HawkShack.com

Yeah, we've discussed it to death, and no, it's not worth making excuses over, but I thought it was an interesting enough article (and I can't stand draft predictions and such so wanted something else to talk about):

http://cover32.com/2016/04/23/nfl-west- ... advantage/

It reinforces a point I've made previously when someone would say "Yeah, 10am games suck, but east coast teams have to play late when they come west so it's a wash"- our bodies get revving more as the day goes on, so playing late isn't the same disadvantage playing early is.

I've been saying that for years and if you don't believe it and you work out or run in the morning, try going 3 hours earlier and see how well you do.
Most people feel that they are slightly off and in a game where everything has to be in sync to play your best, it can have an overall huge effect.

Well the good news is Seattle only drew two of those games this season...

The Rams moving to LA helped us as most of the time the games held in St. Louis were early starts.

I've always been a little skeptical of a time zone disadvantage but it would seem so obviously fixable that I don't know why they haven't addressed it, or why west coast teams haven't objected more vociferously than they have. Now that we have another team in the PTZ, perhaps the issue will come to the front burner.

Old but Slow wrote:Good point, the league probably won't like having a major media area like Los Angeles having a disadvantage.

And if they're trying to build a loyal fan base, too.

Honestly I haven't heard of a lot of complaining from the west coast teams (Hawks, Niners, Raiders, and Chargers) anywhere near as much as the east coast teams complain about having to travel to the west coast, some going as far as staying out here a week when they have consecutive road trips to the left side. But if it is a subject of concern, having a team in LA will definitely give the small group of teams a little more stink to their farts.

It is what it is...and the league won't budge.

Zorn76 wrote:It is what it is...and the league won't budge.

I agree- it just seems like such an odd thing to be obstinate about. It could be fixed with almost literally zero effort (they already play games with east coast teams after 1pm regularly, so start east coast games with west coast teams later).

This would solve the biorhythms issue, put more games closer to primetime, and so on.

There must be some downside I'm missing...

burrrton wrote:I agree- it just seems like such an odd thing to be obstinate about. It could be fixed with almost literally zero effort (they already play games with east coast teams after 1pm regularly, so start east coast games with west coast teams later).

This would solve the biorhythms issue, put more games closer to primetime, and so on.

There must be some downside I'm missing...

One of the guys over at .net tried to explain it, but I'm not quite sure that I buy his explanation. Part of it had to do with not scheduling teams from the same market, such as the Giants/Jets, Ravens/Redskins, Bucs/Dolphins, Niners/Raiders, and so on, into the same time slot. But the schedule seems so heavily weighted towards the early games that I can't see how that makes such a big difference, that two teams in the same market almost inevitably end up in the same time slot anyway.

But whatever the reason, you can bet that the root cause has to do with money. It always does.

You would think they would want to schedule the West Coast teams later because there are a lot of people in Church at 10am who the advertisers are missing out on sending their message to. That's real money they might be missing out on.

But whatever the reason, you can bet that the root cause has to do with money. It always does.

I find that very easy to believe, but as North alludes to, I have trouble seeing how there's *more* money playing games at 1pm eastern/10am pacific, than at 4pm eastern/1pm pacific.

Not going to lose sleep over it, but it's one of those things I just don't get.

I think it has more to do with avoiding competition with other games. If the slate is 10am/1pm east coast they can "capture" a viewer all day, if it's 1pm it either cuts into SNF or people have to choose one game to watch. As it stands now on the east coast viewers are watching 3 games a day, instead of 2. 10/1/5 ( or 1/4/8) if you push it further, few east coast people would be able to watch SNF ( 4/7/10pm).

HumanCockroach wrote:I think it has more to do with avoiding competition with other games. If the slate is 10am/1pm east coast they can "capture" a viewer all day, if it's 1pm it either cuts into SNF or people have to choose one game to watch. As it stands now on the east coast viewers are watching 3 games a day, instead of 2. 10/1/5 ( or 1/4/8) if you push it further, few east coast people would be able to watch SNF ( 4/7/10pm).

I see your point.

I don't get that point at all.
What difference would it make if 2 East Coast teams that play each other moved to 10am PDT from 1pm and the West Coast teams playing on the East Coast move to 1pm from 10am?
It's just swapping games to make sure the best product is put on the field, which attracts viewers. They would still get the SNF game, like the rest of us.

HumanCockroach wrote:I think it has more to do with avoiding competition with other games. If the slate is 10am/1pm east coast they can "capture" a viewer all day, if it's 1pm it either cuts into SNF or people have to choose one game to watch. As it stands now on the east coast viewers are watching 3 games a day, instead of 2. 10/1/5 ( or 1/4/8) if you push it further, few east coast people would be able to watch SNF ( 4/7/10pm).

I'm sure that's part of it.

Bottom line is that the league has figured out what alignments of teams and time slots attracts the maximum number of viewers, and apparently having the majority of games start at 10 PT with a limited number starting at 1 PT coincides with that maximum.

Like I said, the bottom line is money. It's the only factor that trumps parity.

What difference would it make if 2 East Coast teams that play each other moved to 10am PDT from 1pm and the West Coast teams playing on the East Coast move to 1pm from 10am?

I see your point, and I'm inclined to agree- I was getting turned around converting from pacific to eastern to pacific time.

All games would still be done before SNF/MNF and there would still be 3 time slots for games (10am/1pm/5pm pacific).

I guess I'm back to wondering why they can't accommodate pacific timezone teams. I'm sure money has to figure in there somewhere, but intuitively, I can't imagine how the money wouldn't be a wash (same # of games, same # of teams playing at each time, etc).

It really isn't that complicated. East coast teams have larger fan bases, afternoon games draw higher ratings, hence they optimize the profitability of the games. It's money, it's always been money, and it will continue to be money controlling the scheduling of games. The same reason we get two or four Cowboys games in prime time whether they are 2-14 or 14-2. The league professes to "care" about parody, just like they profess to "care" about player safety, or spousal abuse or transparency about rules and calls, but ultimately they really only care about $$$$$$. And that isn't changing anytime soon.

HumanCockroach wrote:It really isn't that complicated. East coast teams have larger fan bases, afternoon games draw higher ratings, hence they optimize the profitability of the games. It's money, it's always been money, and it will continue to be money controlling the scheduling of games. The same reason we get two or four Cowboys games in prime time whether they are 2-14 or 14-2. The league professes to "care" about parody, just like they profess to "care" about player safety, or spousal abuse or transparency about rules and calls, but ultimately they really only care about $$$$$$. And that isn't changing anytime soon.

Well, Roach, we found something that we can agree on 100%.

But I'll add to your comments by saying that even player safety is being driven by money: They don't want to get sued. And parity is what made the league what it is today, again maximizing profits. Not that I'm complaining, they have a great product and I'm very materialistic myself. But let's stop the charade.

All east coast teams would still be playing in the afternoon under any scenario- what we'd be talking about is a couple teams a year playing an extra 4pm game instead of one in the 1pm slot, so while I'm on board with the "it's all about the $$" thing, I'm not sure I see the drop off in viewership from that- they already play a handful of those games every year so it's obviously not some Nielson dead zone (like, say, a 6:30am game played in, say, Europe).

[edit]

I'll reiterate to hopefully head off some of the argument: I admit it's *got* to be $$- there just isn't any other explanation. I'm just saying I'm baffled where the revenue drop comes from when it could hardly even be considered a change in scheduling.

Are they really concerned with revenue when you factor in the London games that start at 6:30am? That eliminates most of the western half of the country.

Absolutely the London games are about money. Europe is an enormous untapped market they are attempting to expand into.

HumanCockroach wrote:Absolutely the London games are about money. Europe is an enormous untapped market they are attempting to expand into.

But they are losing money at home trying to build that market.
Edit: Not making as much.

NorthHawk wrote:Are they really concerned with revenue when you factor in the London games that start at 6:30am? That eliminates most of the western half of the country.

They start at 6:30am out here, but they start at 9:30am on the east coast. IMO that's one of the factors that's driving the London games, that it adds another time slot on Sundays.

So far, they haven't really had any meaningful contests in London, but I'll bet you that if they start scheduling some decent games over there that the TV audience in the US will be every bit as strong as it is in the 10am and 1pm time slots.

I also saw where the league is looking into holding some games in China.

Do you think they made money instantly when the expanded to new markets North? It's an investment, just like every "change" they have made the last 60 years ( for instance the SB LOST money the first five years of its existence. Thursday/ Monday night football only made money because TV was willing to pay for the rights, not because of some fail proof plan. )It isn't about instant returns, but long-term financial success.

You can't honestly believe the NFL is "losing" money, they aren't ( not even close) for those games. They may not be making "as much as they could" but that isn't the same thing as losing it, they want a slice of the "old football" fan base, the idea of expansion is based 100% on future profit.