A Simple Thought
If you’ve watched any of the weekend or night time sporting events that have been on TV lately, you have no doubt seen the smoking inhibitor commercial. You know the one. They say, “Giving up smoking sucks; but we make it suck less”. I think the commercial is crass, and I go back and forth trying to decide if it is within the bounds of good taste or not.
The businessman in me, however, says it’s a great commercial. I have never picked up a cigarette or cigar in my life. I’ve frequented smokey bars and restaurants, and have dealt with the smell of smoke on busses and in the work place. (Yes, you Gen-Y-ers, it was once acceptable to smoke at your desk at the office.) I remember the commercial, very clearly. It works. Simplicity wins. Even us non-smokers recall the commercial and the brand.
If simplicity works, and the “smoking sucks” mantra has caught on, why hasn’t anyone applied it to politics yet? Probably because all the pols are looking for just the right message for just the right demographic. Hence, their nuanced approach to creating mob mentality is falling short. (See, that’s the problem with political pundits proclaiming to understand business…they don’t!)
Fantasy Leagues
It’s amazing how we Americans can take something very simple, contort it ten different ways, and make it new and fascinating. Take football, for example. You had the forward pass, followed by the spread, then the West Coast offense. On defense, you went from the 4-3, to the 3-4 to the Cover 2, to whatever Bill Belichik could dream up next.
Not only did play improve, but safety did, too. Cloth helmets gave way to real helmets with face guards. Pads were introduced. Then we added penalities to regulate the game and protect the players.
Not only are things more interesting for the athletes, but fans have devised new and more exciting ways to watch the game as well. If we go to the game, we tailgate, and maybe end up at the bar afterwards. At home, we have the huge plasma screen, and entertain our friends for twenty-something consecutive Sundays as though we could afford to party all the time.
Even the geeks have found ways to improve their participation and enjoyment in the game. First, it was Strat-o-Matic, then fantasy leagues. We not only followed our favorite team, but found reasons to follow the other thirty-one teams regardless of how good or bad they were. We hold mock drafts. We trade up and down in the draft. We even join a second or third fantasy league if we can’t get enough.
Thanks to Roger Goodell and Jim Irsay, however, we’ve come to realize that one more component needs to be added to this fantasy league bonanza. We missed it all this time. Why? Because we were selfish. We wanted OUR team to win. We wanted OUR players to do well. We wanted to win our fantasy league championship.
How self-centered of us? We were missing out on the most important part of professional football.
What is that, you say?
Political affiliation.
Yep, that’s right. Starting next year, YoHoo Sports is upgrading its fantasy football leagues to include a “political beliefs” factor for each player. Within each fantasy league, this “political beliefs” factor will be multiplied to a player’s (individual stats) or team’s (defense) fantasy stats to determine the true points earned by each fantasy team. Say you have Big Ben on your team, and say he is conservative. His political beliefs factor may read .2, meaning each point he earns during the game is only worth .2 the total points. On the other hand, Chad Ochocinco’s 1.8 rating (highly liberal) would earn him more game points.
It’s a risk some fantasy team owners may be willing to take. Sure, it makes it difficult for owners to select conservative players, but that’s not a problem. As the fantasy league market starts to make an impact on the pro football level, owners and GM’s will quickly learn that it is wise for them not to select conservative athletes for their teams at all. Everybody wins – the fans, the league, and the owners. Everybody, of course, except for the exceptional conservative athletes.
-
Archives
- June 2010 (3)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (3)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (4)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (6)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

