A prominent NFC player is freaking out. The NFL has dropped off a urine-testing kit at his house when he's clearly not -- how shall we say this? -- ready."
Substitue MLB for NFC/NFL and I have no doubt this is a story featured on Sportscenter. The fact that this was a non-story shows how much more NFL players can get away with compared to Athletes from all other sports, especially baseball because
1. NFL is king, and all fans care about is seeing the best product on the field, no matter what it takes to produce the best product on the field.
2. Stats don't hold nearly the significance historically that they do in baseball. And especially now with fantasy football being the million dollar behemoth that it is, if a player is doing something illicitly to help their fantasy stats down the road, then so be it.
Reilly is purposefully ambiguous by not only not reporting who the player is in the article, but also not letting the reader know why the player is freaked out (i.e. recreational drug use or performance enhancing drug use?). I know Reilly had his reasons for being ambiguous, but that doesn't mean he was right to be, and I can only hope for his sake as well as other NFL writers who have no doubt heard of or seen similar stories, that we don't get a resulting *steroids era in football as we have seen in baseball.

Now, this is just a hunch, but I feel part of the reasoning behind this name change for VERSUS is that NBC is looking to make the NBC Sports Network into a cable television station that can compete with ESPN. And, I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or two (or whenever it has the flexibility to do so) that NBC decides to move "Sunday Night Football" from the broadcast network of NBC to the cable channel NBC Sports Network.
Why do I feel this move seems inevitable? Well, there has to be a reason why the very successful Walt Disney company, which owns ESPN and ABC, decides to air "Monday Night Football" on the cable channel ESPN as opposed to the broadcast network ABC. Even though ABC reaches more homes and thus a conclusion could be drawn that Monday Night Football on ABC would draw a higher rating than on ESPN, the reasoning behind putting MNF on ESPN could be that football fans are going to watch MNF (or SNF) no matter who's televising it, so why not put it on a cable channel that one needs to pay extra for. This type of thinking would seem to make sense for NBC if it makes sense for Disney, plus then the lucrative sunday night time slots could be used on the broadcast network for shows to attract those viewers not interested in football (do those people exist?).
Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of NBC's deal with the NFL to broadcast SNF, but I can't help but think, if ESPN is able to generate good ratings for MNF as well as good ratings for shows on ABC on Monday night, why wouldn't NBC move its most popular sport to a cable channel it's trying to grow, and by doing so try to own Sunday night television the way Disney owns Monday night?


No comments:
Post a Comment