I think a simpler explanation for the Chiefs’ success is that their quarterback is superhuman.
Oh I agree. I was just pointing out how it’s plausible.
Another issue is the diminishing value of championship rematches. With each rematch, a league misses an opportunity to grow another fanbase while getting little or no additional gains with the existing ones.
For instance, when the NBA had 4 consecutive Finals of Cavs vs. Warriors, that wasn’t of benefit to the league. The first series was just fine. The second one didn’t give much additional utility value, and by the third and fourth, not only did it probably fail to gain any new fans (by that point, everyone in the Bay Area or Cleveland who would care about NBA basketball was already following the NBA,) but it actually led to backlash and annoyance from the rest of the basketball nation.
In fact, even a significant number of Warriors and Cavs fans themselves wished their teams could have met some other opponent in the Finals, respectively.
It’s in the NFLs best interest to protect every QB1. It’s boring watching a back up get knocked around. The rules favor the QB. There are many instances of the QB being barely touched and getting a roughing call. It is usually talked about for a minute on air. If it’s Mahomes it’s plastered all over social media for a week.
Be this as it may, I think the revenue and attention from the Swifties was already maxed out when the Chiefs beat the Niners in the Super Bowl last year.
For a league that wants $$$, the NFL is really shooting itself in the foot. From a reward and ratings standpoint, it would have been better for the NFL to have the Bills go to the Super Bowl than the Chiefs. The Chiefs are going to the big game for the 5th time in 6 years. That field has been thoroughly harvested several times over by now; there’s not even pickings left. Anyone in Kansas or Missouri who would have been motivated to watch Chiefs football already got into it last year and the year prior.
Meanwhile, Buffalo hasn’t been back to the Super Bowl in 31 years. There were also polls that showed that Bills vs. Commanders was by far the overwhelmingly preferred Super Bowl matchup in America while Chiefs vs. Eagles was by far the least. “Underdog goes back to Super Bowl for chance at first title after long absence” is a much more compelling narrative.
It’s terrible mismanagement.
Well, I’m convinced that one of the things that makes the NFL compelling all over America, which means big cities and small, is parity. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Tampa, etc. can win titles. Teams that are bad one year can be in their conference title game within 3 years. That keeps everyone interested. So, that being the case, it would be unwise for the NFL to encourage preferential treatment for a privileged few. Why ruin a great thing?
Due to algorithms is hard to gauge if this is the real response but my feed is filled will complaints about how this superbowl has the two least liked teams. Lots of people moaning that both can’t lose. It would have been a more compelling story to have Washington, Detroit or Buffalo rather than a repeat of a couple of years ago.
So your position is the NFL is being dumb by allowing games to actually be decided on the field? If they were smart, the league office would be directing referees to make sure certain teams win, because then they would make more revenue? And there’s no possible way this could go wrong? Am I understanding this?
This is the issue. They are all privileged. Which is the reason it can’t rigged. Someone like Jerry Jones isn’t going to sit back and say to himself “They* want me to make the Dallas Cowboys suck this year, and in exchange I get a few million and the right to an 11-6 record next season, only lose a wild card game again, and then do it all again? Sign me up!” Jerry Jones might be (ok he is) doing a shitty job at being an owner, but he still wants to win.
*. And who would “they” even be? Clark Hunt and Robert Kraft, as the two most recent owners who get to be winners? Roger Goodell? The owners of the other 29 teams, who also go along with it even though they are also assigned the role of loser? It makes no sense.
I could buy that some officials subconsciously give the benefit of the doubt to a Greg Maddux, Michael Jordan, or Patrick Mahomes. But not that an entire league is rigged.
Personally, I’m not a Chiefs fan, but I am not yet close to being tired of watching Patrick Mahomes.
No, the best situation would be that games should be played without being directed towards a particular outcome. But since we’re not getting that, then my argument is that it makes better business sense to have teams that haven’t gone to a Super Bowl in a long time, such as Buffalo, Washington or Detroit - go there - than to have the same team back for the 5th time in 6 years. By letting the underdog “haven’t gone in 30+ years” teams go to the big game, you are rekindling interest in those regions and also creating a more compelling narrative. By and large, parity benefits the league in terms of fan interest, revenue and ratings. Bills vs. Commanders would have been a far better narrative than Chiefs vs. Eagles, and led to less fan discontent or ill-will.
It’s economics law of diminishing returns. It would have been better for Buffalo to go the Super Bowl for the first time in 31 years than have the Chiefs go for the 5th time in 6 years. What sort of benefit could there be had in having Kansas City go back this year that wasn’t thoroughly harvested and depleted by the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl last year already?
It doesn’t benefit the NFL - in the same way the NBA backfired by having 4 consecutive Finals of Cavs vs. Warriors.- to the point where even many Warriors and Cavs fans themselves wished for a different matchup.
You’re going to have to back this claim up.
That’s going to be tough because it’s completely wrong, but you can’t drop that into a discussion and think it won’t be questioned.
If the NFL was successfully directing wins and losses in secret for the last couple of decades, I’m sure they wouldn’t need you to explain that having the same team go 5 times in 6 years is suboptimal.
Most people would disagree that there’s compelling evidence that we’re not getting that, though.
This isn’t the “Are refs favoring high-profile teams and players” thread - it is the “is it beneficial” thread. There are plenty of threads in Game Room that discuss specific calls for or against certain teams or players. In this thread, I’m wanting to discuss the economics of which matchups would be beneficial for the league and which would not be. As you said, having the same team go to the Super Bowl 5 times in 6 years may highly please that particular fanbase, but it comes with overall negative cost to the league elsewhere.
That’s twice now you’ve made this claim without evidence. Do you have a cite?
According to this, ratings increased slightly in years 2 and 3 of the Warriors-Cavs finals, before dropping off in year 4. But the ratings went down again the next year when the Raptors played the Warriors, which doesn’t exactly help the narrative that new blood would revitalize fan interest.
So clarify the premise then - is this “is it beneficial” thread just assuming that the highly illogical and implausible widespread rigging of games is taking place in real life? Because the language and statements in your posts suggest so. I
Besides, isn’t “Kansas City is closer than anyone has ever been to winning three consecutive Super Bowls” a compelling enough narrative for you? (None of the previous back-to-back winners were able to return to the SB in the third year)
I just read that Sunday’s AFC Championship game was the most-watched AFC championship game in history. Must have been an awful lot of fans tuning in hoping to see the Chiefs lose.
OTOH, if any league were to try this, this might be the year, as the NBA appears to be staring down the barrel of a Cleveland-Oklahoma City Finals.
You must really enjoy ads for home and auto insurance.