Chris and I decided for our current event to be the Miami Heat winning streak creeping up on the previous Lakers winning streak. We decided to focus mainly on how the coverage of the streak is slightly taking away from other presenting topics that are relevant right now like the NCAA tournament and March Madness. We decided to outline both the statistics of the 71’-72’ Lakers and the 12’-13’ Heat to show what kind of skill both teams had and now possess to have a streak like the record is. We also decided to show a critique video of the Heat’s streak and which teams they are going to have to face to continue the streak, I strongly believe they will beat the Laker’s previous record. For the slideshow I wanted to make sure we weren’t just reading off a slide but just have bullets and elaborate on the point we are trying to make. I believe the topic we chose correlates to the class because we are so focused on good media, can too much media be bad? We introduced a few discussion questions that the class can answer with their opinions. Obviously the attention the Heat is getting has increased their fan base greatly and will continue to as the streak continues. What we are trying to achieve by presenting this topic is for the class to understand that when one topic achieves a great amount of hype it leaves the other topics out to dry in a sense that something that could have been a great headliner is now just a sub-topic. --- Review by Chris Moffett in SRM 334 (section 2) The Miami Heat are currently sitting on a 26 game winning streak, the 2nd highest in NBA history and just 8 games shy of breaking the record of 33 straight wins set by the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers. Miami, already one of the most popular team in the league is generating even more press by the day due to their streak. Because of this, one may wonder whether the streak is good or bad for the NBA.
In an article by Frankie Hobbs of HoopsHabit.com, he describes that the streak is good for the NBA because March is typically a down month in the popularity of the league. One reason for this is because of March Madness, and the average basketball fan is more likely to watch the NCAA Tournament than the NBA regular season. Miami’s streak has given fans something to watch for in the NBA. Hobbs also says that the fact that at this point in the season many teams are already out of playoff contention and are now just “going through the motions”, making watching their games rather boring.
In some aspects, I agree with Hobbs that the streak is good for the League. The problem I have with the win streak is the incredible amount of media coverage the Heat get, on top of already being one of the most talked about teams in the NBA. I think that sports media has a habit of taking a story and completely running it into the ground, such as Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and the struggles of the LA Lakers earlier this season. I think that the Heat getting this much coverage is resulting in a lack of coverage for other teams, specifically the Denver Nuggets, who are on a win streak of their own of 15 games, a franchise record. The media needs to better diversify the material they cover.
From Sports Networker Review by Eric Southard in KIN 332 One of the most talked about topics going on in collegiate athletics today is conference realignment. Conference realignment has been going on for over twenty years, but not until recently has it been such a controversial topic. The past five years or so, collegiate athletics has been filled with universities and colleges exiting and entering conferences. The idea of conference realignment has a big impact on the Sports Marketing Industry in many ways. In the article, “Significance and Ramifications of Conference Realignment in College Athletics”, Porsche Farr focused on three implications conference realignment has on the Sports Marketing Industry. Those three implications Farr mentioned were the loss of identity for conferences, the rivalries between schools and the financial impact involved.
The loss of conference identity affects sports marketing in that fans and players associate certain schools with certain conferences. One conference that is in shambles today is the Big East Conference. The Big East Men’s Basketball Tournament, held at Madison Square Garden, is one of the most exciting and recognizable events in all of sports. For years, this tournament has consisted of power basketball programs such as Syracuse, Louisville, and Pittsburgh. However, as of 2014, the Big East will no longer have these three schools, as they will join the Atlantic Coast Conference. Marketing wise, this hurts the Big East Conference majorly because Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse consist of some of the conference’s biggest fan markets. The second implication conference realignment has on sports marketing is that it causes rivalries to be ruined, rivalries which date back as far as the 1800s. For instance, the “Backyard Brawl”, one of the most famous college football rivalries between Pittsburgh and West Virginia University, was ended in 2011 due to West Virginia leaving the Big East and joining the Big 12. Another example is “The Missouri-Kansas Border War” rivalry which dates back to the 1890s. This rivalry ended in 2012 when Missouri left the Big 12 for the South Eastern Conference. Rivalries are used as great marketing tools for the fans, as well as for the players. The rivalry game is usually the biggest game of the year, and as a marketer, you want your product to be known and seen by all the fans. Coaches use rivalries to market and recruit players to come to their university. With the loss of these traditional rivalries, marketers and coaches are going to have a harder time selling their product. Also, “Rivalry Week” in college basketball is a huge marketing week for ESPN. Without these long-established rivalries, “Rivalry Week” will not be the same, or even exist, and ESPN could possibly lose one of its biggest weeks for the network. Last, the financial impact caused by conference realignment has an impact on sports marketing in one major way, and that being television contracts. One important aspect to know in all of this conference realignment is that TV contracts rule everything, and for some conferences, such as the Big Ten and the SEC, conference realignment will provide a huge boost to their revenue. A perfect example of this is the Big Ten and their recent additions of the University of Maryland and Rutgers University. By adding these two universities, the Big Ten’s television network, Big Ten Network, will acquire more viewers from the Washington D.C./Baltimore and New York/New Jersey television markets. New television markets equals new revenue and not only will this help the conferences, it will also provide revenue for the individual universities as well.
Although there are a few negative implications to the Sports Marketing Industry, conference realignment provides one big, positive implication, and that being money. And in the end, isn’t that what college sports all comes down to?
From Bleacher Report Review by Chris Lee in SRM 334 (section 1)
For the current event presentation we chose to discuss the new NFL rule changes being made in the 2013 off season. Along with the decision to eliminate the infamous tuck rule, NFL owners also voted to enforce the “crown of helmet rule” in their annual winter meeting held in Phoenix, Arizona on March 20, 2013. The crown of helmet rule basically states that ball carriers are no longer to initiate contact with the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box. There will be a 15 yard penalty for this infraction and incidental contact will be excused by the referees.
The reasoning behind the recent helmet rule change was to reduce concussions, neck damage, and head trauma in an effort to make the game safer. Since the rule has passed, plenty of controversy has surrounded it within the media and many players, coaches, and league affiliates have shown varying opinions about the issue. People like St. Louis Rams’ head coach Jeff Fisher agree with the rule and think that it will have a positive impact on player safety. When asked about the new rule he responded, “We're bringing the shoulder back to the game. The helmet is a protective device, but it's not being used as that as of late. This is to protect the players.”
While there has been some support for the rule change many players, mainly current and former running backs, have been upset with the idea that the league is becoming too soft. Many of these people have turned to social media devices such as twitter to express their dissatisfaction. Marshall Faulk, a football analyst for the NFL network and legendary running back, is among these people and recently tweeted, “The new RB rule is a joke.” Emmitt Smith, Matt Forte, Justin Forsett, and many others have also publicly disagreed with the crown of helmet rule.
This topic is relevant to the class because it deals with sports media outlets such as ESPN and how they have heavily covered mainly the negative reactions to the rule change. Personally I have heard very few analysts stick up for the rule change, and most of Sportscenter’s coverage broadcasts the negative views about how the game will never be the same and how the NFL is turning into “two hand touch football.” Overall I think that it is important for the media to share both sides of the story in order to not come off as being biased about a particular issue. --- Review by Donnie Carroll in SRM 334 (section 1) The NFL recently passed several rule changes to take effect in the upcoming season. Most of which were necessary and improved the game, but the one that stirred up a lot of negative attention was the “crown of the helmet rule.” This rule states that a ballcarrier three or more yards downfield cannot initiate contact leading with the crown of his helmet. Many believe that the passing of this rule has to do with the former NFL player plaintiffs in the concussion related lawsuits toward the NFL not protecting the players enough.
Twitter absolutely blew up with outrage once this rule was passed, with former and current NFL players in opposition to the rule. All of this negative attention towards this rule caused fans to also express their opinions on the rule and believe that the NFL is taking the protection issue way too far. ESPN has conducted several interviews with players who oppose the new rule on Sportscenter. It seems as if both media and social media have accomplished associating a negative connotation with the new rule change. A few coaches and former players have stressed the “safety first,” aspect but not much positive attention has come with this new rule. If only negativity is coming from all angles of the media, the fans will react the same was as the players who are expressing their opinions through the different channels of media.
The media has a reputation for putting a negative spin on stories, but it seems a bit too much when regarding entertainment purposes being more important that players’ safety. It is evident that the fans will follow the players’ reactions but it does not help that the media is not giving an ample amount of coverage to the other side of the story.
