Unorthodox Sports Team Management

[Cornell Fiji]

I only read the baseball one and it would not work for many, many reasons.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretend you're an owner of a perennially cellar-dwelling sports team struggling to break even each year. Why not try an outrageous player/game management scheme designed to promote media attention and boost attendance.

Baseball

Disco Demolition

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bill Murphy]

Well, if you owned an NBA team you could hire Bill Simmons as GM, or Gregg Easterbrook for an NFL team. Couldn't be worse than at least a quarter of the current GM's, maybe even half of them.

Or, you could just stay really drunk/high all the time and act on impulse, based on random things you read or overheard.

[72off]

Hockey/Soccer/maybe Basketball

Put together a team of less talented, but extremely hard working players. Usually a deep group who are physical, heavy in "intangibles", and who won't give up anything cheap. Players who care, often who don't earn a lot and are playing for an opportunity, and possibly a chance at a bigger contract in the future. One or more strong personalities (can be a coach/manager) to lead the way and keep everyone else in line. The theme of the thing tends to run off on everyone else, and the fans tend to really get behind the underdog type team when it succeeds. I've seen it work in hockey (think Ted Nolan's Buffalo Sabres), and in soccer (though my background is limited there, someone else can probably chime in with some good examples). Basketball is tougher though, as you still usually need one or two skilled scorers to get you any success, though the Ben Wallace Magic teams could fit here. But it is possible if you can find a hard working star to lead the way. Don't know if this kind of thing would work in baseball where "hustle" likely isn't a big enough of a factor, or football where you'll basically be out of a job if you don't bust your ass.

And when it does work the team can make a ton of money because these kind of teams are usually inexpensive.

[doucy]

NFL Overtime Strategy

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
NFL Overtime Strategy



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[MicroBob]

The baseball strategy is ridiculous. I think every pitcher would end up totally burnt-out and exhausted by the end of the year. Plus, you could have more games where you simply run out of position players. And if you get into extra-innings you're also kind of screwed pitching-wise.

The basketball one is kind of similar to Loyola Marymount and other similar fast-paced teams. No biggie.
The Memphis Grizzlies were almost starting to do this a little bit after they fired Fratello and were mired in last-place. Practically nobody gave a crap though. And if they did it even more and ran up their losses more frequently to 130-110 STILL nobody would care because they're losing.
Kind of like how much everyone was laughing at Denver when they were playing non-stop no-defense and letting teams score at will on them.


The football example strikes me as odd.
If you're a 6-10 team then that means you're not THAT far away...just a break here or there perhaps...from getting it together and being an 8-8 team.
The entertainment value of going for it on 4th and 4 from your own 35 and always running crazy fake extra-points, etc is not worth it.
The fans will hate you and call for your head every time you fail. They won't fall in love with you for being different and crazy. They'll be ashamed to have the most embarassing coach in the league.

Costing you 'only' 2 games when you're already a 6-10 team simply isn't worth it because hard-work and a slight readjustment combined with a little luck can actually get you somewhere.

I am reminded of my favorite team, the Bengals. Bad cellar-dwellers for several years but under a new head-coach and QB Jon Kitna's leadership they got it together and finished 8-8 one year and were an exciting team.
Now under Carson Palmer they have mostly been doing even better. They are no longer considered the suckiest of the suck.

IMO, to throw in the towel in the way being suggested I would only be comfortable doing that if I was pretty sure my team was going to be 2-14 at best or something.
Even then I'm not that thrilled with the idea but it's better than taking some 6-10 team with potential and completely trashing the season just for some entertainment value that is not likely to sell many more tickets and is more likely to get my whole fan-base angry at me.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Worst case, your team might go from being 6-10 to 4-12 by using this strategy, but you'll get way more fan base and media attention, which equals more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is very likely you go 0-16 using this strategy with the roster of a perennial cellar dweller team.

[ QUOTE ]
Stack your squad with easily interchangable players who can be subbed in and out regularly to avoid getting tired. The idea should be to run as many plays as possible and wear out the other team.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that the defense will be able to sub when you sub your offense

I don't think you understand the complexity of the NFL game. That also goes for anyone who says Greg Easterbrook could be an NFL GM? What does he know about evaluating football talent?

[MicroBob]

BadBoy - I mostly agree.
I was being kind and assuming that it only costs a team 2 games but I truly think the OP doesn't realize how bad a strategy some of this stuff would be.
At the NFL level, doing some of these types of things would be virtual suicide and no amount of media exposure for how creative and quirky you are is going to make up for the all the money you lose after you drop one 42-7 game after another after another.

But even if it is somehow done in a way that doesn't get your team clobbered every week and truly does only change 2 wins into losses I still think that sacrificing the very real chance that a 6-10 team can get it together and make a run for 8 or 9 wins is not worth it at all.

The fact that you would not at all make more money but would, in fact, make less money because all your fans would hate you for getting unnecessarily clobbered all the time makes it even less worthwhile.

[AJW]

[ QUOTE ]
Hockey/Soccer/maybe Basketball

Put together a team of less talented, but extremely hard working players. Usually a deep group who are physical, heavy in "intangibles", and who won't give up anything cheap. Players who care, often who don't earn a lot and are playing for an opportunity, and possibly a chance at a bigger contract in the future. One or more strong personalities (can be a coach/manager) to lead the way and keep everyone else in line. The theme of the thing tends to run off on everyone else, and the fans tend to really get behind the underdog type team when it succeeds. I've seen it work in hockey (think Ted Nolan's Buffalo Sabres), and in soccer (though my background is limited there, someone else can probably chime in with some good examples)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like Wimbledon from the late 80s to the mid 90s Wiki
A small non league club that climbed all the way to the top using that strategy. They had a very hard working midfield full of guys who could tackle and run. The strike force always included a big target man whose job it was to chase long ball and give the defenders no easy clearances and a fast player to get behind the defence. They didn’t play much football as soon as their defenders got the ball they just hoofed it forward for the strikers to fight for and a couple of midfielders would motor forward to give options in case the forwards won possession.
Changes in the rules reducing the amount of fowling allowed before players get carded took away a lot of their game and they were relegated while trying to play a more attractive brand of football.