Showing posts with label NFL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFL. Show all posts

31 October 2010

Phillip Daniels calls NFL's Concussion Crackdown "Crazy"

The Washington Post


Here's a sneak peak of what you can expect from your national Wednesday NFL open locker room coverage: defensive players complaining loudly and eloquently about the league's sudden emphasis on preventing concussions. You will see stories like this from just about every NFL market, with players arguing that a certain level of violence is inevitable, and that legislating it out through fines and/or suspensions is both hypocritical and impossible.

For your sneak peak, I present Phillip Daniels's Tuesday appearance on the LaVar and Dukes show. Daniels actually began his critique of the NFL on Twitter; some of his comments are grouped together here:

    Have we become a cupcake league? We already have better helmets and gear. Wonder how the old school players feel about this. Not in the back of minds when talking about 18 game season so let's play football please....Even guys using shoulders to hit are getting flagged for helmet-to-helmet. Defense is getting sloppy because guys are avoiding fines and will get worse if suspending comes into play....

    There has been a warning sticker on the back of every helmet since pee wee league. When u put that helmet on you know you will hit or be hit. We still choose to play. Parents are asked to sign forms for their kids to play because of the dangers of the sport. Nothing is different.

On the radio, he was perhaps even more pointed when asked about the NFL's response to last week's carnage.

"To me, when I hear guys getting fined that much money for a game in which we're taught to be physical and hit people, I think it's ridiculous," Daniels said. "When this game started, from way back, your dream is to go out there and hit somebody and bring some excitement to the game. You're talking about taking that away. Guys are gonna get hurt. This is football. This ain't no cupcake league.You're gonna go out and play football, you're gonna get hit. Offensive players know they're gonna get hit, and defensive players go out to hit. Nothing's changed. You just go out there and play football and take all this other stuff out of it, this suspension stuff. It's kind of crazy. The fines are crazy too."

Daniels echoed a widespread opinion that the double knockout shot leveled by Dunta Robinson on DeSean Jackson was actually clean, and he said that players are virtually never trying to hurt each other.

"I don't think guys should just go be blatant and go after a head or leave their feet and spear somebody with a helmet, but we're taught to be physical, we're taught to go out and hit people," he said. "And now you get a couple of stars hurt in this league, now they want to talk about suspending guys? I just think this game is going downhill. Defenses right now are sloppy, there's more missed tackles, because guys are trying to avoid the helmet-to-helmet hit. Now you're talking about suspending guys? You definitely gonna get a lot of guys trying to go in the wrong way, missing tackles....You've just got to go out and play football."

Daniels said he uses an "old-school" helmet and is suspicious of the new helmet technology, saying that all three Redskins who have suffered concussions this season were using newer models. He said he's never been on a team that suffered as many concussions as these Redskins, who have already lost Chris Cooley, Rocky McIntosh and Anthony Bryant to head injuries. But he also said that when you go into his profession, you do so with the understanding that your body might be damaged.

"They've done a lot to make this league safer," he said. "It's changed a whole lot already. We protected the quarterback, you've got the horse collar [rule] that happened when T.O. went down. A superstar goes down, the rules change, that's just how it is. I don't get it. We get a couple big name guys go down this weekend, now we're talking about the helmet issue. I just think the NFL, they've done a lot to keep players safe.

"You're gonna get hurt, and if people ever wonder why we get paid so much, this is why. They're talking about this helmet-to-helmet stuff, but it's not coming into play when they're talking about 18 games....How can they argue the 18 game increase? It's crazy. This game is already tough enough with 16 games. To add two more, as physical as this game is, is kind of ridiculous."

10 September 2010

The NFL's Most Popular Team

The Wall Street Journal
A Study Ranks All 32 in TV Viewers and Online Cachet; and the Winner Is…

 
 
The New York Giants generate more online buzz than any other National Football League team but garner just about the lowest local-TV ratings. Every grandmother in Cincinnati watches the Bengals when they're on TV, but the rest of the country doesn't seem to realize they exist. And then there are the Jacksonville Jaguars, who, no matter how you look at it, don't seem to have accumulated much fan support of any kind.

The NFL season begins Thursday night as the Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints host Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings. This game will pull a national-TV rating that's huge by sports standards: If precedent holds it will likely outdraw most games of Major League Baseball's World Series.

But as prolific as the NFL has become in its ability to divert eyeballs to televisions, there are substantial differences in the relative popularity of its 32 teams. Everybody knows the Green Bay Packers have a devoted and frostbitten following, for instance, but what about the Atlanta Falcons?

In a first-of-its-kind study performed this summer, Nielsen Co., the media-research firm, developed a system for ranking the popularity of NFL teams based on each team's local and national TV rankings, how often they're mentioned on the Internet and how many visitors they attract to their official websites. The report, dubbed the Nielsen Sports Media Exposure Index, is the company's first attempt to classify pro-football teams in this manner.

Not surprisingly, the survey confirms that America's team is, in fact, "America's Team," as in the Dallas Cowboys. In the final ranking, they were a stunning 23% more popular than the No. 2 team, their old rivals the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Giants were next, followed by three of the four teams in the NFC's North division: the Chicago Bears, the Green Bay Packers and the Vikings.

The Cowboys are on top in part because they're popular to begin with. Nielsen counted the total number of viewers of a team's national broadcasts from last season, rather than the average. So in most cases the more a team was picked to play in front of a national audience, the better it did. The Cowboys, who led the league last year with six national appearances, had a whopping 117 million viewers.

 
Bill Wanger, the executive vice president of programming and research at Fox Sports Media Group, says the Cowboys are among a handful of "national-appeal teams" that draw huge TV ratings no matter what market they're broadcast in. The Cowboys also were helped in the study by the massive amount of traffic their website draws—nearly 50% more monthly unique visitors than the second-place Steelers.

On the other end of the spectrum, five of the eight teams in the NFL's two West divisions are in the bottom 10 of the overall rankings. This includes the St. Louis Rams, who, on top of averaging an embarrassing two wins per year over the past three seasons, finished last in this report. They have the worst mark in two of the categories and were in the bottom six in the others.

"When you've won as much as we have recently, it's not surprising," says Kevin Demoff, the Rams' executive vice president of football operations and chief operating officer. But it's not as though the Rams are incapable of being popular. When they reached multiple Super Bowls a decade ago, "everybody in the city loved us," says Hall of Fame-caliber running back Marshall Faulk, who played on those teams.

The Nielsen report uses one year of data, but separate research from the past two decades has shown similar results. Harris Interactive, a New York market-research firm, has been asking respondents to name their favorite NFL team annually since 1992. The Cowboys came out No. 1 on 11 occasions in that poll and were never lower than No. 4. The Rams, since they moved to St. Louis in 1995, were in the bottom five on five occasions. The only teams that fared worse than the Rams were the Bengals and the Jaguars. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers finished next-to-last in the Nielsen study.

The Jaguars declined to comment. A spokesman for the Bengals said the team would likely perform better in these rankings next year, and a Bucs spokesman said the faltering Tampa economy likely played a large role in recent struggles to attract fans.

study shows a winning tradition doesn't guarantee a large fan base. Two of the NFL's more successful and iconic franchises, the Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers, finished near the bottom of the rankings despite owning a combined eight Super Bowl titles (representatives for the teams couldn't be reached for comment).

Despite the healthy rankings for the Packers and the Saints (No. 9), the study suggests being in a smaller media market presents some challenges. Five of the bottom 10 teams hail from Charlotte, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Tampa and St. Louis.

That said, it's not clear what to say about the New York Jets. (They finished No. 18).

10 June 2010

Will the NY Football Giants and Jets Play for Ashley Madison?

New Jersey Star-Ledger

 
According to a report on the website LastAngryFan.com, the website AshleyMadison.com has made an offer to the people who run the New Meadowlands Stadium to pay $25 million over five years in exchange for naming rights to the new home of the Giants and Jets and Super Bowl XLVIII.

What is AshleyMadison.com? It's a dating site for married people who want to meet people with whom they can cheat on their spouses. And, according to LastAngryFan.com, the website is "surprisingly profitable.''

The report concedes the odds of AshleyMadison.com winning the naming rights to the new stadium is remote, but it says the website's owner has offered to match any other naming rights offers New Meadowlands Stadium gets.

10 May 2010

Super Bowl Ads: Time for a Change

ESPN
Neither the ads nor the people who produced them reflect the nation's diversity

When the New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts took the field in Miami on Feb. 7, their Super Bowl wasn't the only game being played. There was a championship at stake for Madison Avenue advertising agencies that evening, too. As the players on the field were fighting for yards and points, corporate America was fighting for consumer dollars. An editorial titled "Bowl Marketers: You Need to Go Big or Go Home," (Advertising Age, Feb. 15, 2010) explained that, "The Super Bowl, despite its cost, provides the rarest of opportunities for marketers -- an environment where the ads are also programming." Companies were willing to put up an average of $2.7 million per ad because of the huge viewership the Super Bowl draws. According to Nielsen ratings, the game was the most-watched program in television history, with an approximate 106.5 million viewers. Obviously, the ads shown during the game can have enormous influence on the viewing audience.

As I watched this year with my wife, Ann, we both remarked how many ads seemed to go way over the line with stereotypical images that could be considered offensive. In the months since they aired, I've looked further into the content of those ads and the people who produced them; and it became apparent that both areas reflected a stunning lack of cultural diversity and sensitivity.

For example:

• Only four of the 67 ads shown during the Super Bowl had an African-American male as a main character; and of those four, only two (Bud Light's "Light House" and Doritos' "House Rules") involved an actor who is not a well-known celebrity. Other minorities, including minority women, did not have a leading role in any of the commercials. (BeyoncĂ© was on the screen for less than 10 percent of her Vizio commercial, so that was not considered a leading role.) The minority actors who were present in the ads had limited speaking roles or received just a few seconds of camera time.

• There was also a lack of depictions of black middle-class families in the ads. The Doritos "House Rules" ad showed an African-American single mom ready to go on a date, reinforcing a stereotypical image of African-American women as single mothers caring for their young children with no father figure present. In the commercials set in professional or office environments, white males always had the dominant role with one exception: Telefora.com's "Rude Flowers" ad, in which white females were the main characters. The only commercial in a professional/office setting that included diverse characters was Intel's "Lunchroom" ad, which depicted a number of Intel employees as Indians and other Asians.

• Madison Avenue, which has never shied away from using sex to sell products, followed that form in a number of Super Bowl ads this year. Go Daddy's "News" tried to make a sale with the line, "Some say the commercial is too hot for TV" -- to which Go Daddy Girl Danica Patrick replied, "How hot is too hot?" "News" and Go Daddy's other Super Bowl ad, "Spa," both employed attractive women talking in sexual innuendos to promote the company. Actress Megan Fox's celebrity and appearance were put to use in Motorola's spot, which featured Fox in a bubble bath.

• Other commercials featured scantily clad women as nothing more than props in a male-focused advertisement. Monster.com's "Beavers" starred a uniquely talented beaver and his beautiful blond "groupie." Continuing with the trend, Kia Sorento passed on including humans as main characters in its "Joy Ride" commercial in favor of stuffed animals, yet the popular theme of a bikini-clad woman in a hot tub was not missing.

• Then there were ads such as Flo TV's "Injury Report" in which women challenged the manhood of their partners. "Injury Report" portrayed a man whose "spine was removed by his girlfriend" as he shopped for lavender candles instead of watching the game. If he would simply purchase Flo TV's personal television, he could "change out of that skirt," as the narrator (Jim Nantz) passionately bemoaned.

• Bud Light's commercials were the most diverse, with African-American, Middle Eastern, Hispanic and Asian actors and actresses in speaking roles and with considerable camera time.

A few months ago, Cyrus Mehri, a civil rights attorney and a friend, told me he was working with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to take action against the Madison Avenue agencies he felt were discriminating in the areas of race and gender. We talked about how ads bearing negative images can reinforce stereotypes and damage race and gender relations. We agreed that neither of us knew the race and gender of the people creating the ads. That conversation started what became, in effect, a Racial and Gender Report Card for Madison Avenue, which I wrote with five of my graduate assistants (Devan J. Dignan, Brian Hoff, Jamile M. Kitnurse, Austin Moss II and Naomi Robinson) at The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport (TIDES) at the University of Central Florida.

The report, titled "WHITE MEN DOMINATE ADVERTISING AGENCIES' CREATIVE DIRECTOR POSITIONS As Exemplified by Ads Aired During the Super Bowl," seeks to depict the current disparity in hiring practices that exists in the advertising industry regarding race and gender. There were 67 advertisements aired during the Super Bowl, 52 of which were produced by major advertising agencies. The other 15 were produced either by the companies themselves or by creative directors who were not professionals. At least one was produced by someone who won a contest. We were able to identify the race and gender of the creative directors for 58 of the 67 commercials that aired during the game.

Here's what we found:

• None of the 52 ads from Madison Avenue agencies was produced with a person of color as the lead creative director -- 100 percent of them were white.

• Furthermore, 94 percent of the creative directors on those ads were white males; only 6 percent were female.

• When looking at all 67 ads, including the 15 produced outside a Madison Avenue agency, a total of 76 creative/co-creative directors worked on these commercials, and only one was a minority: Joelle De Jesus, a Latino man who won a Doritos "Crash the Super Bowl" contest. His ad, Doritos "House Rules," was considered by many to be a "top five" commercial in terms of popularity. This commercial was one of the few that had noncelebrity minorities in a lead role.

• Seventy of the creative directors were white males (92 percent); five were white women.

I have been doing media report cards since 2006, and I have been authoring report cards on the racial and gender hiring practices in the NFL, NBA, MLB and MLS and in college sport for more than two decades. In all those years, we have never reported on an industry group that is less diverse. The Madison Avenue ad agencies we researched are almost all led by white men. The hope in writing this report is that this baseline data will provide a mirror for self-reflection so Madison Avenue can embrace change and move ahead.

The NAACP, the law firm of Mehri & Skalet PLLC and TIDES take the position that the key figures in the Madison Avenue advertising agencies that use the Super Bowl to sell products should mirror the advances made by professional football. These agencies seem to have missed what most of corporate America now understands: Diversity is a business imperative.

You don't have to look any further than the demographics of the Super Bowl viewing audience to figure that out in this context. According to Nielsen data, nearly half of the Super Bowl viewers this year were women, and nearly 20 percent were African-American and Latino; and those numbers are increasing every year. The Nielsen data indicates that 11.2 million African-Americans viewed Super Bowl XLIV, and 48 percent of them were women.

It is ironic that these ads aired during the NFL's biggest event. NFL franchises have worked hard in recent years to become more diverse in their front offices. The Rooney Rule, a provision launched in 2003 that requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head-coaching and senior management positions, has been an overwhelming success. Six of the last eight Super Bowl teams have had minority head coaches or general managers. The NFL recently received its highest overall grade ever, a B, in "The 2009 Racial and Gender Report Card" while also achieving its first A for racial hiring practices. Sixty-seven percent of the players in the NFL were African-American in the last statistics available.

The record of Madison Avenue agencies stands in stark contrast to that of the NFL.

The lack of minority employees who work in executive or creative positions for advertising agencies isn't new. It's been an issue in the advertising industry since it was first brought to light in 1963 by the NAACP and the Urban League of Greater New York. In response to the results of our recent study, Laura Blackburne, NAACP general counsel and a former judge, said, "The NAACP and others have tried in past years to address the exclusion of African-Americans and other racial minorities in upper management, and especially the creative departments, of the advertising industry. This study demonstrates that nothing has changed. This 'old boy' network continues to exclude the creative talents of African-Americans, women and other ethnic groups while perpetuating negative racial and gender stereotypes. We are determined to bring this industry out of the past and into the 21st century."

When ads are produced without input from diverse cultural viewpoints, the probability increases that the commercials will show biases on racial and gender issues; and those issues were apparent in many of the commercials shown during the 2010 Super Bowl broadcast.

Mehri, the civil rights attorney, summed it up this way: "The Institute's Report sheds further light on Madison Avenue's woeful employment record. For those on Madison Avenue still in a state of denial, open your eyes. For those denied fair opportunities, have hope. We will not stop until a New Day is created on Madison Avenue."

Wednesday's news conference at which the results of the study were released was held at the NAACP's New York headquarters. In attendance was Nancy Hill, the president and CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA). She is the first woman to have held that influential position in the history of AAAA, which is considered the advertising industry's national trade association. We were very pleased that she was there, and I spoke by phone with her later in the day and agreed to get together to open a dialogue with her association in the future.

The agencies need to use more diverse talent to create ads that can be popular yet also lift up their viewers rather than put them down. I call on these agencies to take immediate action to open up the hiring process. I call on the companies that hire the agencies to advertise their products to demand that the creative talent better represent America. I also call on the ad sponsors to demand change in how women and people of color are portrayed in their commercials.

Surely we can be entertained and drawn in by ads that are not made at someone else's expense.

Richard E. Lapchick is the chair of the DeVos Sport Business Management Graduate Program in the College of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida. The author of 13 books, Lapchick also directs UCF's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, is the author of the annual Racial and Gender Report Card, and is the director of the National Consortium for Academics and Sport. He has joined ESPN.com as a regular commentator on issues of diversity in sport.

25 April 2010

Grass on the Football Field

The Wall Street Journal
Despite Stiff Penalties, More Incoming Players Cop to Using Marijuana; Some Calls for Medical Use

 
 
As the NFL Draft gets under way, one of the hot topics inside the league is the growing number of top prospects who have admitted smoking pot or have been caught doing so.

Based on information obtained from NFL team executives, agents, scouts and trainers, just under one-third of the 327 players who attended this year's NFL pre-draft scouting camp, or combine, had some incident involving marijuana turn up in interviews or background checks—which NFL teams collect and share before and during the event. This number represents a 30% increase from the season before. The NFL and its players union declined to comment on these totals.

While it's impossible to know how many current NFL players smoke pot, there have been several incidents in recent years involving high-profile NFL players. In 2006, Ricky Williams of the Miami Dolphins, a former Heisman Trophy winner, was suspended for one year by the NFL after testing positive for violating the league's substance-abuse policy for a fourth time. (He's said publicly he has used marijuana.) Last year, according to two people familiar with the situation, Percy Harvin—a wide receiver for the Minnesota Vikings—tested positive for marijuana at the draft combine. In 2008, the same season that he was named Super Bowl MVP for the Pittsburgh Steelers, wide receiver Santonio Holmes was charged with marijuana possession, although charges were dropped in 2009. (Messrs. Williams, Harvin and Holmes did not return calls for comment.)

Kyle Turley, a former All-Pro lineman who retired in 2008, says he smoked marijuana at times throughout his 10-year NFL career. NFL players are only tested once for marijuana, between April and August, he says, so he stayed clean before the test and then felt free to smoke afterwards. He says he did so to relax and to help keep up his appetite to maintain his playing weight. "I know half the building of every NFL team smokes pot, or has, but it's so taboo nobody will say it," he says.

Mark Stepnoski, a former five-time Pro Bowl center who once served as president of the Texas chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says he regularly used the drug during his playing career. For him, marijuana wasn't about recreational enjoyment—it was a means of pain management. "It would just make me feel better," he says.

While the overall rate of pot smoking among the NFL's draft prospects isn't out of line with the number of U.S. adults (41% by one recent study) who say they've tried the drug, the number of incoming players with marijuana histories is a source of concern for NFL teams. The NFL's penalties for marijuana use are among the most severe in professional team sports, and a player who's likely to test positive can hurt a team's chances. William Thomas, a former Pro Bowl NFL linebacker who works as a scout for the Oakland Raiders, says NFL teams recognize "marijuana is a drug that more people have tried. It happens." What the Raiders have to figure out, he says, is whether it's likely to be an ongoing issue. In any case, Mr. Thomas says, "It's definitely a mark against you."

As debate on this subject continues, however, there is one question that hasn't been widely considered. At a time when 14 states have made cannabis a legal medical option—and more than a dozen more have pending legislation or ballot measures to legalize medical marijuana—is it possible the NFL and its players union could consider allowing some players to take the drug if they can get legal perscriptions?

Given the painful nature of football, the chronic injuries it can produce and the increasing availability of medical cannabis, a growing chorus of former NFL players and physicians who prescribe marijuana says pot should be considered as a treatment for the most common ailments football players face.

Mr. Stepnoski believes marijuana is a better treatment than many prescription painkillers. "If given the choice, I think guys would be much better off taking a cannabis extract," he says. Mr. Turley, the former lineman, says it's "ridiculous that the NFL makes such a big deal out of a plant that has real medicinal values."

Frank Lucido, a primary-care physician in Berkeley, Calif., who has two former NFL players as patients, says he believes marijuana is practically designed for football ailments, which range from headaches to depression to effects of violent contact. "The most common thing I see in NFL players is chronic orthopedic pain," he says. In California, doctors are allowed to prescribe marijuana to any patient whose health they believe would be improved—and Dr. Lucido says football players could qualify for treatment. "I say marijuana should not be a banned substance [in the NFL]. It has too many medical benefits."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league has had "no discussion" with its medical advisors or the players union about changing the league's marijuana policy. "The program supports the health and safety of our players and the integrity of our game," he says. Mr. Aiello added that the league doesn't grant therapeutic use exemptions for medical marijuana. He said the league's medical advisers say it is "extremely unlikely" that a person would have a condition that requires this medication and would also be able to play professional football.

Victor Prisk is a sports-medicine orthopedic surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center who has treated college-football players. He believes cannabis might be helpful for people with the kind of neuropathic pain related to multiple sclerosis—but he's not certain it should be used for the sort of musculoskeletal pain that NFL players endure. Dr. Prisk says it could be argued that cannabis may be a performance-enhancing drug. "It can increase appetite for a lineman who needs to put on weight," he says.

Not all NFL teams view marijuana equally. One college lineman who was projected to be picked in the first round of the draft Thursday identified himself as one of the players from the combine who admitted trying marijuana. When he told the teams, he said their reactions were wildly different. "Some really didn't care, some went crazy over it," the player said. "Honestly, it doesn't help you play better, it just relaxes you after."

One five-year NFL veteran said he would be wary of allowing medical exemptions for marijuana use. "What if it also leads to laziness and lack of responsibility?" he asks. "What if you become so relaxed, you want to stay in that state too often?"

Marijuana isn't without risks. The government classifies it as a Schedule I drug, meaning it has a high tendency for abuse. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says marijuana can impair coordination, and the center cites studies that show marijuana smoke contains carcinogens that can cause some of the same respiratory problems as those suffered by tobacco smokers.

There is one football league where players are not tested for marijuana—the Canadian Football League. Tad Kornegay, a linebacker with the Saskatchewan Roughriders says at least half of his teammates are open about smoking pot. "They say they do it for stress, and because they feel like they don't hurt as bad," he says. "Nobody comes to practice high."

Tony Villani, a trainer who has worked with 70 NFL prospects over the past eight years, says he hasn't seen any difference in the on-field work habits of players who admit to smoking pot. "There's no correlation," he says.