Power of relegation
We are days away from week 17 of the 2011 NFL season, and most fans will be looking to see which teams will qualify for the post season. For teams that have no chance in getting to the playoffs, who are facing other non-playoff bound teams, we can certainly expect fairly empty stadiums.
The “dead-wood” teams, as is always the case in the last few weeks of every NFL season will not create a lot of media attention or fan fare.
A few years ago, an American sports writer, Chuck (what a wonderfully all American name) Culpepper became fascinated with not just British soccer (The Premiership) but the bottom of the league battle, known simply as the “relegation battle.”
The three worst teams in the Premiership each season are relegated, and three teams from the lower division pop up. This makes for interesting watching at both ends of the table. Yes we want to see who will win the big trophy and which teams are in the hunt to qualify for the European football the following season. But down at the foot of the table, is where Culpepper feels is where the real drama is.
If a team gets knocked out of the Premiership they lose millions of pounds, and often have to sell their star players. Good players don’t like playing in lower divisions, and no team is too big for the drop. Leeds were playing in the champions League semi final and just a couple of years later they were relegated. West Ham, a perennial yo-yo club, lost the services of the player of the year last year, Scott Parker, who signed for Spurs after his team got relegated.
Now I know the American sports scene would consider relegation too much of a risk. The NFL wouldn’t like to see “big market” teams such as the Giants or the Cowboys just vanish into the lower leagues. Yet they still don’t mind moving franchises and changing their names completely. Yet the stories surrounding the Browns, Titans, Colts and possibly now the Jaguars is a whole different essay.
The fact that the three teams will be relegated, which is a real consequence, is what makes the tail end of the season exciting. A low quality team might just scrap by and avoid relegation and that would be considered a great year...survival.
The NFL claims that “on any given Sunday” any team can beat another, and I do believe this to be true. The distance from worst to best is not nearly as much as in the Premiership. So yes, the tail end teams could be exciting to watch as they can make some upsets. Two weeks ago the heavily injured Kansas City Chiefs, beat the Super Bowl champs, who were currently gunning for a perfect season.
Yet, because of no real consequence in coming last in the NFL, there is no real drama or pull to watch the low quality teams. The NFL likes every game to matter and for as many teams as possible to be in the playoff hunt as possible. They also like the last week of the season to be of playoff importance.
The NFL has their wish for a few games and none more than the Giants hosting the Cowboys on Sunday Night, where the winner takes all. Yet there are more than a handful of what I will call “dud” games, these are games that have no meaning what so ever, because both teams are out of the playoff race.
Losing will prevail...Surely not.
Normally each year, one or two teams do very badly and become the worst NFL team for the year. The NFL’s adopts a “Socialist Capitalist” lens, which on the plus side creates, parity across the league in several ways. The 32 NFL teams get the same split from the tickets, merchandise and T.V revenue, while the salary cap prevents rich teams buying the Super Bowl. This is all great for the game, but where I have a problem is with the Draft.
Keeping in with the socialist part of the NFL, the worst team each gets to pick first at the following year’s draft. Quite the contrast to the Premiership and most other leagues, where the worst team gets relegated and often struggles to make it back with the big boys. In the NFL the worst team is ironically rewarded with the best college player.
On one level gaining the first pick is a good thing and it makes bad teams go from bad to worse very quickly, keeping all teams on their toes, and thus prevents a good team winning each year. In the past having the first pick has been a double edged sword. The first rounder has demanded so much money that if that the franchise picking him is still taking a big risk.
Now after the lockout there is in place a rookie salary cap, which I do agree with. Yet now more than any other season that I can remember teams and fans want their teams to lose to move their increase their draft picking order.
The passion to come last this year is probably helped by wonder kid, Andrew Luck, the Stanford QB who surprised us all by NOT winning the Heisman trophy this year. Yet this weekend we have as many as three teams who will not want to be winning:
The Colts are 2-13 and are playing the equally feeble 4-11 Jaguars. The Rams are also 2-13, yet they are playing the 12-3 49ers, who will be gunning for a win for a first round bye. Both the Rams and Colts are looking to lose to get that first round pick. Surely that is not right? And if they both win, then look to the hapless Vikings at 3-12 who are playing the 7-8 Bears. The Viking will want to lose and try and get a high pick as possible.
This is a professional sport and as much as players and coaches fundamentally want to win, I’m sure they can’t help but think what wonders Andrew Luck will bring to their team next year if they managed to draft him.
My worry is that, this is not only bringing the game into disrepute and changing the integrity of the game, but it is simply not fair to the other teams. The Saints are 12-3 like the 49ers. Both teams want a win to give them a first round bye in the playoffs. The Saints are playing the 6-9 Carolina Panthers. Who are out of the playoff race, so they may decide to lie down and get beat, but it is unlikely as their new QB, Cam Newton is pretty competitive. Yet, the 49ers are playing the 2-13 Rams who will want to lose to beat the Colts to the first round pick. How is that fair to the Saints?
Losing on purpose cannot be the answer in the NFL. If so it is doomed!
My personal suggestions!
These are just a few ideas that I think the NFL should think about, so they teams like the Colts and Rams are not losing on purpose.
Consequences: There needs to be some kind of consequence, booby prize, punishment...Call it what you will, but something bad enough has to happen to the worst teams so that teams play hard through 17 weeks and not try to lose. Of course there is the embarrassment of being the worst in the league like the winless 0-16 Lions in 2008. Yet maybe embarrassment is not good enough.
Now the Lions are in the playoffs, the first time they have been there since 1999, and that is a good thing. A consequence needs to be sturdy enough to prevent teams coming last, but it cannot be too harsh like relegation because those franchises might get lost forever.
I admit the draft system probably works most of the time and the NFL is right in keeping the socialism in the league, but what is the answer?
Host an International Series game
Perhaps the worst team has to host an International series game the following season. Of course this is not good globally for the game. Would foreign fans want to pay money to see the worst team in the NFL? And some NFL teams really like playing on International soil. Yet the NFL has said it would like to expand the NFL International Series, to other cities and countries. So perhaps the worst NFL team can go and play in North Korea, or maybe even Birmingham?
Lose squad numbers
NFL teams are allowed 53 men to be kitted up on Sundays. Maybe an incentive to not finish last would be that the losing team is maybe only allowed to kit up 50 men on Sunday. Yes this would hinder them, but something has to be done so they have to try to not come last.
Pay a fine
Perhaps teams have to either pay a fine or lose out on some salary cap. The latter might be difficult for them to rebuild and then they carry on losing, but it would sure make them try not to lose the season before.
In still a rotating relegation 33rd team
With all this talk about L.A needing a team (just because they are a big city) really irks me. They have had two NFL teams in the past and neither did well. Plus the size of the city should not determine the passion of the fans. Green Bay is a tiny city in Wisconsin, and they are the most rabid fans in the NFL.
So instead of just giving L.A a team to be placed in the NFL, make them play for it, make them earn their right. So in the 1st year the L.A team would not play any pro games. They could have a squad from draft picks, train all year round and play exhibition games against college teams. Then come the end of the NFL season, they play the worst team. In this case it would probably be the Colts. If the L.A team win, they are in the NFL the following season, while the Colts spend year training and playing exhibition games. So in essence there are 33 teams, but only 32 only ever play in one season.
I think this is the best idea out of the bunch, but I’m sure the NFL would not like it as it does not adhere to their strict AFC-NFC conferences and geographic based divisions. But to be honest I don’t see a better solution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment