The Ugly, The Ugly and The Ugly - Steelers Edition

[OURavensFan]

TNF making me feel worse about this loss

 

[ravenslord]

TNF making me feel worse about this loss

TNF sucks. I want to see players at their best and Thursday games don't allow enough rest for that to happen.

 

[RavensMania]

TNF sucks. I want to see players at their best and Thursday games don't allow enough rest for that to happen.

it's all about the money for the NFL. I hate TNF for the shear fact that it's not in the players best interest to play them. They have a day of practice and a walk through and the home team has a much better chance of winning as well. The NFL says they are all about the health of the players, yet they have TNF. How is that helping the health of the players.

 

[SaltyDog]

TNF making me feel worse about this loss

TNF sucks. I want to see players at their best and Thursday games don't allow enough rest for that to happen.

i always enjoy the first one of the season and I don’t think that one hurts any team, but after that I agree, they should not play on Thursdays. As you say not fair for players, teams, or fans. If they would set up the schedule so that only teams coming off of bye week could play on Thursdays, that might work better, but would eliminate a few weeks early in the season.

 

[rmcjacket23]

it's all about the money for the NFL. I hate TNF for the shear fact that it's not in the players best interest to play them. They have a day of practice and a walk through and the home team has a much better chance of winning as well. The NFL says they are all about the health of the players, yet they have TNF. How is that helping the health of the players.

So its sort of an ironic stance though.
My guestion is... are players willing to take less money to not play on TNF? I don't know the answer, but my guess is no.

If you take away TNF, revenue decreases. If revenue decreases, player compensation decreases. That's what the NFLPA wants when it links its compensation with overall business growth.

So if people are pro-players, let them decide. If they're OK getting paid less to only play on Sundays (or I guess Mondays), then so be it.

My gut says they're not OK with that.

 

[rmcjacket23]

For context about what ditching TNF and just adding another Sunday afternoon game to the mix would look like:
1. The current TNF package, which Fox owns broadcast rights to, pays the NFL ~$660M per year.
2. Amazon recently just purchased the rights to TNF for the next several years, paying $1B per year. So you can already see how valuable it is.

In the most recent TV network deal, both CBS and Fox pay about $2B/year each, and they are the exclusive providers of Sunday afternoon football games.

So CBS and Fox are paying $2B each to broadcast, call it, 6-7 games per week on Sunday afternoons, while Amazon is paying $1B to broadcast one game per week on Thursday. Also, note that NBC and ESPN pay the most, by far, for access to broadcast one game exclusively on SNF and MNF.

So if they collapsed TNF and just made another Sunday afternoon game, that game is no longer worth $1B a year. I don't know that it would even be worth another $100M to either Fox or CBS to add one additional game per week.

If my math is right, Fox and CBS pay ~$18M per game, on average, during the season, for broadcast rights. So you could make the case splitting TNF evenly would result in each paying ~$150M per season.

So basically the NFL would go from $1B in revenue from Amazon down to, aggressively, maybe an extra $300M from CBS and Fox.

That's a net loss of $700M in revenue. That means there's a $350M loss of payroll available to the players. That translates into close to $11M per team, per year.

So then I circle back to my original question... go to the players and ask them if, collectively, as a team, they're willing to get paid $11M less to play 3 days later, of which most teams only do it once a year.

 

[RavensMania]

For context about what ditching TNF and just adding another Sunday afternoon game to the mix would look like:
1. The current TNF package, which Fox owns broadcast rights to, pays the NFL ~$660M per year.
2. Amazon recently just purchased the rights to TNF for the next several years, paying $1B per year. So you can already see how valuable it is.

In the most recent TV network deal, both CBS and Fox pay about $2B/year each, and they are the exclusive providers of Sunday afternoon football games.

So CBS and Fox are paying $2B each to broadcast, call it, 6-7 games per week on Sunday afternoons, while Amazon is paying $1B to broadcast one game per week on Thursday. Also, note that NBC and ESPN pay the most, by far, for access to broadcast one game exclusively on SNF and MNF.

So if they collapsed TNF and just made another Sunday afternoon game, that game is no longer worth $1B a year. I don't know that it would even be worth another $100M to either Fox or CBS to add one additional game per week.

If my math is right, Fox and CBS pay ~$18M per game, on average, during the season, for broadcast rights. So you could make the case splitting TNF evenly would result in each paying ~$150M per season.

So basically the NFL would go from $1B in revenue from Amazon down to, aggressively, maybe an extra $300M from CBS and Fox.

That's a net loss of $700M in revenue. That means there's a $350M loss of payroll available to the players. That translates into close to $11M per team, per year.

So then I circle back to my original question... go to the players and ask them if, collectively, as a team, they're willing to get paid $11M less to play 3 days later, of which most teams only do it once a year.

have a 2nd Monday Night game (7:00) and (10:00) like they do on the 1st Monday Night game. You still have a prime time game and the players get a chance to practice and are better prepared, which can and should lead to better football. They can still have a prime time game, it just doesn't have to be TNF.

How much did players salaries increase from the last year without TNF to the first year with it.

 

[rmcjacket23]

have a 2nd Monday Night game (7:00) and (10:00) like they do on the 1st Monday Night game. You still have a prime time game and the players get a chance to practice and are better prepared, which can and should lead to better football. They can still have a prime time game, it just doesn't have to be TNF.

How much did players salaries increase from the last year without TNF to the first year with it.

How well is a 10pm game going to do on a Monday Night for at least 50% of the country? Not well, which is why they only do it once a year (they didn't do it at all this year, and there's discussions it won't be brought back).

The drop off from a Thursday night, primetime, single network coverage to a 10pm MNF game, which pretty much has to be a West Coast game, where half the country won't watch, would be a huge drop off revenue wise.

I don't know the exact logistics of the increase, as it would all tend to blend together with overall revenue increases that can be driven by a lot of factors. But we know how much networks pay for each individual slate, and how much more valuable actual primetime games are than non-primetime one's. And a 10pm game isn't considered a primetime game, since again, half the Country won't watch.

Or, put another way, there's no network on the planet that would pay $1B a year to broadcast a 10pm only football game every Monday night.

I'll also say this... "better football" isn't guaranteed due to more rest (we routinely see really bad football being played by very well rested teams) AND, it's also kind of irrelevant, because every network rating figure anybody could find would tell you that people still voluntarily watch bad football games all the time. You put Jags/Texans on TNF, and it'll do the best rating of any show on that night, by a gigantic margin.

People like us whine about it, but nobody cares about us. We're football fans. We're going to watch games regardless of whether they're good or bad. It would take something quite catastrophic to get me to stop watching football, and nothing like that has come close to happening yet.

 

[RavensMania]

How well is a 10pm game going to do on a Monday Night for at least 50% of the country? Not well, which is why they only do it once a year (they didn't do it at all this year, and there's discussions it won't be brought back).

The drop off from a Thursday night, primetime, single network coverage to a 10pm MNF game, which pretty much has to be a West Coast game, where half the country won't watch, would be a huge drop off revenue wise.

I don't know the exact logistics of the increase, as it would all tend to blend together with overall revenue increases that can be driven by a lot of factors. But we know how much networks pay for each individual slate, and how much more valuable actual primetime games are than non-primetime one's. And a 10pm game isn't considered a primetime game, since again, half the Country won't watch.

Or, put another way, there's no network on the planet that would pay $1B a year to broadcast a 10pm only football game every Monday night.

I'll also say this... "better football" isn't guaranteed due to more rest (we routinely see really bad football being played by very well rested teams) AND, it's also kind of irrelevant, because every network rating figure anybody could find would tell you that people still voluntarily watch bad football games all the time. You put Jags/Texans on TNF, and it'll do the best rating of any show on that night, by a gigantic margin.

People like us whine about it, but nobody cares about us. We're football fans. We're going to watch games regardless of whether they're good or bad. It would take something quite catastrophic to get me to stop watching football, and nothing like that has come close to happening yet.

West vs West and East vs East or as close as you could make it, just like they do it on the first Monday Night game. Not sure how many games could do this. Anyway, if you wanted to have some Thursday games, you could do it on teams coming off the bye week or the ones that played on Thursday Night Football on thanksgiving, like they have done for the Cowboys on multiple occasion.

I understand the bye week is from weeks 4 through 14, but those are just some ways to mitigate the health issues that some of these Thursday Night games.

No, better football isn't guaranteed, but a better chance when you are well rested and well practiced and that's a fact.

 

[SaltyDog]

For context about what ditching TNF and just adding another Sunday afternoon game to the mix would look like:
1. The current TNF package, which Fox owns broadcast rights to, pays the NFL ~$660M per year.
2. Amazon recently just purchased the rights to TNF for the next several years, paying $1B per year. So you can already see how valuable it is.

In the most recent TV network deal, both CBS and Fox pay about $2B/year each, and they are the exclusive providers of Sunday afternoon football games.

So CBS and Fox are paying $2B each to broadcast, call it, 6-7 games per week on Sunday afternoons, while Amazon is paying $1B to broadcast one game per week on Thursday. Also, note that NBC and ESPN pay the most, by far, for access to broadcast one game exclusively on SNF and MNF.

So if they collapsed TNF and just made another Sunday afternoon game, that game is no longer worth $1B a year. I don't know that it would even be worth another $100M to either Fox or CBS to add one additional game per week.

If my math is right, Fox and CBS pay ~$18M per game, on average, during the season, for broadcast rights. So you could make the case splitting TNF evenly would result in each paying ~$150M per season.

So basically the NFL would go from $1B in revenue from Amazon down to, aggressively, maybe an extra $300M from CBS and Fox.

That's a net loss of $700M in revenue. That means there's a $350M loss of payroll available to the players. That translates into close to $11M per team, per year.

So then I circle back to my original question... go to the players and ask them if, collectively, as a team, they're willing to get paid $11M less to play 3 days later, of which most teams only do it once a year.

Yeah as RM said above its all about the Benjamin’s so TNF isn’t going anywhere. I do think they could get creative with scheduling so that bye week teams play on TN. You would lose a few weeks at the beginning and end of season but there would still be revenue $$ left on th

West vs West and East vs East or as close as you could make it, just like they do it on the first Monday Night game. Not sure how many games could do this. Anyway, if you wanted to have some Thursday games, you could do it on teams coming off the bye week or the ones that played on Thursday Night Football on thanksgiving, like they have done for the Cowboys on multiple occasion.

I understand the bye week is from weeks 4 through 14, but those are just some ways to mitigate the health issues that some of these Thursday Night games.

No, better football isn't guaranteed, but a better chance when you are well rested and well practiced and that's a fact.

To me using teams that come off bye week is something they could do now without losing any revenue. That only leaves 5-6 weeks where teams will have short weeks. Also week one is not an issue. The injury issue is real, as well as preparation, for these TN games. Maybe the remaining weeks could be played on different days, as you suggest. Not perfect but better.

 

[rmcjacket23]

West vs West and East vs East or as close as you could make it, just like they do it on the first Monday Night game. Not sure how many games could do this. Anyway, if you wanted to have some Thursday games, you could do it on teams coming off the bye week or the ones that played on Thursday Night Football on thanksgiving, like they have done for the Cowboys on multiple occasion.

I understand the bye week is from weeks 4 through 14, but those are just some ways to mitigate the health issues that some of these Thursday Night games.

No, better football isn't guaranteed, but a better chance when you are well rested and well practiced and that's a fact.

OK, I think you missed the point of the West coast thing. It means the 10pm is 100% always going to be a West Coast team hosting it, and 50% of the country won't watch it at all. They'll never put an East Coast game at 10pm start time.

The bye week thing is fine with me, but I think its sort of irrelevant. You're just giving them two long recovery breaks (Thursday game after a bye, and then 10 days for the next game). Since not every team is going to play on Thursday, it arguably creates an unfair advantage for those that do, so you've actually flipped the script to competitive disadvantages on other sides.

Also if I'm ditching Thursday games, Thanksgiving goes too. If you don't, that means those teams are required to have a bye the same week every year, which again, creates somewhat of a disadvantage.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Yeah as RM said above its all about the Benjamin’s so TNF isn’t going anywhere. I do think they could get creative with scheduling so that bye week teams play on TN. You would lose a few weeks at the beginning and end of season but there would still be revenue $$ left on th


To me using teams that come off bye week is something they could do now without losing any revenue. That only leaves 5-6 weeks where teams will have short weeks. Also week one is not an issue. The injury issue is real, as well as preparation, for these TN games. Maybe the remaining weeks could be played on different days, as you suggest. Not perfect but better.

Is the injury issue "real" though? Like do you guys have actual data showing that Thursday night games create more injuries? Seems to me that the "injury concern" is really that they got hurt in the weeks prior, and didn't have enough time to recover for a Thursday game. If that's the case, I'd point you towards every single team in every single week, who's players don't have enough time over 6-7 days to recover from previously sustained injuries.

Edit: found this study from 2012-2017. Basically Thursday night football actually causes less injuries than Sunday or Monday night games.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30848976/

 

[SaltyDog]

Is the injury issue "real" though? Like do you guys have actual data showing that Thursday night games create more injuries? Seems to me that the "injury concern" is really that they got hurt in the weeks prior, and didn't have enough time to recover for a Thursday game. If that's the case, I'd point you towards every single team in every single week, who's players don't have enough time over 6-7 days to recover from previously sustained injuries.

Edit: found this study from 2012-2017. Basically Thursday night football actually causes less injuries than Sunday or Monday night games.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30848976/

It seems nonsensical that there would be less injuries on a 3 day rest vs. 7 day rest, but apparently it’s true. Or maybe not? Check out this analysis from football outsiders. They use similar metrics but explain why the numbers may be skewed. Teams list their injury reports on Wednesdays, 3 days after Sunday games, but 6 days after TN games. Therefor injuries that resolve themselves within day 3 - 6 won’t make it to the list. One possible explanation.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/do-thursday-games-cause-more-injuries

 

[rossihunter2]

Is the injury issue "real" though? Like do you guys have actual data showing that Thursday night games create more injuries? Seems to me that the "injury concern" is really that they got hurt in the weeks prior, and didn't have enough time to recover for a Thursday game. If that's the case, I'd point you towards every single team in every single week, who's players don't have enough time over 6-7 days to recover from previously sustained injuries.

Edit: found this study from 2012-2017. Basically Thursday night football actually causes less injuries than Sunday or Monday night games.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30848976/

the methodology in that study's not great tbh - there were significant limitations with regards to how they calculated "risk" - and the results were fairly implausible because of it (their result came out to something like 80% less likely to incur injuries on short rest which is patently ridiculous)

ive not seen a better answer though academically to truly examine it properly - it's really difficult to determine the differences without changing reporting guidelines and without standardising what counts as an injury or not, weighting different injuries differently based on their significance and also their likeliness to have been caused by less rest

but also it's going to be tough to ever really get something going unless you basically survey every player (even those not on the injury report) to check on their recovery post-game - because the problem with TNF is not always that it outright causes injuries but that it doesn't allow for proper recovery and preparation to protect against future injuries... recovery period is normally thought to be 3 days for NFL teams which makes thursday a very difficult preparation especially on the road

but it's tough to analyse - and ironically the only really trustworthy data is never going to be a complete picture just by the nature of the way the NFL works... but it's hard to argue with the players who anecdotally tell us that their bodies dont recover as well and hurt more for thursdays - and there've been some high profile comments made in recent years by players blaming thursday nights for their injuries

 

[rmcjacket23]

the methodology in that study's not great tbh - there were significant limitations with regards to how they calculated "risk" - and the results were fairly implausible because of it (their result came out to something like 80% less likely to incur injuries on short rest which is patently ridiculous)

ive not seen a better answer though academically to truly examine it properly - it's really difficult to determine the differences without changing reporting guidelines and without standardising what counts as an injury or not, weighting different injuries differently based on their significance and also their likeliness to have been caused by less rest

but also it's going to be tough to ever really get something going unless you basically survey every player (even those not on the injury report) to check on their recovery post-game - because the problem with TNF is not always that it outright causes injuries but that it doesn't allow for proper recovery and preparation to protect against future injuries... recovery period is normally thought to be 3 days for NFL teams which makes thursday a very difficult preparation especially on the road

but it's tough to analyse - and ironically the only really trustworthy data is never going to be a complete picture just by the nature of the way the NFL works... but it's hard to argue with the players who anecdotally tell us that their bodies dont recover as well and hurt more for thursdays - and there've been some high profile comments made in recent years by players blaming thursday nights for their injuries

I agree. Was kind of my whole point. There's no real evidence on either side to definitively make a pro or against argument for player safety on Thursdays. It's all just based on assumptions.

So lack of any sort of tangible evidence showing that Thursday games are patently more dangerous, we just go back to the main point, which is money. And we're talking player money, not just rich Owner money.

 

[rmcjacket23]

It seems nonsensical that there would be less injuries on a 3 day rest vs. 7 day rest, but apparently it’s true. Or maybe not? Check out this analysis from football outsiders. They use similar metrics but explain why the numbers may be skewed. Teams list their injury reports on Wednesdays, 3 days after Sunday games, but 6 days after TN games. Therefor injuries that resolve themselves within day 3 - 6 won’t make it to the list. One possible explanation.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/do-thursday-games-cause-more-injuries

Is anybody really concerned about injuries that are resolved within 3-6 days?
The barometer for NFL players is "can you suit up and play". That's the baseline. If teams were actually forced to do "real" injury reports, the entire roster is on the injury report every single week from like Week 5 forward with some sort of issue that makes them operate at less than their peaks. Bruises, sprains, etc. Every single player has them.

 

[gtalk12]

Keep the Thursday night game. Just don’t let either team play on Sunday

 

[SaltyDog]

Is anybody really concerned about injuries that are resolved within 3-6 days?
The barometer for NFL players is "can you suit up and play". That's the baseline. If teams were actually forced to do "real" injury reports, the entire roster is on the injury report every single week from like Week 5 forward with some sort of issue that makes them operate at less than their peaks. Bruises, sprains, etc. Every single player has them.

I agree with everything you said here. I was just pointing out that the idea that injuries are somehow less or less likely on TN games vs. Sunday games Is probably flawed. I’ll concede that players are no more likely to be injured on TN games because of the lack of good data to prove otherwise but it doesn’t change my mind on the fact that it is much more challenging for teams and players to prepare or overcome those bruises or sprains on 3 days rest. Especially road teams. TNF games are not going away because of $$$, as you pointed out, but the league could reduce the number of teams that are exposed to this through simple scheduling.

 

[RavensMania]

Yeah as RM said above its all about the Benjamin’s so TNF isn’t going anywhere. I do think they could get creative with scheduling so that bye week teams play on TN. You would lose a few weeks at the beginning and end of season but there would still be revenue $$ left on th


To me using teams that come off bye week is something they could do now without losing any revenue. That only leaves 5-6 weeks where teams will have short weeks. Also week one is not an issue. The injury issue is real, as well as preparation, for these TN games. Maybe the remaining weeks could be played on different days, as you suggest. Not perfect but better.

I never said it was going anywhere, but the injury issue is absolutely real and way more important than money, imo, but that's me.

 

[RavensMania]

OK, I think you missed the point of the West coast thing. It means the 10pm is 100% always going to be a West Coast team hosting it, and 50% of the country won't watch it at all. They'll never put an East Coast game at 10pm start time.

The bye week thing is fine with me, but I think its sort of irrelevant. You're just giving them two long recovery breaks (Thursday game after a bye, and then 10 days for the next game). Since not every team is going to play on Thursday, it arguably creates an unfair advantage for those that do, so you've actually flipped the script to competitive disadvantages on other sides.

Also if I'm ditching Thursday games, Thanksgiving goes too. If you don't, that means those teams are required to have a bye the same week every year, which again, creates somewhat of a disadvantage.

and you missed my point. Why would they have to put an east coast game at 10pm. They would play at 7pm and the west coast games would be at 10pm. Now I'm not sure there are enough west / east coast games for this to even work, but I do believe the Thursday after a bye week would work for the majority of the time and it would absolve the injury risk due to lack of preparation.