Mike North Agrees: Joe Burrow's Primetime Baltimore Complaint Is Valid

James

3 min read

Post on May 27, 2025

4.2

Share

Mike North Agrees: Joe Burrow's Primetime Baltimore Complaint is Valid

Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow's recent comments about the lack of primetime games in Baltimore compared to Cincinnati have sparked a debate among NFL fans and analysts. Mike North, the outspoken sports radio host, has weighed in, agreeing with Burrow's assessment and highlighting the underlying issues of perceived bias in NFL scheduling.

Burrow's comments, made during a recent interview, pointed to a perceived disparity in how the NFL schedules primetime games, suggesting that Baltimore, despite its consistent success, receives fewer marquee matchups than Cincinnati. This seemingly minor observation has ignited a larger conversation about the league's scheduling practices and the factors that influence primetime game selections.

<br>

<h3>The Burrow-Baltimore Conundrum: A Fair Point?</h3>

The core of Burrow's argument centers around the perceived value placed on different teams and markets by the NFL. While both the Bengals and Ravens boast passionate fanbases and consistently competitive teams, the scheduling appears to favor Cincinnati, granting them more primetime slots. This isn't simply about bragging rights; primetime games translate to increased national exposure, lucrative marketing opportunities, and a larger platform for players and the franchise as a whole.

Mike North, known for his no-nonsense approach and insightful commentary, echoed Burrow's concerns. In a recent segment on his radio show, North stated, "Burrow's right. It’s not just about the number of games, it’s about the perception. The NFL wants to showcase certain teams and markets more than others, and right now, it seems Cincinnati is getting the preferential treatment."

<br>

<h3>Beyond the Bengals and Ravens: A Broader NFL Scheduling Issue?</h3>

This debate extends beyond the Bengals and Ravens rivalry. It highlights a broader concern within the NFL regarding its scheduling algorithms and the potential for bias. Many argue that factors beyond on-field performance, such as market size and media appeal, heavily influence primetime game selections.

This isn't necessarily a new argument. For years, smaller-market teams have complained about a lack of national exposure, leading to reduced revenue and a harder time attracting free agents. Burrow's comments have simply brought this longstanding debate back into the spotlight, forcing a critical examination of the NFL's scheduling processes.

• Increased Transparency Needed: Many fans and analysts are calling for greater transparency in the NFL's scheduling process. Understanding the criteria used to select primetime matchups would help alleviate concerns about potential bias.
• Market Size vs. On-Field Success: The debate also highlights the tension between rewarding on-field success and catering to larger markets. Should a consistently winning team in a smaller market receive the same primetime opportunities as a less successful team in a larger market?
• The Impact on Player Visibility: The lack of primetime games can significantly impact a player's national profile and marketability, impacting endorsement deals and overall career trajectory.

<br>

<h3>The Future of NFL Scheduling: A Call for Reform?</h3>

Burrow's complaint, and North's agreement, serve as a catalyst for much-needed discussion surrounding NFL scheduling practices. While the NFL has yet to respond directly to the criticism, the conversation has undoubtedly raised awareness of a potential issue. The league might need to revisit its scheduling criteria and prioritize fairness and competitive balance over market size and other potentially biased factors. Only time will tell if this latest controversy leads to meaningful changes in the future of NFL scheduling. What are your thoughts? Share your opinions in the comments below.