Sports

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 5

by

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):

  • 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 8:20 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 8:20 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 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
  • Three teams can 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. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Jets have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since five other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. (So naturally this turned into the Year of Parity!) NBC appearances for all teams: MIN 2, NO 2, DAL 3 (1 flexible), WSH 2, NYG 3 (1 flexible), IND 3 (1 flexible), NYJ 1, MIA 1, CHI 1, PHI 3 (2 flexible), SF 1, GB 3 (1 flexible), PIT 3 (1 flexible), NE 2 (1 flexible), SD 2 (both flexible), BAL 1 (flexible), CIN 1 (flexible). All primetime appearances for all teams: MIN 4, NO 4, DAL 5 (1 flexible), WSH 3, NYG 4 (1 flexible), IND 5 (1 flexible), NYJ 5, MIA 3, CHI 4, PHI 5 (2 flexible), SF 4, GB 4 (1 flexible), PIT 5 (1 flexible), NE 4 (1 flexible), SD 5 (2 flexible), BAL 4 (1 flexible), CIN 3 (1 flexible), ATL 2, HOU 3, TEN 2, CAR 1, ARI 2, KC 1, JAX 1, DEN 1.
  • A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from NFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Tentative game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia
  • Prospects: Both teams at 3-2, so could go either way, but looking good for now.
  • Likely protections: Packers-Vikings (FOX) and Colts-Patriots (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Jets-Texans, Chiefs-Cardinals, Redskins-Titans, with Falcons-Rams, Saints-Seahawks, and Raiders-Steelers as dark horses, all very dependent on how everything shakes out. (Given how chaotic this year is shaking out to be, that goes for all of these weeks and goes double.) CBS would probably protect Jets-Texans based strictly on records, but there’s only one win of difference. Fox would likewise protect Redskins-Titans based strictly on records, and may be tempted to do so anyway, considering Brett Favre may end up retiring by Week 11 – but the temptation of him playing his former team will be too much, especially with an NFC East game as the tentative. (I’ve even seen quite a few people suggesting leaving this week unprotected.)

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Indianapolis
  • Prospects: 3-2 v. 2-3, but the Chargers always start slow. But there are some ominous signs in the Colts’ losses…
  • Likely protections: Reportedly, Eagles-Bears (FOX) and Titans-Texans, Jags-Giants, or nothing (CBS). Bucs-Ravens is slightly better than Eagles-Bears, but the latter contains more name teams and bigger markets.
  • Other possible games: Thanksgiving Weekend, paucity of good games. Besides the potentially protected games, Packers-Falcons, Bucs-Ravens, and who knows, maybe even Vikings-Redskins or Chiefs-Seahawks.

Week 13 (December 5):

  • Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Baltimore
  • Prospects: 4-1 v. 3-1, potentially deciding the AFC North. Extremely good chance of keeping its spot.
  • Likely protections: Falcons-Bucs or Cowboys-Colts, more likely the latter (FOX) and Jags-Titans if anything (CBS). This week has only one good CBS game but a better tentative compared to the other CBS unprotected candidate.
  • Other possible games: Redskins-Giants or the potentially protected games, with Chiefs-Broncos, Rams-Cardinals, and Saints-Bengals as potential dark horses.

Week 14 (December 12):

  • Tentative game: Philadelphia @ Dallas
  • Prospects: 3-2 v. 1-3, but an NFC East game always = ratings, so Fox would still be happy to take this game. This is probably still the most likely unprotected week for Fox.
  • Likely protections: Patriots-Bears (CBS) and probably nothing (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Giants-Vikings and Bucs-Redskins are the main Fox protection candidates if they did protect something. Broncos-Cardinals, Jags-Raiders, Bengals-Steelers, Rams-Saints, and Chiefs-Chargers are dark horses.

Week 15 (December 19):

  • Tentative game: Green Bay @ New England
  • Prospects: 3-2 v. 3-1 means a pretty good chance of keeping its spot.
  • Likely protections: Jets-Patriots (CBS) and Saints-Ravens or Redskins-Cowboys, more likely the latter (FOX). CBS would be putting potential big AFC South games at risk (see below) with a Fox tentative game, but not only might Jets-Patriots decide the division, but the winner could get a first-round bye with the loser going on the road in the first round.
  • Other possible games: Texans-Titans, Jags-Colts, or Eagles-Giants, with Chiefs-Rams and Falcons-Seahawks as dark horses.

Week 16 (December 26)

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Cincinnati
  • Prospects: Both at 2-3, and the Bengals will have trouble catching up to the Ravens and Steelers.
  • Likely protections: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Packers (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Texans-Broncos, Chiefs-Titans, Colts-Raiders, Redskins-Jaguars, or Seahawks-Bucs. Vikings-Eagles has an outside shot, but not enough for Fox to protect it – Brett Favre might not even make it to that game.

Week 17 (January 3):

  • Playoff positioning watch begins Week 9.

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 4

by

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):

  • 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 8:20 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 8:20 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 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
  • Three teams can 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. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Colts have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since three other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. NBC appearances for all teams: MIN 2, NO 2, DAL 3 (1 flexible), WSH 2, NYG 3 (1 flexible), IND 3 (1 flexible), NYJ 1, MIA 1, CHI 1, PHI 3 (2 flexible), SF 1, GB 3 (1 flexible), PIT 3 (1 flexible), NE 2 (1 flexible), SD 2 (both flexible), BAL 1 (flexible), CIN 1 (flexible). All primetime appearances for all teams: MIN 4, NO 4, DAL 5 (1 flexible), WSH 3, NYG 4 (1 flexible), IND 5 (1 flexible), NYJ 5, MIA 3, CHI 4, PHI 5 (2 flexible), SF 4, GB 4 (1 flexible), PIT 5 (1 flexible), NE 4 (1 flexible), SD 5 (2 flexible), BAL 4 (1 flexible), CIN 3 (1 flexible), ATL 2, HOU 3, TEN 2, CAR 1, ARI 2, KC 1, JAX 1, DEN 1.
  • A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from NFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Tentative game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia
  • Prospects: Both teams at 2-2, so could go either way.
  • If protections came this week: Packers-Vikings (FOX) and Colts-Patriots (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Jets-Texans, Chiefs-Cardinals, and Falcons-Rams, all very dependent on how everything shakes out. (Given how chaotic this year is shaking out to be, that goes for all of these weeks and goes double.) CBS would probably protect Jets-Texans based strictly on records.

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Indianapolis
  • Prospects: Another battle of 2-2 teams, but the Chargers always start slow. But there are some ominous signs in the Colts’ losses…
  • If protections came this week: Packers-Falcons or Bucs-Ravens (FOX) and Titans-Texans if anything (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Thanksgiving Weekend, paucity of good games. Besides the potentially protected games, Chiefs-Seahawks, Eagles-Bears, and who knows, maybe even Vikings-Redskins or Jags-Giants.

Week 13 (December 5):

  • Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Baltimore
  • Prospects: 3-1 v. 3-1, potentially deciding the AFC North. Extremely good chance of keeping its spot.
  • If protections came this week: Falcons-Bucs or Cowboys-Colts (FOX) and Chiefs-Broncos if anything (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Saints-Bengals, Jags-Titans, Redskins-Giants, Rams-Cardinals, or the potentially protected games. Because of the paucity of good games Week 12 I suspect CBS will still protect this week.

Week 14 (December 12):

  • Tentative game: Philadelphia @ Dallas
  • Prospects: 2-2 v. 1-2, but an NFC East game always = ratings, so Fox would still be happy to take this game; this is their likeliest spot for an unprotected week.
  • If protections came this week: Patriots-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Vikings if anything (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Chiefs-Chargers, Bengals-Steelers, Rams-Saints, or Bucs-Redskins.

Week 15 (December 19):

  • Tentative game: Green Bay @ New England
  • Prospects: 3-1 v. 3-1 means a good chance of keeping its spot.
  • If protections came this week: Jets-Patriots (CBS) and Saints-Ravens or Redskins-Cowboys (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Texans-Titans, Chiefs-Rams, or Jags-Colts.

Week 16 (December 26)

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Cincinnati
  • Prospects: Both at 2-2, and the Bengals will have trouble catching up to the Ravens and Steelers.
  • If protections came this week: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Vikings-Eagles (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Texans-Broncos, Chiefs-Titans, Giants-Packers, or Seahawks-Bucs.

Week 17 (January 3):

  • Playoff positioning watch begins Week 9.

Whatever happened to Around the Horn?

by

Despite making fun of it in my Around the Horn Drinking Game (which needs a serious update), I’ve always been a fan of ESPN’s Around the Horn, and haven’t agreed with the show’s haters, continuing a long trend of me not making such a big deal out of certain things certain groups love to hate. Despite what many say, I’ve always found it a substantially different show from Pardon the Interruption (though admittedly not necessarily for the better). The panelists bring entertaining personalities, the use of four panelists instead of two (plus a moderator) leads to a distinct dynamic and interplay of opinions, and the game-show-format gimmick keeps people interested all the way to the end (though this year’s backwards-show April Fool’s joke put the final nail in the coffin for anyone who thought the scoring wasn’t scripted).

And yet, the show’s transition into HD has me considering dropping it. I feel like the ATH I’ve been watching the past eight or so years is gone, even though the show itself hasn’t changed. Part of the problem is the bulky two-line rundown, which looks bulky in both HD AND SD; it uses too big a font for HD, and it’s THREE lines in SD, because of a constant Twitter advertisement where the BottomLine is in HD. The idea was good, but the execution could have used some work. (In fact, just by making some relatively minor changes to the rundown, ATH might have gotten away with not letterboxing the show in SD, which is one of the reasons the font is so big in the first place!)

But that’s a relatively minor, though persistent, problem. The way the arrow blocks the entire score when Reali uses the joystick is annoying but understandable as well. My biggest problem is with the rest of the graphics package. It’d be hard for me to put my finger on any one thing. After all, the opening title graphic is trying to ape the old one as much as possible, and even the background sound during each topic is the same. But everything’s just so… busy. Converting the old cartoony graphics into a more 3-D look (which is not the same as trying to adapt it for 3-D TVs – seriously, why the hell would you think that?) calls attention to how cartoony they are, and a lot of the little things are noisy, such as a little chime that plays as the graphic introducing each panelist appears (barely audible but annoying when there’s four of them in quick succession) and to pop up the face time clock. The way the new mute indicator zooms in, in particular, is not only noisy but doesn’t quite match how Reali uses the mute button, so when he mutes someone several times in succession, the indicator zooms in, disappears immediately, zooms in again…

Part of this is “look what we can do now that we’re HD”, and maybe I’m just whining because I don’t like change, but PTI managed to preserve as much about it as they could, and I feel like ESPN or their graphic design firm approached ATH with a certain philosophy, to go whole-hog with some of its cartoony elements. This seems especially evident with the faint arcade-like sound effects near the very beginning of the show and at the halftime recap, the chaotic backgrounds behind the panelists, the unnecessary graphic that appears when someone’s eliminated, and with the way the announcer says “the show of competitive banter” at the start of the show. It’s like they’re trying to make ATH seem like that piece of execrement known as SportsNation (now that’s a lame PTI knockoff), and while that may gel with the image of the show the haters have, it’s not what the show really is. It’s trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. As much as the show has fun and sometimes covers offbeat topics, it’s not an LCD kind of show like SportsNation, and it’s not really ADD TV. The cartoony graphics used to give the show a vaguely public-access, indie feel, but now they make it feel overproduced.

I’m not going to leave ATH until the end of the year, if only because I devised a points system for a year long “ATH Championship” that I want to play out, and hopefully by then they’ll have toned down some of the graphics (or at least the mute indicator)… but they could just as easily change the music to make it seem even MORE cartoony, and keep trying to shoehorn ATH into being a show that it’s not.

But that may already have been a lost cause. Reali mentioned on Wednesday’s show that the original idea of ATH was that each panelist would report stories specific to their region; this was reflected in the map in the old studio, and in the description that appears when I bring up the show in my on-screen program guide, which goes something like: “Columnists from three time zones report local stories and debate hot topics.” (Originally that was four time zones, but for a long time Mariotti never missed a show, meaning that pattern couldn’t hold whenever Cowlishaw or then-Morning-News-reporter Blackistone showed up.) This seems to have already gone by the wayside by the time I started watching less than a year into its existence, and I don’t know how it could have ever worked outside the face-time segment. (According to Wikipedia, originally there were no eliminations and three of the four panelists got face time in seconds equal to their scores, but that too had been left behind by the time I started watching.)

What might have been had ATH stuck to that idea? It could have been a decidedly different show, especially if it ditched the game show gimmick but kept the moderator to give it structure. That would have made it even more of a PTI ripoff, but perhaps many of the same haters could have praised ESPN for trying something different. Heck, a good chunk of the subsequent history of ESPN and the creation of several shows destined to be called PTI clones could have wound up very different. I’d like to see a show where people from different regions of the country talked about stories from their respective regions and gave distinct perspectives on more national matters (and something in team sports would have to be as big as “The Decision” or Roy Halladay’s no-hitter to truly be called national), but right now the people on ATH are bigger than where they come from, as the geographical moves of Woody Paige and Kevin Blackistone show. We could have a showdown that would be as much about Los Angeles versus Chicago as about Bill Plaschke versus Jay Mariotti. But the closest thing we’ve had to that is Versus’ ATH-meets-SportsNation show Fanarchy, and there’s a very good reason that show’s not on the air anymore… so we’re left with ESPN’s proliferation of local sports sites.

I guarantee I wouldn’t be writing this post if it weren’t for Twitter.

by

On Friday, after his last day guest-hosting PTI, ESPN’s Bill Simmons tweeted:

6pm SportsCenter never ran our PTI segment? Sad that America missed my extended Bautista/Lohan natural assets argument. #whoopsmaybethatswhy

I’m not sure this has ever happened, that SportsCenter has bumped out the Big Finish for reasons other than breaking news they need to give full-press coverage to. What’s more, the podcast conspicuously leaves out the bonus argument that’s part of the SportsCenter segment right before the Big Finish itself.

So I have to ask: will Simmons EVER be asked to do PTI or some other ESPN show ever again? Even if the Big Finish was bumped just for the discussion being off-topic as opposed to inappropriate…

Can the FedExCup be saved?

by

Another FedExCup has come and gone. The PGA TOUR’s TV partners have been shoving it down golf fans’ collective throats for months, showing every golfer’s rank in the standings at every event as though anyone cared, trying to get people revved up for the “Playoffs”, and it still didn’t go over with golf fans.

The FedExCup was supposed to be golf’s answer to NASCAR’s Chase for the Sprint Cup. Finally, golf would have its own season-long points chase culminating in a “playoff” event to crown a champion. It hasn’t worked out that way. After the first two FedExCups ended anticlimactically, the PGA TOUR (as it pretentiously capitalizes itself) decided they didn’t want to risk even the slightest chance of the Cup being decided before the TOUR Championship was even played, and adopted a bizarre system where the values of the Playoff events ballooned to five times the normal levels, and the points weren’t reset until the TOUR Championship itself, at which point anyone in the top 5 could win the Cup. Was the TOUR Championship an event held at a course appropriate enough to crown the champion of the entire year in golf? Who the hell knows.

All I know is that NASCAR’s Chase for the Sprint Cup doesn’t seem to have been negatively affected by the possibility of someone all but locking up the title before the final race. I also know that guaranteeing that the FedExCup would come down to the last event hasn’t actually gotten anyone more excited for the FedExCup. It doesn’t help that Tiger Woods was out of the running this year, but no one cared last year either, when Tiger won the whole thing.

What’s the difference between the Chase and the FedExCup? What is NASCAR doing right that the PGA TOUR is doing wrong? Some of it is elements outside the TOUR’s control; NASCAR already had a tradition of a season-long points chase, and golf owes virtually all its popularity to one man right now. No one cares about the vast majority of people competing for the FedExCup, and the PGA TOUR has made it worse by inviting over a hundred people to partake in their “playoffs”, virtually ensuring no one any good is going to be on the bubble not to get in. Wow, way to make your non-majors matter! No wonder you moved the reset to the last event!

The points system doesn’t help – golf fans mocked it roundly when it first came out for its complexity (winners received 4500 points!). At the same time that it moved the point where the points reset, the TOUR also decided to make the points more user-friendly. It did this by reducing the points for a win… to 500. Wow, that’s nice and intuitive. Granted, the TOUR needs to make room in their points scale for the 70 players that make the cut. NASCAR only needs to make room for 43 or so, so they get away with awarding 190 points for a win. The TOUR would probably be awarding 300 points if it wanted to be proportional about it, but it can do even better.

How about this: 100 points for a win.

It’s a nice, round number – everyone and their mother is familiar with 100, and can conceptualize it in terms of percent. The World Golf Rankings use 100 for a win in a major, let alone a regular event; complex modifications aside, what’s wrong with the points system you already had? I’m not going to be using the World Golf Rankings points system, though, and I’ll explain later how I cram 70 players into 100 points.

2nd place receives 50 points, a bit less than the World Golf Rankings and a lot bigger drop-off than the 20 points from a higher number in NASCAR. If they lose in a playoff, they get 70 points, reflecting the fact that outside the US Open, most golf tournament playoffs involve choosing one hole that may or may not be representative of the entire course.

3rd place gets 35 points, 4th 30, 5th 25, 6th 21, 7th 18, 8th 15, 9th 12, and 10th place receives 10. Ties receive the highest possible number of points. Yes, I know money is awarded by taking the average of the tied positions, but the money list does that because it has a set purse; the amount of money it awards in total is predetermined. For points standings, do you really want to ask casual fans to do all that addition and division to decipher the points standings or determine how many points each golfer will get? And is there anything less user-friendly than fractions of a point?

Beyond 10th place, points are awarded based on strokes, not positioning; subtract one point for each stroke behind 10th to a minimum of 1 for anyone who makes the cut. This is one of the biggest sources of confusion in existing ranking schemes: in most golf tournaments, most of the players who make the cut tend to cluster around a few scores, resulting in massive ties. By awarding points for these positions based on position, the number of points awarded is almost based on chance, even using the money list’s system. This way, mid-table golfers know every stroke is worth one point – no more, no less. And setting a hard minimum of 1 also gets rid of those horrible fractional points.

What about majors? 150 points for winning a major, 100 for playoff losers, 75 for second, 50 for third, 40 for fourth, 30 for 5th, 25 for 6th, 20 for 7th, and the same as before for the rest. THE PLAYERS Championship awards 125 for winning, 80 for playoff losers, 60 for 2nd, 40 for 3rd, and the same as before for the rest. World Golf Championship events award 110 for winning, 75 for playoff losers, and the same as before for the rest. Events held the same weekend as bigger events give winners 25 points, 20 for second place (playoff or no), 15 for 3rd, 12 for 4th, 10 for 5th, and deductions for strokes behind 5th to a minimum of 1 – though beyond a certain point, you shouldn’t get benefit of the doubt for squeaking past the cutline and then crapping out at an event the best players were spending somewhere more important. Again, no fractional points.

How exactly the championship is awarded is a thornier issue, although the current approach surely isn’t it. The purest approach is to not do any reset or jacking up of the points, but then you need to be prepared for the championship being well in hand at the final event, and maybe even the winner not showing up there at all. You could just do successive cutlines without resetting the points standings, so each “playoff” event counts the same as any other, but that’s unlikely to affect the top players.

Do you have a four-event playoff, and reset the standings beforehand? Maybe, but you need to make sure the events are balanced – some courses have higher roughs, some wider fairways, some are longer than others. Make sure you have enough of a balance of challenges as you do the rest of the year, so everyone is challenged evenly and someone has to be a very good all-around golfer to take enough of a lead to skip an event.

This is something I’m not sure NASCAR has figured out – near as I can tell there isn’t a single road course in the Chase, and while I know correlation doesn’t imply causation, I can’t shake the feeling that it’s not a coincidence that the advent of the Chase has coincided with Jimmie Johnson’s literally unprecedented run of dominance. Also, in accordance with the notion of providing a balance of challenges, have only one cutline and cut only the top 70 or 30. (Or maybe two, with a second cutline where you go from 70 to 30.

Do you bring only the top 15-30 players or so to the TOUR Championship, and have that event be winner-take-all? Maybe, but if so, you better make damn sure you push it as a fifth or sixth major, at least on par with the PLAYERS. Put it at storied courses like Pebble Beach (the course also needs to do a good job of teasing out the best all-around golfer rather than being an outlier), hand out major-level money or more, do everything you can to make sure golfers and fans see it as one of the top six most important events and prizes of the year. Only enjoin it with other events in a “playoff” if a) you do cuts without resets as above, or b) the cutline for the playoff events is determined entirely by the order of finish on the course that week. A low cutline also ensures it succeeds in its real goal, encouraging participation and success in the TOUR’s “other” tournaments.

In retrospect, it may have been a mistake for the TOUR to leave ESPN in favor of the Golf Channel as its sole cable partner; heaven knows ESPN wouldn’t just shove it down our throats but send it out the other side. The TOUR is left hoping the Comcast/NBC merger not only goes through but succeeds in creating a true competitor to ESPN. It’s also still an open question whether or not non-head-to-head sports like the PGA TOUR or NASCAR should even have “playoffs” given the need to balance fair competition with a dramatic finish. And in the end, will anyone care if Tiger doesn’t care? Will anyone care if there is no Tiger? Will anyone care about golf if there is no Tiger?

Adventures in crazy lineal titles

by

Most of the time, the college football lineal titles don’t change hands the first few weeks as all the good teams play cupcakes. Someone forgot to tell the 2006 Boise State title.

It freakily ended the season in the hands of non-bowl-eligible Washington, so perhaps an early change is to be expected, but it has changed hands every single week this season. Hopefully now that it’s in the hands of big-boy Oklahoma it’ll stay in place the next several weeks, at least until the Red River Rivalry.

All lineal titles are now properly updated.

Belated remarks on BYU going independent in football

by

The biggest loser in the Not-So-Great Conference Shakeup of 2010 may be the Mountain West, who got screwed through no real fault of their own whatsoever.

Yay, the Pac-10 may singlehandedly destroy the Big 12! We could wind up with the Kansas schools or even more, and then the BCS would HAVE to let us in to the party! Oh wait, they called off the dogs – well, at least we got Boise State out of the deal, although now that’s a wash because the Pac-10 is adding Utah to complement Colorado and become the Pac-12. Oh well, at least it’s a wash…

…except BYU has just lost its biggest link to the Mountain West and wants to go independent in football and join the WAC in other sports! But wait, we’re adding Nevada and Fresno State to effectively destroy the WAC! But wait, BYU is STILL leaving, only they’re joining the West Coast Conference in other sports instead of the WAC! Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

(Incidentially, the one underplayed angle in all this is the surely-salivating-to-ESPN-execs-tongues prospect of regular BYU-Gonzaga games in the West Coast Conference. Though BYU is rarely if ever the best team in the Mountain West, it is one of the Mountain West’s stronger teams in basketball, and Gonzaga has to like the prospect of having a legitimate playing partner other than St. Mary’s.)

The Mountain West is left with 10 teams, one more than before, but only two BCS-caliber programs instead of the present three: TCU and Boise State. Nevada and Fresno State are good teams in football, by non-Boise WAC standards, but at best they’re on the level of an Air Force: they’ll sneak into the Top 25 sometimes, but they’ll rarely make true national headlines. (Air Force knocking off BYU being an exception.) That won’t help the Mountain West’s case for becoming a BCS conference or dissolving the system. In fact, BYU’s move by itself could make the system stronger than ever, especially if they get a BCS auto bid (which could be a smarter move than you might think precisely for that reason).

But why would BYU make the move? Notre Dame is under heavy pressure to join a conference at some point, so BYU is bucking the trend by leaving one. Of course they weren’t getting much help getting into the BCS by staying in the Mountain West. But the big thing BYU is banking on is its status as the Mormon university. They are banking on becoming the new Notre Dame, Notre Dame West, with every game getting national coverage and a truly national following. They want to leverage their BYU network and turn it into a national powerhouse. (It’s unlikely any football games would air on BYU TV, but the mtn. deal prevents even non-football sports from airing on BYU TV.)

The success of BYU’s declaration of independence depends heavily on whether or not BYU can put together a schedule at least as good as what they had in the Mountain West, and the outlook is staggering. If you’re going to set yourselves up to be the new Notre Dame or Notre Dame West, it makes sense to set up a rivalry with the real Notre Dame. Throw in Texas, Oregon State, and Utah, and that’s four games against teams in BCS conferences, with an eye for more. Good luck getting that in the Mountain West. And BYU has signed a deal with ESPN, which means the full ESPN hype machine will be in full effect and BYU games will regularly be on a platform with wider availability than Versus. All that’s left is recruiting.

If BYU can continue to recruit and play at the same level that they have been in the Mountain West, and regularly play in BCS games, independence will suddenly look like a viable prospect and Notre Dame can start saying “I told you so”. This could be the move that ultimately sets up the next great conference shakeup and finishes off the Big 12. The Pac-10 and Big 10 are too tightly-knit to lose any teams to independence, but they and the SEC may be the only reasonably invulnerable conferences, and even then Nebraska and Penn State have to consider the possibility (though the Big Ten Network revenues may be too much to resist).

(USC will definitely be tempted if probation and Lane Kiffin don’t prevent the program from maintaining its Carroll-era heights, especially compared to the rest of the Pac-10 – and if a team that lost its upperclassmen and can’t go to a bowl is still ranked in the polls and that ranking is warranted, I guarantee USC will win a national championship the first year off probation.)

If Texas decides the outlook is right, they could jump to independence in a heartbeat (just look at how much more money it makes in all sports than the next non-Big 10, non-SEC, non-Notre Dame school), with Oklahoma following (though the Big 12 could stay together after all if enough other teams follow suit). Other teams that were once both independent and powerhouses before the 90s shakeup – Florida State, Miami (FL) – could bolt as well, which is bad news for the ACC. With ten members, the ACC could stay alive, if not taken very seriously and looking like the new Big East (though Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Boston College, and a few others are good teams), but the Big 12 would be down to eight pissed-off members, who might start looking at other conferences or at independence themselves.

But that’s trying to predict the unpredictable. Right now the future involves the impending destruction of the WAC, which is down to six teams and couldn’t even field a conference if Hawaii leaves. If the WAC can keep Hawaii in the fold they will try to replenish their numbers, probably with potential playing partners for Louisiana Tech from Conference USA and possibly the Sun Belt, but if it can’t a lot depends on what the Mountain West decides to do next, and whether they want to go straight to a football championship game or wait for better options than the WAC’s castoffs (like the Kansas schools should BYU’s defection eventually cause the Big 12 to implode).

If they do decide to go for a championship game, they will and should take Utah State and New Mexico State (the former is already rumored to be Mountain West-bound). Both, along with MWC-bound Nevada, are among the WAC’s best teams in basketball (when all is said and done the Mountain West’s new lineup would have had five teams in the NCAA Tournament last year), New Mexico State brings New Mexico’s in-state rival in-house, and while Utah State’s potential playing partners are both gone it does re-establish the Mountain West’s foothold in the sizable Utah market. That leaves Idaho, San Jose State, and Louisiana Tech. LA Tech likely joins Conference USA; Idaho and San Jose State, two of the worst college football programs in the nation, may have no choice but to go to FCS or shutter their football programs entirely. Perhaps the Big Sky or Summit League will take Idaho (although most of the Summit’s schools don’t play football so if Idaho keeps the football program the Big Sky may be the only option). The Big West may be the only geographic and cultural fit for San Jose State, and most if not all of their schools don’t play football, so their football program may be screwed unless they or Idaho want to go to the Great West.

Then begins the process of keeping a close eye on how BYU does financially and athletically over the next decade, as the future of college football may lie in their hands.

A new set of college football rankings for us to play with!

by

That feeling is in the air… it’s college football time again, and with it comes the return of all-out obsessive coverage on Da Blog. Both lineal titles (college and NFL) have been belatedly updated, including the new 2009 Boise State title and Super Bowl XLIV title. (I’ll have a post on the new holder of 2006 Boise State coming soon.) Although my Da Blog Poll came out to two votes to keep the College Football Schedule to one to junk it, I’m getting rid of it anyway. I need all the free time I can get to work on other things, and along with the College Football Rankings, starting Week 3 I’ll be premiering a new college football concept that has a lot more reason to premiere at the point any two teams can be connected to one another through a series of games… and one that could prove to be a lot more time-consuming than the Schedule ever was.

I started thinking about this with regards to combat sports like boxing and MMA, which I may extend this concept to eventually. If any sport has a more confusing title situation than college football, it’s those two (and horse racing), with all the different weight classes, not to mention all the different sanctioning bodies in the former. But for all the confusion over who the champ is, how the champ is determined is fairly straightforward: to be the man, you have to beat the man. So long as the champion does not lose, that person will remain the champion. This is taken to the point where lists of rankings will actually separate out the champion from the ranked fighters. No matter how strong a record you may rack up, to be the man, you have to beat the man. The championship system in combat sports is predicated on the notion that the result of a single fight is representative of which fighter is better overall. The same principle should be in play for ranking fighters below the champion.

Now, in what other sport is this the case? I don’t just ask this rhetorical question because I already created the college football lineal title on the same notion. You regularly hear the argument that Team A is better than Team B because Team A beat Team B, even if it was by one point in overtime at home. In a sense, this is the philosophy behind the BCS Title Game, as well as, to a lesser extent, the Super Bowl. (In most other sports a series of games determines the champion, removing some of the uncertainty and ambiguity of a single game.) You take what you think is the top two teams, pit them against each other, and the winner is the champion, as well as considered “better”.  As I pointed out last year, 2005 USC may well have been as good as ESPN said they were when they infamously started comparing the Trojans to all the great teams of the past, but we take it as given that Texas was the better team, because they beat USC. And BCS arguments are regularly settled by comparing whether one of the teams under discussion beat the other.

So I’m introducing what I call the line-of-sight rankings, to bring if not objectivity, at least consistency to the criteria we already use to argue about college football. Every team is situated below all the teams it lost to and above all the teams it beat. Obviously, there will be contradictions in the rankings, and in those cases we’ll have to throw out some games. We’ll determine what games to throw out in this order:

  • If two or more different contradictions can be resolved by throwing out a single game, throw out that game. Throw out the game that resolves the most contradictions, except that if a game is the most recent game for at least one team, it is considered to resolve one fewer contradiction than it actually does.
  • Otherwise, always eliminate home-team victories before neutral-site games, and neutral-site games before road-team victories.
  • Among games of similar siting, for every full 10 points of the margin of victory, add one to the week number. Then eliminate the game with the lowest week number, but do not eliminate a team’s most recent game. In event of a tie, eliminate the game with the smaller margin of victory. If there is still a tie, add the total number of losses for the winning team to the total number of wins by the losing team, and eliminate the game where that number is higher. If there is still a tie, remove the prohibition on eliminating a team’s most recent game, and if that does not help, subtract the losing team’s C Rating from the winning team’s C Rating, and eliminate the game where that number is lower.

Because every team doesn’t play every other team in college football, there will still be ambiguity in the rankings. If a team’s worst relevant loss is to the team, and their best relevant win is to the team, where between those two numbers is the team itself ranked? I settle these situations as follows:

  • If there is a “pod” of only one team as described above, including undefeated teams, rank the team directly ahead of the best team beaten in a relevant win. Winless teams are ranked directly behind their worst relevant loss. The team in question will have the rank of their worst relevant loss in parenthesis or, if undefeated in relevant games but not , have their entry boldfaced.
  • If there are two or more “pods” of multiple teams each that can be ranked a certain way between any two teams (or at the top or bottom of the rankings), or if there are two individual teams that can be ranked between another two teams but whose ranking vis-a-vis one another is unclear, break them up and rank them separately, within their own pods. Each team’s rank is listed as their best possible ranking except at the top of the rankings, when it is their worst possible ranking. In the case of the individual teams, they are listed as tied and in C Rating order unless one has a lineal title.

I’ll whip out the first rankings Week 3, when they become meaningful, and we’ll see how they play themselves out over the course of the season, and how much work they add to my already heavy workload.

Sports graphics: Baseball, ESPN, Golf, and other things

by

Getting this out of the way before the NFL preseason starts in earnest:

A new element is all the rage in baseball graphics, pioneered by YES Network, with NESN changing its graphics shortly into the season to accommodate it, and starting to make appearances on ESPN. If the experiences of YES and NESN are any indication, this new element will effectively force already-crowded banners to become two-line boxes to squeeze it in. (How many banners are left on baseball coverage beyond Comcast SportsNet?)

I’m referring to the pitch count meter. The general trend seems to be to make the pitch count meter share space with wherever the speed of each pitch appears. YES and NESN have put the score and places of runners on the top line, and nothing else, with everything else going on the bottom line…

…while ESPN has put both elements in the same space as the positions of the runners on base. The pitch speed is displayed first for longer than normal, followed by the pitch count for a shorter period.

Incidentally, the design of YES and NESN’s boxes seems to suggest that Fox may want to consider a version of my original baseball two-line box idea. If Fox wanted to impose pitch count on its current two-line box, it would have to adopt an approach similar to ESPN’s and display both pitch speed and pitch count in the same space as the count and number of outs. (Incidentially, did anyone notice the red-white-and-blue theme all Fox and FSN graphics adopted for the positions of runners on base for July 4th weekend and reprised for the All-Star Game?)

In other baseball graphics news, MASN joins the box bandwagon, while SportsTime Ohio, whose graphics I’ve mocked in the past, creates a graphic easily mistaken for ESPN’s (using the same font and the same color down the sides of the team abbreviations seen in ESPN’s other new graphics) and may have outdone them in the process. The graphic still inexplicably disappears when not showing the pitcher-batter confrontation, and not displaying “MPH” on the pitch speed is jarring, but at least it doesn’t show a team logo when no one is on base for no reason anymore.

I get the sense that ESPN’s graphics for non-SportsCenter studio shows, which have been seen on “Winner’s Bracket”, “Baseball Tonight”, “The Decision”, and during ESPN’s World Cup coverage, were designed after the SportsCenter graphics and possibly following a change of priorities. Especially when a headline is shown at the bottom of the screen, the somewhat robotic look actually looks spiffier than SportsCenter, despite the latter supposedly being the flagship show. In addition, the graphics, especially the colors, look too specific and may have been designed for color symmetry with the World Cup world feed in mind; it’ll work for most sports, and worked really well during the World Cup, but it’s not meshing well at all on Baseball Tonight. BBTN could have done well to adopt the sport-specific look now seen on NFL Live and College Football Live; time will tell if that look survives the transition to the new graphics (though college football probably wouldn’t suffer from a full transition to them).

I much preferred ESPN’s actual World Cup score graphic to those on Univision and CBC, especially since ESPN didn’t try and fail to ape the world feed’s other graphics. But as the World Cup went along, ESPN first put up a display of team jerseys on the screen whenever it could, and then incorporated them into the graphic itself, at the expense of consistency with the world feed graphics. Had ESPN been thinking ahead, it could have added jersey colors in a way that created more flow, such as in a line underneath the team abbreviations.

During the World Cup, I noticed that ESPNews had dropped its larger BottomLine in favor of a BottomLine more like those in place on other ESPN networks. I haven’t been keeping up on my feeds so I don’t know if this has already gone through the sports media blogosphere (although SportsCenter will be expanding its presence on the News soon), but it seems odd that ESPNews is still using its old graphics, especially since they spill off the edges of the screen in SD. Might a change to get closer to ESPN’s other graphics be in the works?

If the graphics ESPN had during the British Open are its new golf graphics, they weren’t in place for the US Senior Open. They’re not dissimilar to graphics ESPN has sometimes added to other networks’ golf highlights during SportsCenter, and while they show the level of customization available across sports (even with changes in colors), they definitely reflect ESPN’s new graphic style… when displaying the leaderboard and studio personnel. I’d prefer the player-name-crammed-to-the-side style used in other sports than what ESPN actually used when showing player stats, involving the player name across the top in a jarringly different large Arial font. Look at the bottom video and tell me the front nine and back nine scores couldn’t have been shown consecutively – wasn’t the point of the new format to avoid taking up too much space? Even the World Series of Poker is using the name-crammed-to-the-side style!


Augusta National finally entered the 21st century, and adopted graphics for the Masters more like CBS’ current graphics for other golf tournaments, while still looking unique.

Versus’ new IndyCar graphics are a downgrade, and look too much like ESPN’s new motorsports graphics – complete with displaying time behind the leader on the same line as the name of each driver! On the plus side, shortly after (or maybe even before) my last roundup Versus did indeed shake up its other graphics – they’ve gone from aping old ESPN graphics to old Fox graphics, but it’s a start!

Finally, NBC… what are you doing, man?!? After how much I praised how you managed to get timeout indicators to mesh with the rest of your graphic, you go and adopt these bulky white things at the Hall of Fame Game.

Why replay wouldn’t have fixed the controversial foul ball call in Thursday’s Phillies-Marlins game

by

Bob Davidson’s controversial call in Thursday’s Phillies-Marlins game, depriving the Marlins of the potential game-winning run, has sparked yet another round of calls for baseball to adopt instant replay, even among Phillies fans… except there was nothing replay could have done in this instance, and not just because there wasn’t a camera in proper position to make absolutely certain that, just because the ball bounced fair before the bag and fair after the bag, that necessarily meant it was fair as it crossed the bag.

Once the ball is called foul, the play is dead. The fielders stop going for the ball, the runners stop running the bases, and you can’t make assumptions about what might or might not have happened had the play continued. Yes, the runner on second probably would have scored, but how can you say that for certain? What if there would have been a play at the plate? Every sport with replay has this same problem (think when a completed pass is called incomplete); at best, you could do with tennis does and say the pitch doesn’t count, taking away a strike if there weren’t two strikes already.

There was a similar play in last year’s postseason where a fair ball (more indisputably fair than in this instance) was called foul. But in that case, the ball bounced into the stands for a ground-rule double, making it fairly straightforward to determine the outcome of the play – similar to how baseball currently determines whether a home run was fair or foul. You can’t use replay in circumstances where the actions of the players would determine the outcome of the play if it hadn’t ended.We all want baseball to get with the 21st century and adopt replay, but let’s not get too carried away.