Prickly Pete

This article has the angle that shows he should have dove for it.

Pfft. It was more rolling than bouncing. No one looks at that and thinks it's about to bounce up high enough for him to catch it, or scoop it up. Well, at least no one that isn't a Cam apologist. It was obviously time to fall on that ball. He backs away...

His instinct should have been "Get ball, NOW!". He gave up on it instead...I really don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. I like Newton alright, even if he makes me cringe, but so do many QB's...Jim Kelly certainly did. Marino was always whining at teammates and officials, Phil Simms, too. There is a long list of arrogant D-bags that have been good QB's, and generally well liked. Hopefully Newton learns some humility (maybe just a little?), but I doubt it.

I think I am on to something. It is the perfect game to globalize the NFL, and if the players are motivated/interested(money), the fans will be too. Nope, these guys need instant gratification, not retirement funds. That's not how most of them think, it needs to be right away. The game could generate Super Bowl type money for the league. It would take at least a few years to get established, but it could be huge. To an international audience, that doesn't understand the game as well, individual players are more important. For instance, with the World Cup, to get Americans interested, they just hype up the stars, a noob like me has nothing else to latch on to.

The solution is simple...money! If the NFL really wanted to make it special, a game with all it's best players (save those in the Super Bowl, though even that could be changed if they played it at a later date*), at international locations, could be a global phenomenon, maybe even surpassing the Super Bowl. If they made the prize big enough, it would motivate the players. In reality, a big payout is more important to these guys than their own teams records. And the game would hold greater interest for the foreign fan, feel more like "their game", than an American event. It would be a huge boost to the NFL's globalization goals. * For instance, get rid of the silly week off before the Super Bowl, and play the Pro Bowl 2 weeks after the Super Bowl instead.

Wade > Wrex. No contest.

I like this guy's site... http://www.nfldraftgeek.com/2016nfldraftrankings.html He has a chart for each position, and groups rankings. He has 4 QB's ranks as top tier "Gold" prospects. One WR as Gold, 7 D-lineman as Gold, 2 OT's, 4LB's, 1 Safety, 1 CB. Of course, not everyone will agree with the rankings, but I expect the Bills to draft one of the "Gold" tier guys.

He might not have done that, because the NFL threatened him with the weight of their lawyers behind them. That could make anyone hesitate (and is one reason I hope he is successful). We shall see how it unfolds, Mr. Wang Electro-Opto Corporation.

If the situation was reversed, and this guy was rebuffing giant offers from the NFL, like "Man refuses to release sole copy of first Super Bowl, NFL offers millions" I would think the guy was being a jerk, and I would be pissed, because I really want to see the game.

Why don't you read the more recent article I posted yesterday.... http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/

I think it's that. "He didn't work for it". I'm sure EVERY one of them would absolutely be pissed, if they were in this guy's position. Even Chan's On Fire, and Mr. World Endoscopy Organization.

I make no bones about it. I WANT THE GUY TO WIN. And I want the kind of people that favor Goliath's like the NFL to LOSE. EVERY !@#$IN' TIME. Yeah, but some want to act disingenuous..."Oh, the NFL just offered a fair value. This guys pouting when all he has is the only copy of the first Super Bowl, the biggest yearly event in television....Take it dude, and go buy a nice used car." Like one guy said, I'd sooner send them the ashes.

Ha, I know it gets censored. And the other guy calling people "asshats" ain't cool.

But it hasn't been to court yet, so you don't really know if he is "pouting", or if he was leveraged, now do you? Again, if he wins in court, will it be "yeah, that guy was smart, good for him, the Law of the Land has served justice", or are YOU emotionally invested in him not succeeding? I'm inclined to believe the latter.

I never said he was "entitled", and when I edited my post, I only added to it. I see this guy as someone who got very lucky, and who the NFL is trying to use it's weight against to underpay for something that is obviously valuable. Then people here attack him, like he should just accept being bullied (like perhaps, they have all their lives). He will get what the market bears, and I'm confident that it will be more than $30,000. It would be great to see what collectors would be willing to pay at an auction. Then it's true value would be there for all to see, no? But instead, some here want to side with the NFL, who foolishly didn't preserve copies of the event. That's right !@#$er, I'm for the little guy.

Yeah. I can't figure out why, but some people relish the idea of this guy losing out. Is this the complaint, "he didn't work for it"? I have to resort to an emoticon for this.... He inherited it, just like most of the NFL owners inherited their wealth, or in some cases the team itself.

So here is a new article about this controversy. http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/ "To understand why the NFL, which has a fierce reputation for protecting its intellectual property, does not control the tape, it’s important to understand a few legal issues glossed over in the Times report. The first is that, even if the league has rights to the footage, it can’t stop Haupt from selling the tape itself. According to copyright lawyer Lloyd Jassin, the right to sell the tape is protected by the so-called “first sale doctrine,” which lets people resell used books and movies. “The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work has the right to resell that copy without the copyright owner’s permission,” said Jassin. His assessment squares with that of legal scholar David Post, who likens Haupt’s situation to someone who wanted to sell a used DVD copy of last year’s Super Bowl highlights. Post also says a law professor cited by the Times incorrectly claimed “the law favors the league,” and adds the NFL’s threats against Haupt are just “bluster.” Will it anger you if this guy gets a nice sum for it? I think he will sell it to someone outside the US, just to add another layer of legal complications. At least, that's what I would try to do...

Okay, one guy has come forward (you're everything to me)...thanks man. I guess we will have to wait and see how it unfolds. I'm betting he gets more than $30,000. But the more interesting aspect of this thread, is why some don't want him to get more than $30,000.

"Asshats" Well, I don't believe either of those. He hasn't stolen anything, and the value is whatever he is able to get for it, and that can change. I wonder what you guys would do in his place? It's easy to say you would accept it, but more likely (judging by the competitive spirit you are showing in this thread) you would feel like you were getting shafted by the NFL Goliath, and look for other ways to profit from the tape.

Why have they offered him ANY money then?

It's a bad analogy. So WEO, are you in finance/economics/banking (or should I take your evasion as a "yes")?

Because those are the kind of people I could see enjoying this situation, and supporting the NFL. And he calls himself Mr. WEO (an acronym for "World Economic Outlook"), which invites that kind of inquiry. It's not the same. Martin Shkreli, is that you?

I'm just trying to get an understanding of the kind of guy who enjoys seeing a person get lowballed by the NFL.

Exactly. If he is smart, he will get as much publicity as possible. Eventually a wealthy collector will contact him, and he can work out a way to get more than $30,000, legally, or illegally (or more likely, somewhere in between).

But he does own the only copy, and eventually it will become public domain. WEO, are you an economist, or involved in finance?