HawkShack.com

MLB, NBA, NCAA and NHL have all canceled their events for an unknown amount of time. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to turn the TV on for now. I might have to resort to watching Hallmark with my wife. This is all so very primitive.

I bet advertisers are biting their fingernails

trents wrote:MLB, NBA, NCAA and NHL have all canceled their events for an unknown amount of time. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to turn the TV on for now. I might have to resort to watching Hallmark with my wife. This is all so very primitive.

I bet advertisers are biting their fingernails

Duplicate thread, but no biggie.

MLB says they're canceling the rest of spring training and delaying the opening of the regular season by at least 2 weeks. MLS has also suspended their season.

Looks like I'll finally get to that stack of books that's been making me feel guilty for years...

The XFL has cancelled the rest of their season:

https://www.si.com/.amp/xfl/2020/03/12/ ... 020-season

Sucks for them as they seemed to be off to such a good start, at least in this area.

RiverDog wrote:The XFL has cancelled the rest of their season:

https://www.si.com/.amp/xfl/2020/03/12/ ... 020-season

Sucks for them as they seemed to be off to such a good start, at least in this area.

Yeah, it could be death sentence for their league. Unfortunate timing. Hopefully they will be able to try again next year.

The NFL has cancelled all pre-draft visits. A number of colleges are cancelling their pro days. The league has also canceled their annual meeting scheduled for the end of the month. It would not surprise me to see them move the draft back a few weeks. It's currently scheduled for April 23-25 in Las Vegas.

Voting on the new CBA was already being done electronically so that should not be affected. Today is the deadline for players to submit their votes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ho ... li=BBnb7Kz

Isn't the free agent window supposed to open tomorrow or Monday, where teams can start to "officially" talk to pending free agents? And then the new league season is supposed to start this Wednesday I think.

I can't see that happening now, I have to believe the NFL will push back the first day of the 2020 season and free agency. Don't know how appropriate it will be to start announcing multi million dollar deals while this is going on, but who knows. But would assume no free agents are going to travel now from city to city for visits as well.

Look, this whole Covid-19 situation is obviously terrible and I wish the best for everyone out there, and I know sports means nothing in the grand scheme of things. But dam, this whole no sports thing going on right now definitely sucks. Such a strange time happening right now in this world.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see why they can't conduct Free Agency like they did but without travel.
It's not like they don't know who the players are, and they could put a caveat in the contract offer for
medical approval. It can all be done online using PDFs much like some remote Real Estate contracts
are done.

The only downfall would be not to be able to trot out the newly signed player, but I think most fans
won't mind if that's delayed until the season (and life) gets back on track.

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see why they can't conduct Free Agency like they did but without travel.
It's not like they don't know who the players are, and they could put a caveat in the contract offer for
medical approval. It can all be done online using PDFs much like some remote Real Estate contracts
are done.

The only downfall would be not to be able to trot out the newly signed player, but I think most fans
won't mind if that's delayed until the season (and life) gets back on track.

From the linked article:

For now, the NFL plans to continue with the free agency period and the league’s new year as scheduled. That may change as several key dates loom, though.

...most of the negotiations between free agents and their 2020 destinations can take place remotely via phone or video chats.

The league has not officially barred anyone from traveling to meet for free agency purposes, but teams and players may individually decide to negotiate remotely. The question now is whether the NFL will make accommodations for players to sign contracts without having to make an in-person visit with their new clubs. Players need to pass a physical before their deals are finalized. But if players aren’t traveling, it’s possible these won’t be completely done for some time.

That answers that I suppose.
Let's hope it proceeds on the original timetable.

Football is lucky in that it's the only major sport that isn't hugely affected, at least not yet. They still have a couple of weeks before they have to decide what to do about the draft. It is affecting college football's recruiting efforts.

It really sucks out here in eastern Washington as I'm a big Gonzaga basketball fan, and this might have been the year that they could have won it all. I have several friends that follow the team very closely and had made commitments to travel with them during the tournament. It also robbed me of one of my favorite events, getting together with a group of friends to have our annual March Madness bracket auction while slopping a bunch of beer. Last night we just got a couple inches of snow dumped on us so I can't even work in my yard.

Oh, well....

The Corona outbreak is already subsiding in China. If we can trust what we hear from them, that is. My guess is it will have done the same in Europe and North America by April 23 and most of the current bans on travel and large gatherings will be lifted by then.

What's amazing it me is the scale of the reaction to this thing given the fact that on average, more people die from the flu every year than have died from Covid 19 to this point. I think Senator Lindsey Graham offered a good analogy when he compared the reaction to the Covid 19 phenomenon to the press an airplane crash gets as opposed to deaths from motor vehicle accidents which are scattered here and there over time but are a much larger total.

trents wrote:The Corona outbreak is already subsiding in China. If we can trust what we hear from them, that is. My guess is it will have done the same in Europe and North America by April 23 and most of the current bans on travel and large gatherings will be lifted by then.

Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it. China imposed some Draconian measures that was very effective in halting the spread. It's easy to do that in a totalitarian society like China. It's a little more difficult to do the same thing in a democratic society like ours.

trents wrote:What's amazing it me is the scale of the reaction to this thing given the fact that on average, more people die from the flu every year than have died from Covid 19 to this point. I think Senator Lindsey Graham offered a good analogy when he compared the reaction to the Covid 19 phenomenon to the press an airplane crash gets as opposed to deaths from motor vehicle accidents which are scattered here and there over time but are a much larger total.

There's a bunch of differences between the flu and COVID-19 that makes the coronavirus much more dangerous than the flu. For one, they don't have a vaccine for COVID-19 and don't anticipate having one for another year. The other is that the symptoms are so mild that people infect more people than they otherwise would had the symptoms been more pronounced and they realized they were sick.

We have a good ongoing discussion regarding the coronavirus going on in the Off Topic forum. You and anyone else are welcome to join in.

Good points.

Lets just say as a 64 year old fat man with Type 2, I get the flu, sick but ok. I get the Corona V, and I am dead meat! I am just sick of seeing it.

It looks like the NFL is preparing for an unusual season:

While still publicly committed to kicking off its 2020 season in September to packed stadiums, the NFL has been planning for contingencies that include a potentially shortened schedule and holding games in empty or partially filled stadiums, two people familiar with the league’s planning said Wednesday.

The person familiar with the NFL’s planning made the point that “the other leagues have to go first,” referring to MLB, the NBA and the NHL. The league could have to deal with ongoing lockdowns or stay-at-home orders in some states — with some local government officials already warning that a too-soon return of sports could have catastrophic ramifications.

The NFL’s schedule for the 2020 regular season is expected to be released around May 9 and will account for the possibility of games being lost by a delayed start.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nf ... spartanntp

RiverDog wrote:It looks like the NFL is preparing for an unusual season:

While still publicly committed to kicking off its 2020 season in September to packed stadiums, the NFL has been planning for contingencies that include a potentially shortened schedule and holding games in empty or partially filled stadiums, two people familiar with the league’s planning said Wednesday.

The person familiar with the NFL’s planning made the point that “the other leagues have to go first,” referring to MLB, the NBA and the NHL. The league could have to deal with ongoing lockdowns or stay-at-home orders in some states — with some local government officials already warning that a too-soon return of sports could have catastrophic ramifications.

The NFL’s schedule for the 2020 regular season is expected to be released around May 9 and will account for the possibility of games being lost by a delayed start.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nf ... spartanntp

Hopefully it doesn’t come to this but it certainly is prudent for the NFL to be preparing for the worst. The NFL is in a good position. They get to see how MLB and the NBA deal with this first. They can learn from what works/doesn’t work for those leagues. They also have the most important factor in their favor and that is time!

mykc14 wrote:Hopefully it doesn’t come to this but it certainly is prudent for the NFL to be preparing for the worst. The NFL is in a good position. They get to see how MLB and the NBA deal with this first. They can learn from what works/doesn’t work for those leagues. They also have the most important factor in their favor and that is time!

The NFL lucked out, with the crisis hitting here just after the Super Bowl.

There are some differences between leagues where some are more dependent on television revenue while others look to full stands to provide the largest source of revenue so there may not be a one size fits all strategy, but certainly the NFL will be taking its que from the other leagues. Additionally, it's yet to be seen just how the new normal is going to affect advertising. If you're Buffalo Wild Wings or Outback Steak House, are you going to commit to millions of dollars of ads when you don't know if you'll be operating?

The governor of CA has said that he doubts that there'll be any football played in front of full stadiums this year. MLB is discussing holding their season at their spring training facilities. Are people going to tune into sports in the same numbers they do in normal seasons under these types of conditions? Are owners going to ask that players share in the decline of revenue or are the franchises going to absorb all the losses themselves?

Are owners going to ask that players share in the decline of revenue or are the franchises going to absorb all the losses themselves?

Not just this specifically, but all businesses: Why shouldn't the owners have an emergency fund (you know, 6 months like they say you and I should have) to be ready for emergencies like this?

Shirley they have made enough money over the years to float themselves at a time like this.

Are owners going to ask that players share in the decline of revenue or are the franchises going to absorb all the losses themselves?

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Not just this specifically, but all businesses: Why shouldn't the owners have an emergency fund (you know, 6 months like they say you and I should have) to be ready for emergencies like this?

Shirley they have made enough money over the years to float themselves at a time like this.

I apologize in advance for the off topic remarks that follow. I would imagine that most substantial businesses can cover a revenue shortfall for at least several quarters. They can borrow money they don't have. The ones that are susceptible are the small businesses, like mom and pop restaurants, many of which are month-to-month, paying next month's rent with this month's revenue. I read where 20% of all restaurants in the US will permanently close due to the coronavirus.

With regard to the NFL, we'll see what happens here in the next few weeks. It appears that on a nation wide scale, the virus has peaked, so we should soon get some guidelines handed down from the federal government as to how to restart things like sports. The POTUS has expressed his desire to see all sports up and running business as usual, but it's not his call, rather it's up to the individual governors and mayors as to how and when certain businesses re-open. The problem is going to be that although the nation wide trend looks good, there's sure to be hot spots pop up throughout the summer and fall that would prevent a team from playing a game or even conducting practices if a stay at home order is issued by the governor.

As the CBA divides up the pie that is total profits between players and owners, of course both sides will share in the losses as the whole pie will have shrunk. As for owners profits that they chose to disinclude from the CBA, as far as I'm concerned that's totally on them. If they wanted a sharing of the losses they should have included those things in the sharing of the profits.

c_hawkbob wrote:As the CBA divides up the pie that is total profits between players and owners, of course both sides will share in the losses as the whole pie will have shrunk. As for owners profits that they chose to disinclude from the CBA, as far as I'm concerned that's totally on them. If they wanted a sharing of the losses they should have included those things in the sharing of the profits.

So if for example the NFL decides to go with an 8 game schedule, since revenue would be, for the sake of argument, cut in half, does that mean that all player contracts would receive a 50% reduction for the 2020 season?

No it means team's salary cap would be whatever their percentage of the profit would equal (I'm not going to assume 50% of the games would equal 50% of the revenue). Fitting within that cap number would be up to each individual team.

I'm not sure that the Cap would change - at least this year because the contracts have been signed and cutting players to get under the Cap
would result in payments for the remainders of the contracts. That would necessarily mean more money out this year.

I think the owners might just have to take less in profits.

NorthHawk wrote:I'm not sure that the Cap would change - at least this year because the contracts have been signed and cutting players to get under the Cap
would result in payments for the remainders of the contracts. That would necessarily mean more money out this year.

I think the owners might just have to take less in profits.

Those contracts are paid out in game checks predicated on a 17 game season, fewer games = fewer game checks, everybody shares the hit.

But the contracts are per season, not per game therefor they have to be fulfilled.

NorthHawk wrote:But the contracts are per season, not per game therefor they have to be fulfilled.

I don't agree, and I doubt a judge would either.

I believe a judge would. They have per game bonus's, but they have yearly contractual agreements.
The length of the season isn't in play unless there is a section in the CBA that addresses it.

c_hawkbob wrote:Those contracts are paid out in game checks predicated on a 17 game season, fewer games = fewer game checks, everybody shares the hit.

I can understand that logic if it were just a matter of fewer games. But if the revenue from those games is substantially less, say all games are played before empty stands, my assumption is that the owners would have to pay all the contracts in full and take the hit.

And consequently, the TV networks would have to absorb any loss in advertising revenue if it fell off as they, too, have a contract to fulfill with the NFL.

Is that how you guys see it?

c_hawkbob wrote:Those contracts are paid out in game checks predicated on a 17 game season, fewer games = fewer game checks, everybody shares the hit.

RiverDog wrote:I can understand that logic if it were just a matter of fewer games. But if the revenue from those games is substantially less, say all games are played before empty stands, my assumption is that the owners would have to pay all the contracts in full and take the hit.

And consequently, the TV networks would have to absorb any loss in advertising revenue if it fell off as they, too, have a contract to fulfill with the NFL.

Is that how you guys see it?

As far as revenue per game yes, but I still say few games will equal fewer game checks. Stadium revenue losses will probably be calculated into the next season's salary cap. I'd think the TV audience would increase if anything.

c_hawkbob wrote:As far as revenue per game yes, but I still say few games will equal fewer game checks. Stadium revenue losses will probably be calculated into the next season's salary cap. I'd think the TV audience would increase if anything.

I wouldn't assume that TV audiences will remain the same or increase. Die hards like you and me will continue to watch, but if they play games without the presence of fans, will the lack of atmosphere generated by 60,000 fans continue to attract the novice or casual viewer?

But whether or not there's a decrease in the TV audience isn't really my point. My point is that their may be a decline in advertising revenue as traditional businesses that buy advertising for football games...Buffalo Wild Wings, Outback Steak House, Carnival Cruise Lines, et al, may be cutting back on their advertising budgets. But like I said, my guess is that the networks would be on the hook for any losses.

I wouldn't assume that TV audiences will remain the same or increase.

OK, then we disagree, especially if there is still a significant portion of the population sheltering in place. Kind of the definition of a captive audience ... and if not, it will represent the 'return to normalcy' that so many are craving.

RiverDog wrote:I wouldn't assume that TV audiences will remain the same or increase.

c_hawkbob wrote:OK, then we disagree, especially if there is still a significant portion of the population sheltering in place. Kind of the definition of a captive audience ... and if not, it will represent the 'return to normalcy' that so many are craving.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I would not be surprised if there is an increase or at least not a decrease in television ratings if games aren't played before packed stadiums. I'm just saying that it's not a slam dunk, at least not with the passive fans, of which there are a whole lot of.

Like I said, it wasn't the main point of my argument anyway. My contention is related to the other side of the equation, potential advertisers. The easiest thing for a company to cut when times get lean is their advertising budget, especially those that are likely to be closed if we're in a shelter-in-place mode.

I think it would be interesting to watch sports played with no crowd noise. It won't be as fun, but it will be interesting. It will basically be talent on talent, no real help from noise. There would be almost no excuse for penalties. We might even be able to hear the players jawing, which would probably be amusing.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think it would be interesting to watch sports played with no crowd noise. It won't be as fun, but it will be interesting. It will basically be talent on talent, no real help from noise. There would be almost no excuse for penalties. We might even be able to hear the players jawing, which would probably be amusing.

I don't know how many other soccer fans are on the board, but I watched a Champion's League match played in an empty stadium, and it was deeply weird. The novelty and interest ran out quickly. It was hard to get excited about anything that was happening and I ended up tuning out early in the 2nd half. Even with nowhere else to go, I can't see myself watching as much sports as I would with fans there.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think it would be interesting to watch sports played with no crowd noise. It won't be as fun, but it will be interesting. It will basically be talent on talent, no real help from noise. There would be almost no excuse for penalties. We might even be able to hear the players jawing, which would probably be amusing.

Oly wrote:I don't know how many other soccer fans are on the board, but I watched a Champion's League match played in an empty stadium, and it was deeply weird. The novelty and interest ran out quickly. It was hard to get excited about anything that was happening and I ended up tuning out early in the 2nd half. Even with nowhere else to go, I can't see myself watching as much sports as I would with fans there.

Which speaks to the point I was making earlier in the thread: I don't think we can assume that the novice fan will be attracted to a football game played in front of an empty stadium like they would a telecast in front of 60,000 fans and the carnival-like atmosphere that comes with it. It's like watching a sitcom or comedy routine without a studio audience reaction.

They could always pipe in canned crowd noise like they used to pipe in canned audience laughter in older sitcoms.

trents wrote:They could always pipe in canned crowd noise like they used to pipe in canned audience laughter in older sitcoms.

Hehe. I hope they're more genuine sounding than the ones they used in the old sitcoms.

But unless they tape delay it, they can't anticipate an intercepted pass and insert the appropriate crowd reaction, anticipate what a ref will say and queue up the boo's. The American consumer is a little more savvy now than they were back in the 50's and 60's. IMO they wouldn't react kindly to the manipulation.

I don't think that's a viable option.

They could pump in generic cheering but not have increased volume when something good
happened as RD said. It would just be background noise.
It would also bring back the narrative that some teams pump noise in anyway and that would
be another debate.

NorthHawk wrote:They could pump in generic cheering but not have increased volume when something good happened as RD said. It would just be background noise. It would also bring back the narrative that some teams pump noise in anyway and that would
be another debate.

Not only that, but it would make the game seem like it's choreographed. One of the appeals of live sports is that it's spontaneous and unrehearsed...well, except for professional wrestling.

We'll have to wait and see what the finished product looks and sounds like if they do, indeed, play in front of empty stadiums or even play at all. I honestly don't have an expectation or prediction.