A Parable for Marty the TV Executive
in Charge of Fantasy Football Programming
8/21/06
Fantasy football is the redheaded stepchild of the sports media
community. Perhaps more importantly, media executives have conducted
their own research and reviewed their data and have soberly determined
that the aforementioned redheaded stepchild has money in his pocket.
Strangely, just as Marty the TV executive is about to strike the
redheaded stepchild with a cane and demand his wallet, Bryce the
accountant gently snatches the cane from him and points to all the
red-headed stepchildren gathered around. “Do you not see,”
asks the peacemaker, “that it will be far easier to let them
give us their money than to take it from them?”
A smile suffuses Marty’s face: “Ah, and think
of the savings on canes! But how do we get them to give us their
money?”
“We need to sell them something.”
“Bunnies? Everybody likes bunnies.”
“No, not bunnies. Bunnies take time to breed and money to
raise.”
“Which are we trying to skimp on, time or money?”
“Both, obviously.”
“Hmmm. . . I guess that means newborn, undernourished bunnies
then?”
“Well, but even that solution would cost a little money and
take a little time.”
“You’re saying you have something even cheaper and more
desirable than newborn, undernourished bunnies? You astound me,
sir. Do tell. Do tell.”
“We have to sell them information.”
“If you’ll pardon me, Bryce, I daresay I prefer the
bunny plan. The delivery of information is very expensive and time-consuming
in my experience.”
“That’s because you’ve spent your life covering
sports. A sporting event is a real thing, and you’re a real
person trying to convey the relevant drama of sports to other real
people. You know what you want to convey and that you have to get
a camera crew to the game if you want to broadcast it to an audience.
It’s only expensive because you have a real product that has
to correspond to certain fixed expectations. These redheaded stepchildren,
however, are not exactly fixed on the real world—if you take
my meaning.”
“Are you saying these rapscallions are delusional? Return
my cane, sir, so that I may defend myself!”
“No, they aren’t delusional. They’re just kind
of . . . ‘spacey.’ They don’t really follow sports;
they follow something they call ‘fantasy sports,’ which
is just their coded way of saying that they like to pretend about
things.”
“If what you say is true, then shouldn’t we be selling
them action figures? They can make sound effects for the tackles
as they play with their dolls. Can’t you hear them? ‘Kapooooooohhhhh!’
‘My eye! My eye!’ We can whip up an ad for a whole line
of dolls in no time! There’s a capital idea, Bryce.”
“Stay on point, Marty. We’re in the broadcasting business—not
the doll-making business or the bunny-raising business. The product
has to be information because that is the only thing we sell, but
I figure that if we cut all the right corners, the information will
cost us nothing and take less time for us to produce than it does
for the redheaded stepchildren to consume.”
“But how can we give
them information if we don’t understand the football fantasies
they’re having?”
“That’s just it; they’re only doing pretend things,
so we give them pretend information.”
“But what kind of pretend information?”
“It doesn’t matter. Just cover it in enough sugar, and
they’ll beg you for it.”
“But what if they don’t?”
“They will.”
“Right, but what if they don’t?”
“The point is you add more sugar until they do come, but if
they don’t come for it no matter how much you sweeten the
deal, well then you’ve no alternative but to throw it at them.”
“Throw this pretend information at them . . . like what? Like
monkey feces?”
“No, like candy. Like candy at a parade. It doesn’t
have to make any sense or be sanitary if you throw in a few clowns
in small cars.”
“I see what you’re driving at, but if I don’t
understand the rules of their pretend world, how do I know what
stands for candy and what stands for monkey feces?”
“You’re a smart fellow. Take a freaking guess!”
*****
As most football fans know very well, there has been a tremendous
shakeup in the NFL’s broadcasting arrangements. I won’t
review those changes here, as Michael Hiestand has already covered
them in a succinct (but nevertheless comprehensive) article
for USA Today.
In light of the these new arrangements for the televising of games,
it seems safe to assume that a programming executive or two has
decided that one way to distinguish his/her network from the others
that cover football is to emerge as the favorite of the fantasy
football community.
We’ve seen glimmerings of this tendency in recent years
in segments with such predictable titles as “Fantasy Focus”
or “Fantasy Studs and Duds,” etc. The tendency appears
in print media as well as on television. It’s maybe a bit
funny and maybe a bit sad to watch brilliant sportswriters such
as Peter King struggle with assignments to compile lists of sleeper
running backs in an attempt to attract the attention of fantasy
enthusiasts.
The editors who impose such tasks on King are exactly like the producers
who encourage Trey Wingo, Sean Salisbury, and Mark Schlereth to
play their pointless (though amusing) “Fantasy Five”
segment on NFL Live. The only thing that such productions
make clear to me is that the people involved have absolutely no
idea what sort of information to give the audience they are attempting
to reach—most likely because they don’t understand how
fantasy football is played. There is clearly an assumption, however,
that the key ingredient to success is to throw the word “fantasy”
around as much as possible.
I can’t deny that some fantasy enthusiasts are vacuous enough
to watch, read, or listen to any program that simply claims to be
about fantasy football. At the same time, I doubt that many editors
or producers will deny that the best way to capture the rest of
the fantasy audience is to deliver on that claim. But what makes
delivering on that claim so difficult is that fantasy football is
played in an unlimited number of ways.
The “Fantasy Five” segment on NFL Live is just
one example of a way to play fantasy football—a very unusual
way. It’s a contest designed for three participants who choose
5 NFL players each week. The participants have to meet certain goals
at each position in order to earn points (such as by having a running
back rush for more than 100 yards). The participant who chooses
a marquee rusher such as Shaun Alexander for Week 2 may or may not
have him again in Week 3. But since there are only three people
involved in the contest, no one will have to bother with digging
deep for such backs as Reuben Droughns or Kevan Barlow.
Wingo, Salisbury, and Schlereth seem to have a great deal of fun
with their so-called fantasy segment, but their game is in no way
relevant to a traditional fantasy football league, in which 8 or
more participants draw on fixed rosters of more than a dozen players
to submit lineups with multiple running backs and wide receivers.
So what if Schlereth is going to bank on Chad Johnson breaking the
century mark in receiving yardage this week? In most leagues, the
person who has Chad Johnson will have him for the entire season
and will start him every week he plays whether Schlereth’s
prediction this week comes true or not. Johnson (like Steve Smith
and Larry Fitzgerald) is simply too talented a receiver to stay
on any fantasy bench, so it does the average fantasy enthusiast
no good at all to know that Wingo likes Smith, Salisbury likes Fitzgerald,
and Schlereth likes Johnson.
But wait. I’m not suggesting that fantasy segments should
be pitched to the “average” fantasy league because
I don’t believe there is any such thing. As a quick example,
let’s look at 2 wildly different running backs: Clinton
Portis and Brian Westbrook. To the trained football scout, Portis
is the more dangerous back. It follows that knowledgeable and
well-meaning analysts who are trying to provide some insights
to fantasy enthusiasts will say, “Portis will be much more
productive than Westbrook.” What seems obvious to an ex-NFL
linebacker who is telling you which RB he would be more comfortable
playing against is not necessarily relevant in fantasy football,
since scoring systems vary so drastically from one league to the
next. In a league that values rushing yardage more highly than
receiving yardage and awards bonuses for breaking the century
mark on the ground, Portis is the better back. But in a league
that treats all yardage equally, adds no such yardage bonus, and
throws in one point per reception, Westbrook becomes more attractive.
I’ll illustrate this point by looking at the way the backs
performed in Week One of 2005 according to 2 different scoring
systems.
League 1 awards 1 point per 10 yards rushing, 1 point per 15 yards
receiving, no points for receptions, 5 points for a 100-yard rushing
day, 6 points per rushing TD, and 4 points per receiving TD. Portis
rushed for 121 yards (12.1 points), had no catches (0 points), cracked
the century mark (5 points), and had no scores for a total of 17.1
points. Westbrook had only 47 yards rushing (4.7 points), 64 yards
receiving (4.3 points), and scored one receiving TD (4 points) for
a total of 13 points.
League 2 awards 1 point per 10 rushing or receiving yards, 1 point
for each reception, no bonuses for cracking the century mark, 6
points per rushing TD, and 4 points per receiving TD. Portis still
gets 12.1 points for his rushing performance, but that’s it.
Westbrook, on the other hand, gets 11.1 points for yardage, 7 points
for 7 catches, and 4 points for his receiving TD for a total of
22.1 points.
Unfortunately for those who would like to keep fantasy football
simple, differences in scoring are only the tip of the iceberg in
terms of distinctions between leagues. Player values differ dramatically
depending upon whether one is in a redrafter league or a keeper
league, a league with an early trading deadline or one with no such
deadline, a league with flex positions and one without, etc., etc.,
ad infinitum.
In other words, the answer to most of the fantasy questions that
fantasy segments pretend to address is: “It depends.”
The problem is that no fantasy segment I have ever seen is at all
interested in addressing such questions in their complexity—probably
because television simply doesn’t lend itself to that sort
of analysis. No matter how fond some of us are of fantasy football,
we probably aren’t going to watch Terry Bradshaw work his
way through the mathematical exercises in the foregoing paragraphs.
Nevertheless, the fantasy segments that fail to acknowledge that
this complexity exists are going to have a very difficult time retaining
the attention of most fantasy enthusiasts. So what is a television
executive like Marty supposed to do? Should he drive the fantasy
audience away by delivering oversimplified misinformation or by
dwelling tediously on the minute differences in scoring between
leagues?
Neither.
I suggest that Marty take a page from the DIY Network on this one.
As I moved into my new house over the summer, I watched a lot of
how-to programming on DIY—programming that frequently oversimplified
the projects I was attempting to tackle. However, the hosts of these
programs were very good about directing their viewers to the DIY
Website for further details and expanded explanations of what the
shows were about.
In the opinion of one writer who presumes to speak on behalf of
the fantasy football community, that model is the future of effective
fantasy football programming. Instead of having fantasy analysts
spend their entire segments pretending that the way they play fantasy
football is the only way it is played or endlessly debating the
value of various players in various scoring systems, producers should
simply hire analysts who are aware of such differences and can acknowledge
them quickly in the context of broader discussions of player value.
Scratch the surface on the show, but give us substance on the related
website. Throw in some analysis of the headway that rookies are
making from a worthy NFL scout (such as Mike Mayock), and you’ll
have the rapt attention of the fantasy community in no time. Then
your advertisers can educate us about the importance of consuming
Budweiser and dousing ourselves with some kind of body spray—and
all will be right with the world.
*****
My apologies to those who were looking forward to the column
I promised concerning kickers in fantasy leagues. I received lots
of great responses to my July column on that subject, and I look
forward to sharing those responses in my first column of the 2006
regular season.
For responses to this fantasy question please email
Mike Davis. Readers who want to have their fantasy questions
answered live, on the air, by Mike Davis are invited to tune into
FFEXradio
on Friday afternoons at 5:00 p.m. EST. Archived
programs are also available. |
