HT for 10/16/2006: "The Integrity of the Game"

[Sam!]

Looking at professional sports today, you can see some striking differences between today and several decades ago. One of those differences is the influence various "outside" groups have on the games themselves. Specifically this week I'd like to address the changing role of the fan.

For example, you will see sportswriters often write that entertainment is simply part of the NFL game today: endzone celebrations, sack dances, "celebrities" singing or appearing on Monday Night Football, etc. Teams sign players in part simply to attract fans, or sell an image (see Dallas Cowboys and Owens, Terrell). There is pressure on MLB to speed up games because today's fans just don't hae the patience to sit through games ... or that fans want to see more offense (baseball and football both).

So, should the fans have any say in matters on the field? Should the NFL force it's product to be as fan-enticing as it possibly can be? Does that change the game for the more diehard fans?

[middletree]

As an aside, I want to point out that Jones brought in TO not for the fans, but to win. Jones cares deeply about winning, and he hasn't seen a solid team here for 10 years, so he did what he thought the team needed to win in the playoffs. It was not a fan-friendly move, as most fans in this area were against the move at the time, and most still are against it. I am at the top of the list of people who never wanted him here, and I still won't want him here even if they win it all.

As for your actual question, I'd say that it is important for owners of teams to please the fans, just like anyone in any business should try to meet the wants of paying customers.

[Sam!]

I'm not just talking about individual owners here, though - I am saying shoudl the owners make changes to the game based on what fans want?

PS The receiving corps was not what needed to be upgraded this year. But Jerry Jones' Cowboys have been in the national news since training camp because of TO. He knows what he was doing.

[Gandalf]

I don't think rule changes and that sort of thing should be taken lightly, just changing the game itself on a whim because they think it'll be popular at the time.

But as James pointed out, it is their business to draw fans - the advertisers are their primary customers, with the fans themselves also being secondary customers, and they get more advertisers if they have more fans. (I put the advertisers in the primary position there becuase they're the primary revenue source for the teams) - if they ignore fans entirely, they're neglecting the customers, which isn't good business. I think there's a balance. They should respond to fans to some extent, but not to the point of capriciously changing the rules of the game.

[Sam!]

Alright Brian, I'll take the bait. In baseball, what would the line be for "capricious changing of the ruels"?

[Gandalf]

The only example I can think of that has actually happened in baseball is the DH.

[Dan!]

The one that jumps out this year is the clock management rule changes with College football, specifically the end of regulation. A number of coaches blasted the changes initially, but it has gotten quiet lately.

Are they adapting, or are the changes really such a bad thing after all?