Cam Newton needs to learn how to lose.

Maybe you’ve sensed a slight difference between 2015 Cam Newton and 2016 Cam Newton.  2015 Cam was brash, cocky, and always doing that Superman thing he does.  2016 Cam is churlish, abrupt and uncommunicative, although he does display an excellent fashion sense in his headwear.

Perhaps the difference is that last year Cam’s team, the Carolina Panthers, went 15-1 and went to the Super Bowl, while this season the Panthers are 2-5.  Are the Panthers that much worse?  People always react to adversity in the same way—they call it bad luck.  The fact is that there isn’t much difference between the two teams; heck FiveThirtyEight called the 2015 Panthers the worse 11-0 team of all time. Last season’s schedule was really easy, the sixth easiest based on 2014 winning percentages, and they didn’t beat a single team with a winning record.  Cam Newton won an MVP award.  Everything was great until the Super Bowl.

That’s when the heavily favored Panthers were humiliated by the underdog Broncos.  Newton was petulant, churlish and brief, mostly giving one word answers. He later admitted his behavior was a mistake, but then he pretty much has done the exact same thing this season.

Cam Newton needs to learn how to lose.

Some people will disagree.  Some people will say what made Michael Jordan great was his drive not to lose.  Some people will say that Lebron James has that same drive, and that’s what makes him great.  Lebron once refused to shake hands with his opponent after a game, claiming he was just too competitive.

Hogwash.

Willie Mays, the greatest living baseball player, never refused to shake hands after a game; was he a loser?  The same goes for hundreds of baseball, hockey, basketball and football players.  It’s called sportsmanship.  It’s why we force little league teams to shake after a game; the battle is over, and now we respect our foes.  Showing respect does not diminish us in any way.

Rudyard Kipling’s classic poem If teaches us “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/ And treat those two impostors just the same . . . you’ll be a man, my son.” Drive to win is important before the battle, but once the battle is over your enemy is no longer your enemy and should be respected, just as you should expect respect in return.

Is this an important topic?  I think it is.  Look at our political situation (yes, it’s distasteful, but try).  At the GOP convention (in Cleveland, the city of winners?) speakers like Rudy Guiliani said in no uncertain terms that losing wasn’t an option, that a win by Hilary Clinton would mean the start of a totalitarian regime that would enslave mankind (if you think I am overstating what he said, get a transcript). Doubtless the Democrats feels pretty much the same way about a Trump victory in November.

I can’t find exactly who first said “Failure is not an option” (I seem to recall it from the movie Apollo 13) but they were wrong—failure is always an option.  When you think it isn’t, then it justifies any subterfuge in the name of winning.  The important thing isn’t winning, but winning by playing within the rules.  If you elevate winning to an imperative, then it justifies cheating, as well as rudeness.  I don’t have to tell you what rudeness leads to (I probably do, but I prefer to leave it to your imagination).

I hope this season is teaching Cam Newton how to be a better loser.  So far it doesn’t seem to, but the season isn’t half over.  And I’m sure that when Cam Newton is sitting at home watching the Super Bowl in February, I hope he gets to see a better performance in the post-game press conference by the losing conference.

I do hope he keeps rocking the hats, though.

more on the NFL ratings drop

Let me return to the topic of my previous post, the search for an explanation for the 10% decline in NFL rating this year.  As with everything, the reasons for any event happening are many and varied.  Yes, the elections may be eating into some of the viewership for football; yes, some people may swear off watching professional football while a few players are kneeling during the national anthem (a recent survey said that 56% thought that anthem protests affected ratings; but note those are NOT people saying they watch less because of protests-- they are probably pro-police white people who disapprove of protests and thus claim they cause viewers to tune out even though they don’t); and  yes, the popularity of English Premiere League soccer in America may be part of the problem (although the Premiere League is having its own ratings crisis in England).

But the cause I single out is the dilution of the NFL product thanks to Thursday Night games and games being played overseas, mostly in London but this year also in Mexico City.  I do not claim authorship of this theory; others have pointed out that Mark Cuban forecast this development two years ago. Unlike most owners Cuban is very, very smart, so it should come as no surprise that he is right about something.

But there is still a causal connection to be deciphered.  It is easy to say that the NFL is losing viewers because they are putting out an inferior product, but that doesn’t end the discussion.  After all, people keep watching the Pro Bowl even though the quality of pay is execrable.   So it isn’t the bad play itself that is causing the problem.

My best guess is that putting out inferior games at new and different times breaks the conditioned response that the NFL has created in most American men.  Men organize their entire weekends around Sunday football, and families time their Thanksgiving dinners around the NFL schedule (which continues to include the Detroit Lions even though they have sucked for 40 years; come on NFL, even MLB stopped having the first game of the season in Cincinnati just because they were the first professional baseball team). 

But when you put a game on in London at 6:30 AM Pacific time, a lot of men will decide to sleep in or attend church rather than watch the game (most of which have not been good, for whatever reason).  When you put games on Thursday night and they aren’t good because the teams don’t have the usual amount of time to prepare, and it’s on TV opposite Grey’s Anatomy, some men will decide to hand the remote to their wives.  And voila! The Pavlovian call and response is broken.  Men un-learn to turn on an NFL game just because it’s there.  So the next time there is a match-up between two 3-4 teams on a Sunday afternoon, there is no longer any urgency to watch.

There is another possibility that would require research that I just don’t have the time to do.  It seems to me that as players have gotten bigger, faster, and more aggressive, injuries are on the rise, and naturally defenses target the best offensive players.  Now that the NFL has something called a “concussion protocol” it is possible that a quarterback will not play in a game the week after taking a hit to the head.  Even without concussions, the Vikings lost their quarterback and their leading rusher even before the first game of the season was over (but they seem to be doing okay so far).

Injuries make the games less interesting.  Who wants to watch Patriots vs. Steelers if Ben Rothlisberger isn’t playing?  What may look like a marquee matchup before the season starts may turn out to be a battle between two mediocre teams if key players on both sides aren’t suited up.  This may explain a lot of what passes for “parity” in the NFL.  Last year the Panthers had an easy schedule and no major injuries and went 15-1; this year they have a more difficult schedule and Cam Newton has been under “concussion protocol” and they are 1-5.  You can’t put your best games on Sunday or Monday night if you don’t know who’s going to be out with an injury.

I think that the poor refereeing that has been seen, and the more frequent flagging for celebrations, also makes outcomes more random and thus less satisfying.  An incorrect pass interference call can result in a gain (or non-gain) of 50 yards and may determine the outcome of a game and, oh yeah, aren’t reviewable.  A microchip in the nose of a football could conclusively prove when the ball crosses the plane of the end zone, but the NFL is too cheap to install them.  Some of the demand for perfection is overkill, but fans want games where the outcome is determined by the players, not by a bunch of guys in striped shirts penalizing teams because the receiver shouted “Yippee!” after scoring a touchdown. 

So, to conclude, the reason for the decline in NFL TV ratings are many and varied.  The NFL can’t control increased access to entertainment via streaming services.  Some of it may just be the passage of time.  Boxing and horse racing used to be major sports; now I couldn’t name a single boxer other than venerable old guy Manny Paciao, and no one cares about horse racing until a horse wins the first two legs of the Triple Crown.  But no one stays on top forever, not even the NFL.

The Mystery of the NFL ratings drop

On a nationally televised Sunday Night Football game, the Arizona Cardinals and the Seattle Seahawks, two highly touted football teams, played to a 6-6 tie.  In overtime, both teams missed game-winning field goals from chip-shot distances.  In 75 minutes of play, no touchdowns were scored.  Sunday night’s game followed an uninspiring game from London featuring the Josh Brown-less NY Giants and the Los Angeles (again) Rams, who refuse to play number one draft pick Jared Goff, and the umpteenth disappointing Thursday Night game between the mediocre Green Bay Packers and the 1-6 Chicago Bears.

In other news, the NFL is puzzled why ratings are down for football games. 

Networks pay the NFL $50 billion for televising rights, and ratings are down 11%.  That’s not just the ratings of Thursday games or Titans/Jaguar matchups, but across the board.

There are obviously lots of scapegoats, from Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem (like an NFL fan would turn off a TV in disgust when seeing a player doing something during the national anthem) to the NFL Red Zone to, well, you name it. 

Frankly, I agree with those who dismiss the claim that protests are the cause of the ratings decline—why would any violence-loving red-blooded American male NOT watch large men commit violence every week because of something that happens when viewers are busy getting their snacks and beers ready?  I know we are a nation of Patriots but I doubt football fans take the anthem so seriously that it interferes with their enjoyment of the game.

Nor do I think Roger Goodell is making an uncharacteristically wise decision by sticking his head in the sand and saying there are just as many viewers while conceding that ratings have fallen by about 10%.  The lack of depth of this man’s analysis always stuns me—why is he making $40 million a year again?

The article linked to above cited, parenthetically, what might be a more direct cause, namely the combination of penalties for “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalizing celebrations and general refereeing overall.  Goodell approved of the “taunting” penalties saying that NFL players should be role models.  Taunting is one thing, but the league penalizes almost any expression of joy in accomplishing something difficult.  And when penalizing people for dancing after a touchdown exceeds penalties for Vontaze Burfict attempting to injure a player on the other team, the NFL’s lack of judgment comes into play again.

Other problems cited are the NFL Red Zone giving viewers all the exciting parts of games but none of the boring ones, Netflix weaning viewers off anything with commercials, and the existence of alternatives like streaming services and European soccer.  I think all these things contribute, but none explains the drop in ratings entirely.  I blame over-expansion.

Remember what happened to Krispy Kreme?  One day everybody loves those gooey sweet sugary messes, then their stores are on every corner and their products are in every grocery store, and suddenly they don’t seem like such a special treat anymore. 

The NFL owned America on Sundays; that was the great quote from the movie Concussion: “The NFL owns a day of the week. The same day the Church used to own. Now it's theirs.”  But America and Sunday weren’t enough.  They wanted to own London.  The wanted another day besides Sunday and Monday; Saturday was taken by college football, and Friday was for high school football, so they settled on Thursday.  Forget the fact that teams have a time-honored, rigorous schedule for preparing for the next game that takes at least 6 days, now teams had to be ready in three.

Playing games in London, which requires special transportation and adaptation to a strange time zone, and playing on Thursday night, dilutes the NFL product.  Can you remember a single memorable game played in London?  Or a Thursday Night game that wasn’t poorly played?  I didn’t think so.  Adjustments played for games in London and on Thursday affect other games as well.  Now teams at a disadvantage by having only three days to prep for Thursday will have nine days to prep for their next Sunday game.  In November, the Raiders and the Texans will have to play a football game in high-altitude Mexico City, which will test the physical capacity of those teams (maybe they should have had the Broncos, who are used to altitude, playing in that game).

Some decline in ratings is inevitable.  There are more alternatives to watching football on TV these days, and of course a dinosaur like the NFL would be slow to adapt.  The bottom line is that everything is adapting to declining ratings.  I have the series Profit, a TV show cancelled for low ratings after only three episodes aired in 1996, on DVD, and on the commentary the creators point out that the number of viewers they reached that got them cancelled in 1996 would have made them a top ten hit when the DVD was released in 2005 (they seem to be implying that if the show was resurrected it would reach the same numbers and thus be a hit, which is unlikely).

Mae West supposedly said, “Too much of a good thing is wonderful.”  Maybe, but too much NFL leads to a diluted, less entertaining product.  Add in the growth of soccer, refs cracking down on celebrations in the No Fun League, viewers wanting commercial-free venues, the Red Zone showing all the good stuff and none of the boring stuff, parity making every game look like a couple of teams of 8 year olds pairing off, and let’s throw in referees penalizing a team 66 yards in error. Frankly, only an 11% decline in ratings sounds not so bad.

The NFL screws up another disciplinary issue

Do you remember the Ray Rice incident?  Here is a brief recap—the NFL investigated charges of domestic abuse against Ray Rice, charges he admitted were correct.  The NFL imposed a two-game suspension that most people thought was too little.  Then additional evidence turned up that added no new information as to his guilt but made the allegations look worse, and the league re-opened the case and suspended Rice indefinitely (he is still suspended, not that anyone seems interested in signing him).

Let’s recap the recent incidents surrounding NY Giants kicker Josh Brown: there were charges of domestic abuse that were admitted to, and the NFL investigated and imposed a one-game suspension most people thought was too little.  New documents came to light that added no new information but made the allegations look worse, and the NFL re-opened the case and is now planning to impose additional punishment.

Sound familiar?

The criticism of the NFL’s suspension of Brown for only one game is legitimate, as the league established a six-game baseline punishment for domestic abuse.  So why did Brown only get a one-game suspension?  Because according to the NFL there were “mitigating circumstance.” Apparently chief among these mitigating circumstances was the fact that Giants management liked Brown and thought he was a nice guy who had just slipped up.

The league frequently cites “mitigating circumstances” as a reason for not imposing the minimum six game suspension, which is a little weird because six games is supposed to be the minimum, but if they always apply mitigating circumstances to lower it then it really isn’t a minimum.  Thus far the NFL has cited mitigating circumstance to lower the punishment in every case but two, but it has never cited “aggravating circumstances” as a reason for imposing more than a six-game suspension for a first time violation of the domestic abuse policy.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to be the sheriff who imposes law and order on the players, but he can’t seem to get anything right.  Ray Rice was emblematic—first a botched investigation (permitting Ray Rice in the room when his fiancée/wife was interviewed), then an inadequate punishment, followed by embarrassment, then a pretext to “re-open” the investigation and impose a too-harsh penalty (indefinite as opposed to six games).  With the Josh Brown case, as the great sage Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

Our Constitution prohibits something called “double jeopardy,” which is re-trying someone for something after the matter has been adjudicated.  Yes, the Constitution doesn’t impose any burden on the NFL, but there is a policy reason for its existence.  Matters need to be resolved. Players need to know that an allegation is behind them so they can move on.  The league being able to re-open an investigation anytime it wants leaves a Sword of Damocles hanging over players’ heads.

It also impedes the delivery of justice.  A player may accept a minor punishment, giving up his right to appeal, and then the league increases the penalty.  This encourages players to stonewall all investigations, which does not grease the wheels of justice.

If the league knew Josh Brown had committed domestic violence, they should have suspended him for six games.  If the King County (Seattle) Sherriff’s office refused to release important documents, the league should not have concluded its investigation until it had those documents or the criminal investigation was concluded.  If the owner of the NY Giants knew that Josh Brown had committed domestic violence, he shouldn’t have signed him to a contract extension on the grounds that he didn't know the extent of the abuse.  If the question loomed about the extent of the abuse, then he had a duty to inquire and not just say he was “comfortable” re-signing Brown.

The justice system of the United States is set down in words and printed in books.  The justice system of the NFL is located in Roger Goodell’s gut.  You can’t systematically enforce a code of conduct when you have one man who makes it up as he goes along.  It was wrong to suspend Brown for only one game when the rules said he should get six; it was wrong to re-open the investigation when “new” evidence came to light that the league overlooked when it concluded its investigation.  The Players’ Association gave Goodell a blank check on discipline in the last Collective Bargaining Agreement; now that they’ve seen the result, let’s hope they take it back in the next CBA.

DH or No DH? That is the question

If there was ever an argument to be made against the designated hitter, it would be made by the pitching staff of the Chicago Cubs.  Before tonight’s (Oct. 19) game the Cubs hitters were pathetic thus far in the post-season, so much so that 1/6 of the team’s 24 RBI’s were batted in by pitchers.  Not exactly what was expected of the high-scoring club when they qualified for October baseball.

But the fact remains that the time has finally come to end the schism between the National League and the American league and adopt the designated hitter for all of Major League Baseball.

When the AL adopted the designated hitter rule in 1973 (that’s 43 years ago), it was considered either an interesting little experiment or an abomination.  Since then the rule has been adopted by virtually every professional and amateur baseball organization, save for the National League and the Nippon Professional Baseball's Central League.

For a while it was an interesting aberration, having pitchers bat in the National League but not in the American.  It was a natural experiment that demonstrated just how connected all the elements in baseball are.  Older hitters had extended careers, there was more offence, games took longer, pitching changes became more complicated (or maybe less complicated, because you didn’t have to worry about keeping a pitcher in until it was his turn to bat?).

Things have changed in 43 years.  With the DH being ubiquitous in the lower leagues and college, fewer pitchers get any experience hitting, making them even less effectual (with exceptions like Madison Bumgardner and Clayton Kershaw).  The leagues no longer have any separate identity except for the DH, as league presidents cease to be some time ago.  Umpires now work across all MLB teams, and there is uniformity in how games are called.  The league umpires used to have different kinds of chest protectors, and the bulkier AL version led umps to stand further back which affected the perceived strike zone.  But all umps wear the same equipment, and technology now monitors the accuracy of umps calling balls and strikes.

The only meaningful difference between the NL and AL is the DH.  It was a minor inconvenience when inter-league play consisted only of the All-Star Game and the World Series, disadvantaging the AL teams when they lost their DH playing in a National League Park (the All Star Game wisely adopted the DH for both teams in 2010).  The problem became more pronounced when Commissioner Bud Selig instituted occasional in-season inter-league play in 1997, a move that invigorated interest in baseball (after the player’s strike of 1994) even while it aggravated purists.

Inter-league play was initially only dine early in the season, but it became year-round in 2013 after the Astros switched leagues to give each one 15 teams.  And there’s the rub.  As an example, this year the Detroit Tigers went into their last series of the season within a game of the second AL wild card.  Unfortunately, they played that final series in Atlanta against the National League Braves.  That meant they were playing in a critical series without their DH, Victor Martinez, who got only 2 at bats in the last three games of the season.  Without Martinez, who hit .289 for the season with 27 home runs and an OPS of .827, the Tigers lost the final two games and were eliminated from the playoffs.

With the one remaining difference between the American League and the National League starts impacting playoff races, it is time to end the “experiment.”  After 43 years the verdict is in, and the decision is that chicks really do dig the long ball.  The offense produced by having an extra professional hitter in the lineup has been accepted almost everywhere but in the National League.  Yes, good hitting pitchers like Bumgardner and Kershaw are a joy to watch, but they can still be used as pinch hitters.  It is time to end the National League’s hold out and adopt DHs throughout Major League Baseball.

And while I am on the subject, can we please get past the nonsense that DH’s should be in the Hall of Fame because they “didn’t contribute on defense.”  The Hall has lots of entrants who didn’t contribute much on offense—Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski, Brooks Robinson, both Tinkers and Evers (Chance put up some good offensive numbers for the era).  Plus there are Hall of Famers who were defensive liabilities, like Harmon Killebrew; isn’t not being a liability as a DH more of a positive? 

With David Ortiz’s retirement the debate has already started on his Hall credentials. Similarity scores have only two HoFers in the top ten most similar players, but Hall member Frank Thomas is numero uno most similar; the other is legendary first baseman Willie McCovey.  The top ten players most similar to Big Papi also includes Rafael Palmeiro, who is not in the Hall due to his steroids connection and finger wagging, and Jeff Bagwell, who has some vague link to steroids but should make it someday, maybe 2017.  The top ten also includes future HoFer Albert Pujols, possible Hall candidate Manny Ramirez (more steroids), and likely candidate Jim Thome (612 home runs and no link to steroids).

FiveThirtyEight puts him right on the margin, but I think that understates his non-quantifiable contributions in the post-season.  He helped end an 86 year World Series drought and three times hit over .500 in a post-season series.  In the 2013 World Series he hit .688 with an OPS of 1.95!   In the 2007 ALDS against the Angels he hit .714 with an OPS of 2.418!  I think he is a clear Hall of Famer, maybe not first ballot, but the fact he played DH for the bulk of his career shouldn’t affect the voting at all.

But of course, it will.  Old fuddy-duddy baseball writers will penalize him for not being as good on defense as Willie Mays or Steve Garvey (which is silly), and for having a link to steroids (which is legit).  But let’s get him in the Hall, as well as Thome and Edgar Martinez.  There are some good reasons for keeping guys out of the Hall, but playing DH is not one of them.

Revise the NFL rules!

Complaining about football referees is a national pastime that is hardly fun anymore.  Baseball umps screw up too, but with the acceptance of instant replay Major League Baseball has entered the 20^th century when it comes to officiating and may noticeably improve.  Further, with Statcast accurately determining where any object on the field is within less than a millimeter (according to one of the authors of The Only Rule Is It Has To Work), perhaps we are on the verge of eliminating the human element altogether. 

This would have been a good thing in the recent Reds/Cardinals game where the Cardinals won the game on a clearly erroneous call that a ball that went over the outfield fence was not a ground rule double.  The umps refused to use replay because it was a “judgment call.”  Excuse me, but whether your child is ugly is a judgment call; where a batted ball bounces is a matter of fact.  And the fact that the Reds’ manager failed to protest within 30 seconds should not be dispositive as the Reds were running out the season and it was the Giants who were battling the Cards for a playoff spot.

Football is obviously harder to officiate than baseball.  I am sometimes reserved about the use of the word “obviously” but here it applies.  Baseball plays can be anticipated; the defense is stationary and only moves once the ball is struck, and once the ball is struck players move in a predictable manner.  But in football, 22 large men are moving all over the place and refs can only get so close before they get caught up in the action.

Further, the football rule book must look like a phone book.  Baseball has some obscure rules, but by and large baseball rules make sense.  The infield fly rule may seem arbitrary, but it prevents an infielder from turning a double play on a pop up when there is a runner at first.  The football rule book is filled with arcane, arbitrary rules about who can get in a three-point stance and how much balls have to be inflated (although I can’t imagine how that rule could ever affect the outcome of a game).  I still can’t believe that a referee in the Oakland/New England 2001 playoff game knew there was such a thing as the “tuck rule,” a rule that basically says a fumble isn’t a fumble even though the player fumbled.

During the week following a game played on September 24^th, Detroit Lions defensive player Nevin Lawson said that NFL officials had admitted that a record 66-yard pass interference penalty called against Lawson had been wrong.  The apology is nice, but it hardly makes up for the Lions losing the game (not that the Lions should count on winning many games this season).  Pass interference calls can be devastating, because a small infraction (or perceived infraction) can turn a game-winning hold on fourth down into a drive-sustaining first down and place the ball 30 yards or more down the field.

One response to the incorrect pass interference call in the Lion’s game is to call for pass interference to be reviewable.  This would help immeasurably, as the receiver and defender are both moving rapidly and the contact between them can be subtle and hard to discern from a distance.  Again, given the impact on a game the call can have, some back-up is not unwarranted.

As AV Club's Block and Tackle column (in the section on Referee Ron Torbert) points out, under pass interference rules a team can have an infinite number of plays to score after the game is technically over, because a game cannot end on a defensive penalty.  So a team down by one score can just keep sending people deep, not to complete a pass necessarily, but to hope for a pass interference call.

The NFL generally chips away at the rulebook, tweaking the definition of a “catch” (good luck) or lengthening the distance of a point after.  I wonder if the whole thing shouldn’t be reviewed from scratch.  The pass interference rule was adopted at a time when passing was far less important than it is now.  Maybe when it was implemented it wasn’t anticipated that there would be so many pass plays in a game.  And while there is some logic behind the penalty being where the foul occurred, because otherwise a defender who got beat would commit pass interference if it meant a 15-yard penalty instead of a game-losing touchdown, it is not consistent with other penalties.  Basically, the penalty assumes that but for the infraction the pass would have been completed, but that is impossible to know.  On a running play when there is defensive holding, do the refs estimate how far the runner would have gotten before being tackled?  No. 

Other rules should be revisited.  On a kickoff return, why call it back if there is a holding penalty away from the play?  Why not tack on 10 yards to the kickoff?  Brilliant coaches like Bill Belichik have gained an occasional advantage by making use of obscure loopholes in player substitution rules.  Rules regarding proper formations were created during the old “T Formation” era.  Rules about set positions didn’t anticipate players being larger and faster.

Of course most of the rules should be kept, lest football stop looking like football and appear more like Arena Football, or flag football.  One difference between baseball and football is that baseball is largely unchanged in 150 years; modern pro football is a totally different game from that played in the 1960’s and 70’s, not to mention the 1920’s.  I’m sure that a thorough review of all the arcane rules could slim down the rule book and make it easier for refs to know what is going on.

Player safety could also be enhanced if rules were made for modern players using modern equipment and not 160 pound players using leather helmets where the dominant philosophy was “three yards and a cloud of dust.”  New rules are needed for a new era, and the pass-happy NFL is in a new era.