits they are inducted to that level, but may be “re-inducted” to a higher level later.)

This is a similar system to the up/down approval voting system Deadspin and others would favor, but the addition of the pyramid and tier system turns it into a range voting variant, which for various reasons is probably the best voting system for achieving the best outcome without perverse incentives. The notion that “the first ballot is sacred” (which only succeeds in producing “second-ballot” Hall of Famers like Roberto Alomar) would become less relevant if the Pantheon (and possibly the tier or two below it) serves the role of separating the “elite” from the rank and file, and broadening the electorate beyond sportswriters helps keep people with agendas from hijacking the process. Ideally, we’d have a single vote to determine the legacy of each candidate, without candidates completely crowding each other off the ballot, without necessarily risking some induction ceremonies being too big (though more time can be devoted to players going in to higher tiers) or nonexistent, and without completely precluding reconsideration later, but only if a substantial enough number of people believe from the start that someone’s case merits reconsideration (that is, 5% of the electorate can’t keep someone who clearly doesn’t have a shot taking up space on the ballot for fifteen years).

So we have two different solutions to what seems to be the most obvious and agreed-upon problem with this year’s baseball Hall of Fame induction: an overabundance of qualified players crowding each other out because of the 10-player limit. A system similar to that of the Pro Football Hall of Fame would limit the number of candidates and make it easier to give each of the resulting finalists a straight-up up/down vote, but instituting a pyramid system would help fix some of the deeper, more systemic flaws and restore at least some prestige to America’s Halls of Fame among those who might feel it irredeemably lost.

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 15

NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17.

The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time.

Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was written with the 2007 season in mind, hence why it still says late games start at 4:15 ET instead of 4:25):

  • Begins Sunday of Week 11
  • In effect during Weeks 11-17
  • Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window.
  • The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:15 p.m. ET.
  • The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.
  • The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:15 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications.
  • The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night.
  • Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly.
  • NFL schedules all games.
  • Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night.
  • Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 in 2006 and 2011, because NBC hosted Christmas night games those years and all the other games were moved to Saturday (and so couldn’t be flexed), but are otherwise protected after Week 5.
  • In the past, three teams could appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. I don’t know how the expansion of the Thursday Night schedule affects this, if it does. No team starts the season completely tapped out at any measure; six teams have five primetime appearances each, but only the 49ers don’t have at least one game that can be flexed out. A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 5 post.

First, a postscript on the Week 16 selection of Bears-Eagles: apparently the NFL flexed out a perfectly passable and important Patriots-Ravens game for the same reason I adhered to a 22-20 rule for two years before being disproved at the end of the second year. In short, if the NFL didn’t make a CBS-to-Fox flex it wouldn’t be able to flex in a CBS game Week 17. Of course flexing in Lions-Eagles Week 14 and Panthers-Saints this week would have achieved the same goal without making the Week 17 flex more dramatic than it had to be, all for the sake of preserving a CBS-Fox balance that, as it turned out, might not even have been relevant if the NFL hadn’t flexed in Bears-Eagles!

Week 17 (December 29):

AFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION
LEADERS
WILD CARD WAITING IN
THE WINGS (6-8)
SOUTH
49-5
511-3
CLINCHED
NORTH
39-5
68-6
8-6
EAST
210-4
8-6
8-6 7-7
WEST
111-3
11-3
NFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION
LEADERS
WILD CARD WAITING IN
THE WINGS (7-6-1)
NORTH
48-6
510-4
7-6-1
EAST
38-6
610-4
7-7
SOUTH
210-4
9-5
10-4
WEST
112-2
10-4
  • Tentative game: None (NBC will show game with guaranteed playoff implications).
  • Possible games: Eagles-Cowboys, Packers-Bears, Ravens-Bengals. (The Jets lost and Miami won, so Jets-Dolphins is out, and the 49ers winning this past week, holding the tiebreaker, and playing on Monday night keeps 49ers-Cardinals from being an option.)
  • Eagles-Cowboys will be selected if: The Cowboys win OR the Packers lose AND the Bengals win AND the Ravens lose AND the Bears beat the Eagles. The NFL could have flexed this game in if the Cowboys and Eagles both lost, but no-o-o-o.
  • Packers-Bears will be selected if: The Packers win OR the Lions lose AND the Cowboys lose AND the Bengals win AND the Ravens lose AND the Eagles beat the Bears. Thanks to the NFC North trying to out-mediocre the NFC East in recent weeks, this game has a real chance to pull the semi-upset, especially if Aaron Rodgers comes back. I’m cracking open the possibility that if it comes down to Eagles-Cowboys or Packers-Bears, the NFL could make the selection contingent on the Bears-Eagles game and have Bob Costas ready to announce it on the postgame.
  • Ravens-Bengals will be selected if: The Cowboys lose AND the Packers lose AND the Bengals lose AND the Dolphins win AND the Ravens lose. That this game ends up determining the AFC North crown is highly likely, as it would only require the Bengals to lose or the Ravens to win, and that would at least allow this game to serve as the NFL’s ace in the hole if Eagles-Cowboys and Packers-Bears are both contingent on the Bears-Eagles result… but if the loser can still pick up the wild card, the NFL may shy away, especially since this game is far less attractive than the perpetual train wreck known as the Dallas Cowboys or the Packers-Bears rivalry, and especially if this just determines home field advantage for a rematch the following week. (In other words, if the Colts lose the NFL is definitely not picking this game in any scenario other than the above.) All told, this week could end up saying a lot about how much the NFL places on being able to announce the Week 17 game at halftime of SNF (or alternatively over whether the NFL favors NBC or Fox more and which game is seen as more attractive), and a lot could depend on how much the NFL can wait to pick one game or the other without having too many ripple effects on the afternoon schedule. There’s an off chance, if things break just right, the NFL just picks Eagles-Cowboys and runs the risk of it being irrelevant (which is still better than being half-relevant).