The other day I read an article by Dave Wischnowsky titled “Wisch: 18 Game Schedule Puts Postseason in Jeopardy.” The author, Dave Wischnowsky, is very upfront with his own views on this topic of the debate over the proposed 18 game schedule change for the NFL. He says at the end of the article “I’d vote for maintaining status quo.” This is his pitch to the public to keep the schedule as it is. He is entering this larger argument that I myself have entered with this blog about the NFL’s proposed schedule change to 18 games. This proposed schedule change is what people are debating and evaluating to see whether it is worth the costs. There is lots of discussion from all sides including the owners, the NFL executives, players, fans, and the sports writing community. Most people except the owners and NFL executives are highly opposed to this addition of two extra games. To make his point Dave Wischnowsky brings up facts on injuries to give his argument some credibility as why he disagrees with the change. Dave Wischnowsky states as evidence that according to the NFL on average almost three players are injured every game and that by adding two more games if you do the math there would be approximately 190 new injuries created by the two extra games combined. These are compelling facts. I do wonder about the validity of these facts though do they just mean when play is stopped for an injury timeout or if the player is hurt and cannot participate in either practices, games, or just can’t return to the game. I also wonder what the average lengths of these injuries are because being injured for two days is a lot different than two months. The answers to these questions could really either support this figure or undermine it. He makes the point that these injuries could be to top players and that this would lead to games being less interesting and the postseason could be effected greatly by the best players’ inability to play. I also question Dave Wischnowsky statement of “I don’t have a vote.” This is where I feel he has gone in the wrong direction he does indirectly have a vote. This vote is in monetary form however. In economics you learn that companies produce the items we want without us telling them. We indirectly tell them what to produce by signaling with our willingness to pay for things. With ticket sales along with viewers at home we control the amount of money the NFL receives. Money is the hinge on what this proposal swings. The owners are expecting more money by gaining more ticket sales and more money from the advertising revenue through network deals. If less people watch because these injuries sideline the best players we can signal the addition of two more games is not profitable. If it’s not profitable the league will not be willing to expand the games or continue this expansion if it is done. Now I discussed this in the past tense as if this change had occurred. If we do like Dave Wischnowsky suggests and we wine about it then this 18 game schedule is inevitable. On the other hand we can signal now that we as fans will not be willing to spend our money on extra watered down games. We are in the moment that this change is being discussed the next few months are critical with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement coming shortly in May. This is why we need to voice our opinions with our wallets to which side of this debate we subscribe to because the sole motivation for this schedule expansion is money. Below I have attached the link to this article if anyone would like to read it and voice your own thought or opinions on it feel free to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment