ganesh Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I agree with your post. A strict rookie wage scale is clearly necessary to prevent future Jamarcus Russell contracts. A higher minimum wage for NFL players would help the little guy (little being strictly figurative in this case). I'd like to see the minimum wage the same for all players, regardless of veteran status, so that you don't see older veterans pushed into retirement just because some rookie will do the same job for less. When thinking of players who are underpaid, Fred Jackson is one of the first guys who comes to mind. He does a lot of things well, doesn't attract negative attention to himself, and gives the game all he has. The fact the Bills didn't have to use a draft pick on him is an added plus. I wish this team had lots more Fred Jacksons. While a Rookie Wage scale is very important, what about contracts given to folks like Albert Haynesworth and the Washington Redskins coming away empty handed for paying a guy close to 50M in guaranteed money. That is equally as bad as the Jamarcus Russell contract. That guaranteed contract is killing the Redskins no matter how you look at it.
Doc Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 While a Rookie Wage scale is very important, what about contracts given to folks like Albert Haynesworth and the Washington Redskins coming away empty handed for paying a guy close to 50M in guaranteed money. That is equally as bad as the Jamarcus Russell contract. That guaranteed contract is killing the Redskins no matter how you look at it. That's the risk you take. Haynesworth was a top player, but he had baggage. It's caveat emptor. With a rookie, you have no idea how he'll do.
JohnC Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 While a Rookie Wage scale is very important, what about contracts given to folks like Albert Haynesworth and the Washington Redskins coming away empty handed for paying a guy close to 50M in guaranteed money. That is equally as bad as the Jamarcus Russell contract. That guaranteed contract is killing the Redskins no matter how you look at it. The Haynesworth fiasco was a Redskin self-inflected wound. They gave a player known for his lack of character and history of uneven effort a gargantuan contract. To make the situation even more absurd they structured his contract in such a way that the contract was front loaded---which means he got the bulk of the money in hand before he even played. You can't design a system that totally protects franchises from their own stupidity. The Skins took a very miscalculated gamble on a talented player with questionable personal traits and work habits; they got what they deserved.
Mr. WEO Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Sure they lost money! Tons of it. They paid the players hundreds of millions more from 2006-2010, and they didn't demand hundreds of millions more from the networks to extend the 2006-2011 contracts those extra 3 years. This is undeniable. The players who lost workout bonuses (the big money players, who have the most say in the NFLPA) don't need the chump change anyway and should get it back once they report. The ANI case was essentially dead in the water until the NFL agreed to let the SC hear it, because they thought they would win. You even thought they'd win. They didn't. Wow, you're all over the place. You said the CBA cost the NFL a "couple billion" or is it a couple hundred million? And you somehow tie this in with the ANI case. The fedrally appointed Special Master thought the NFL's renotiations of the contracts demonstrated "sound business judgement". The Judge who forced the Falcons to pay Vick 20 million in bonuses as he was led off to jail disagreed with the ruling of the Special Master (shocking!). But my favorite part is this: The ANI case was essentially dead in the water until the NFL agreed to let the SC hear it, because they thought they would win I know you're not a lawyer, and neither am I, but the defendent is a case doesn't get to "agree" or disagree to "let" the SC hear a plantiffs appeal. Now THAT'S funny. Come on doc! And it is clear you still don't get why the NFL wanted to have this case heard--which I find surprising. From ESPN's Lester Munson: The league's action was a legal bombshell. Instead of standing on its lower-court wins over American Needle, the league told the Supreme Court that it wants the justices to consider an issue far beyond the caps-and-hats contract. It wants the court to grant the NFL total immunity from all forms of antitrust scrutiny, an immunity that would then apply to the NBA, the NHL and MLB, as well. I mean, you don't get why the NFL jumped at this chance to be free from all future claims of antitrust--essentially freeing itself from having to deal with a players union ever again? With a downside of losing a couple million (max) in lost liscencing fees to some flea of a knockoff hat maker?? You don't make that all upside bet?? WOW! Nobody, including me doc (nice try), thought this case was a slam dunk. It was a no brainer for the league. No offense. As for what happened with staying/allowing the lockout, what the judges ruled there has/had no bearing on what the judges may have ruled regarding the lockout insurance. And as I said above, since the NFL did trade-away higher-revenue TV contracts for the lockout insurance, it was a long shot that the judges would have sided with the owners. Yes, the lockout and lockout insurance are two separate cases. But my original statement was that if subsequent judges (8th circuit) agreed with the previous judge (Nelson), there would be no lockout. Your various responses have not changed this fact. Here's the 8th circuit majority (ESPN): The appellate court said it believes the NFL has proven it "likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm without a stay." The court also cast doubt on the conclusions of U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson "We do not agree, however, with the district court's apparent view that the balance of the equities tilts heavily in favor of the Players. The district court gave little or no weight to the harm caused to the League by an injunction issued in the midst of an ongoing dispute over terms and conditions of employment." What would have been "going on," doc? No games figure to be lost this season since it will be a brief "work stoppage," and that's ALL the networks care about. Why would it have been any different in 2008? Not to mention if there were any games missed in 2008, there was still the 2009 and 2010 seasons before starting to talk about new contracts, and surely you are saying the work stoppage would have lasted for years. Had they not extended the CBA in 2006, it would have expired after the 2007 season. The work stoppage would have been in 2008. Upshaw was never going to move off his offer, so I believe games would have been missed in 2008 unless the NFL accepted Upshaw's offer. The TV contracts were renegotiated in spring '09. A prolonged work stoppage the previous season would decrease the value of those contracts--seems pretty obvious. How, exactly, would games have been played in 2008 unless the NFL accepted the union's take it or leave it offer? "Playing hardball" is meaningless when the other side stops negotiating.
Doc Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Wow, you're all over the place. You said the CBA cost the NFL a "couple billion" or is it a couple hundred million? And you somehow tie this in with the ANI case. The fedrally appointed Special Master thought the NFL's renotiations of the contracts demonstrated "sound business judgement". The Judge who forced the Falcons to pay Vick 20 million in bonuses as he was led off to jail disagreed with the ruling of the Special Master (shocking!). I should have clarified this. The lost TV money is about $500M/year from 2012-2014. That right there is a $1.5B. Add in what they overpaid the players ($650M, conservatively), and my point stands. Sorry for assuming that you knew to do the math. But my favorite part is this: I know you're not a lawyer, and neither am I, but the defendent is a case doesn't get to "agree" or disagree to "let" the SC hear a plantiffs appeal. Now THAT'S funny. Come on doc! And it is clear you still don't get why the NFL wanted to have this case heard--which I find surprising. From ESPN's Lester Munson: "The league's action was a legal bombshell. Instead of standing on its lower-court wins over American Needle, the league told the Supreme Court that it wants the justices to consider an issue far beyond the caps-and-hats contract." Yes, it's my favorite part as well. I mean, you don't get why the NFL jumped at this chance to be free from all future claims of antitrust--essentially freeing itself from having to deal with a players union ever again? With a downside of losing a couple million (max) in lost liscencing fees to some flea of a knockoff hat maker?? You don't make that all upside bet?? WOW! Nobody, including me doc (nice try), thought this case was a slam dunk. It was a no brainer for the league. No offense. Yeah, what's wrong with wasting the SC's time, millions of dollars in legal fees and getting your ass kicked in public? The NFL had NO chance to win it, and I said as much back then. The SC was NEVER going to give the owners in every sport that much power over the players, and that proved to be true. Not wasting everyone's time with that farce was the "no brainer" move. No offense. Yes, the lockout and lockout insurance are two separate cases. But my original statement was that if subsequent judges (8th circuit) agreed with the previous judge (Nelson), there would be no lockout. Your various responses have not changed this fact. Regardless of how they might have ruled, as it stands, if a deal gets done soon, the lockout insurance was a waste and at the expense of a billion+ dollars in TV money. But no doubt, like above, I'm sure you'll continue to claim "it was worth it!" Had they not extended the CBA in 2006, it would have expired after the 2007 season. The work stoppage would have been in 2008. Upshaw was never going to move off his offer, so I believe games would have been missed in 2008 unless the NFL accepted Upshaw's offer. The TV contracts were renegotiated in spring '09. A prolonged work stoppage the previous season would decrease the value of those contracts--seems pretty obvious. How, exactly, would games have been played in 2008 unless the NFL accepted the union's take it or leave it offer? "Playing hardball" is meaningless when the other side stops negotiating. "Upshaw was never going to move off his offer" and it was "take it or leave it?" And the networks were going to say "you missed games in 2008 so we're not going to pay you as much?" And you buy that? At worst, the lockout would have lasted up until the players missed their first game check, doc. Which is a game or so into the 2008 season. Likely it would have lasted no longer than it will now, because of those missed workout bonuses you mentioned earlier. The TV re-negotiations happened a year later. It would have been a non-issue by then. If games had been missed, the best the networks would have gotten is a credit for the lost revenue and they might have inserted language protecting themselves in the future. But believing they could hold it over the NFL's head so as to get a reduction in the size of the contracts is hilarious and doesn't mesh with reality.
Mr. WEO Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I should have clarified this. The lost TV money is about $500M/year from 2012-2014. That right there is a $1.5B. Add in what they overpaid the players ($650M, conservatively), and my point stands. Sorry for assuming that you knew to do the math. I couldn't do the math because I didn't have the "lost TV money"..."from 2012-2014". I admit I don't know what the "money left on the table" is. "The league's action was a legal bombshell. Instead of standing on its lower-court wins over American Needle, the league told the Supreme Court that it wants the justices to consider an issue far beyond the caps-and-hats contract." Yes, it's my favorite part as well. Yeah, what's wrong with wasting the SC's time, millions of dollars in legal fees and getting your ass kicked in public? The NFL had NO chance to win it, and I said as much back then. The SC was NEVER going to give the owners in every sport that much power over the players, and that proved to be true. Not wasting everyone's time with that farce was the "no brainer" move. No offense. The league supported the SC revewing the case--they can't tell the SC which cases to hear--why are you pretending you don't know this? Therefore it was not a "waste of the SC's time". You know how it works yet you continue with this nonsense. It may have been a long shot, but that was an opportunity you don't pass up--not for a few "millin dollars in legal fees"--I assume you're joking there. It was like putting 100 bucks on a 100000:1 longshot. They spend more than that annually for legal retainers, doc. Regardless of how they might have ruled, as it stands, if a deal gets done soon, the lockout insurance was a waste and at the expense of a billion+ dollars in TV money. But no doubt, like above, I'm sure you'll continue to claim "it was worth it!" It takes a keen business mind such as yours to retrospectively assess the risks and benefits of prior contingencies. Good thing your decision making skills are not often called upon (in real time). "Upshaw was never going to move off his offer" and it was "take it or leave it?" And the networks were going to say "you missed games in 2008 so we're not going to pay you as much?" And you buy that? At worst, the lockout would have lasted up until the players missed their first game check, doc. Which is a game or so into the 2008 season. Likely it would have lasted no longer than it will now, because of those missed workout bonuses you mentioned earlier. The TV re-negotiations happened a year later. It would have been a non-issue by then. If games had been missed, the best the networks would have gotten is a credit for the lost revenue and they might have inserted language protecting themselves in the future. But believing they could hold it over the NFL's head so as to get a reduction in the size of the contracts is hilarious and doesn't mesh with reality. At worst, the players would have forced their union to accept whatever deal the owners offered after one missed game? Or even sooner due to missed workout bonuses (which you just said were meaningless, and which haven't caused the players to come running back this year)?? Why is that argument very convincing?? Anyway, if a significant portion of 2008 is missed, the NFL comes to the renegotiation table at a strategic disadvantage andany moderately intelligent TV exec is going to bring up this major labor instablility problem and begin negotiations at with a discounted offer. Wouldn't you take advantage of the league's compromised position? Oh, wait. Forget I asked--you would offer the league unprecedented money right off the bat.
Doc Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I couldn't do the math because I didn't have the "lost TV money"..."from 2012-2014". I admit I don't know what the "money left on the table" is. The contracts from 1998-2005 were worth $2.2B/year. From 2006-2011, they were $3.085B/year. I split the difference. The league supported the SC revewing the case--they can't tell the SC which cases to hear--why are you pretending you don't know this? Therefore it was not a "waste of the SC's time". You know how it works yet you continue with this nonsense. It's in the quote YOU provided, doc! What more do you want? Before the NFL said they wanted the case heard, it was considered a long-shot to be heard. Then voila, the SC agrees to hear it. What do you think happened? It may have been a long shot, but that was an opportunity you don't pass up--not for a few "millin dollars in legal fees"--I assume you're joking there. It was like putting 100 bucks on a 100000:1 longshot. They spend more than that annually for legal retainers, doc. The money was merely injury on top of insult. The case had no chance of succeeding and was a waste of everyone's time and (the taxpayers', since the owners can throw away millions apparently) money. The owners "wanting to take a chance" on a long-shot doesn't make it any less of a waste of time and money. It takes a keen business mind such as yours to retrospectively assess the risks and benefits of prior contingencies. Good thing your decision making skills are not often called upon (in real time). They are, as much as yours. Life isn't really like "Grey's Anatomy," you know. At worst, the players would have forced their union to accept whatever deal the owners offered after one missed game? Or even sooner due to missed workout bonuses (which you just said were meaningless, and which haven't caused the players to come running back this year)?? Why is that argument very convincing?? Anyway, if a significant portion of 2008 is missed, the NFL comes to the renegotiation table at a strategic disadvantage andany moderately intelligent TV exec is going to bring up this major labor instablility problem and begin negotiations at with a discounted offer. Wouldn't you take advantage of the league's compromised position? Oh, wait. Forget I asked--you would offer the league unprecedented money right off the bat. Never said the players would have had to accept the owners' offer, just something closer to it. Upshaw was obviously bluffing; the players would return to the table eventually because the owners have always had the upper hand and always will. And seeing as how they're returning now, after a 3-1/2 month lockout and with much more at stake than in 2006, it's a safe bet to say they'd have returned no later back then, a new CBA would have been in-place, and the network execs's minds would have been at ease.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 The contracts from 1998-2005 were worth $2.2B/year. From 2006-2011, they were $3.085B/year. I split the difference. It's in the quote YOU provided, doc! What more do you want? Before the NFL said they wanted the case heard, it was considered a long-shot to be heard. Then voila, the SC agrees to hear it. What do you think happened? The money was merely injury on top of insult. The case had no chance of succeeding and was a waste of everyone's time and (the taxpayers', since the owners can throw away millions apparently) money. The owners "wanting to take a chance" on a long-shot doesn't make it any less of a waste of time and money. They are, as much as yours. Life isn't really like "Grey's Anatomy," you know. Never said the players would have had to accept the owners' offer, just something closer to it. Upshaw was obviously bluffing; the players would return to the table eventually because the owners have always had the upper hand and always will. And seeing as how they're returning now, after a 3-1/2 month lockout and with much more at stake than in 2006, it's a safe bet to say they'd have returned no later back then, a new CBA would have been in-place, and the network execs's minds would have been at ease. You said: The ANI case was essentially dead in the water until the NFL agreed to let the SC hear it That's patently absurd and is found nowhere in Munson's quote. As for "wasting the taxpayers' money"--that's a stretch. It would surprise you to learn that the justices do not get paid by the case. This caswas just one of many on their docket. Granted, it's not as important as some of their other cases, like the Anna Nicole Smith estate, or Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler Mag....but I imagine you understand the general concept. Upshaw was "obviously bluffing"?? And your evidence of this bluff is....? Was it the 30-2 vote by the owners to give in to his only offer? He must have been the greatest bluffer of all time!!! Cleverly argued!
Doc Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 You said: That's patently absurd and is found nowhere in Munson's quote. As for "wasting the taxpayers' money"--that's a stretch. It would surprise you to learn that the justices do not get paid by the case. This caswas just one of many on their docket. Granted, it's not as important as some of their other cases, like the Anna Nicole Smith estate, or Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler Mag....but I imagine you understand the general concept. Upshaw was "obviously bluffing"?? And your evidence of this bluff is....? Was it the 30-2 vote by the owners to give in to his only offer? He must have been the greatest bluffer of all time!!! Cleverly argued! Semantics, doc. Wanting the case to be heard by SCOTUS was a desperation move by ANI, until the NFL said they wanted/agreed to have it heard. What is apparently lost on you is that the owners held major sway in SCOTUS hearing the case, otherwise it would have died (the best for all involved). And just because they heard other time/money wasters like the ones you mentioned, it doesn't make this any less of one. Bahahahahaha! Back to the tired old "30-2 vote" thing? You're done here, doc. Move along now.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Semantics, doc. Wanting the case to be heard by SCOTUS was a desperation move by ANI, until the NFL said they wanted it heard. What is apparently lost on you is that the owners held major sway in SCOTUS hearing the case. And just because they heard other time/money wasters like the ones you mentioned, it doesn't make this any less of one. Bahahahahaha! The 30-2 vote? You're done here, doc. Move along now. Come on doc--don't run! How was Upshaw "obviously" bluffing? He walekd out of the nogtiations, went down to the steak house, uncorked a bottle and said "hello uncapped NFL!" He was interrupted by an e-mail from Goodell asking him to call Tags one more time. If it was so obvious, how is it that you were the only one to know? Tell us how you know he was bluffing and why it worked. As for semantics--yeah I guess that's what you have to say after you made such a fundamental error. Anyway, SCOTUS asked Justice what they thought of it and Justice said, essentially, "don't review the case". Obviously they didn't think it would be a "slam dunk". They didn't want SCOTUS potentially ruling in favor of giving the NFL such powers--that the Court was not the appropriate place to decide this. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the justices (their clerks, actually) were already aware of the NFL's "single entity" theory that they won on at a lower court. They would also have understood the gravity of not taking the case and not ruling against the league. But again, there was zero downside to the league supporting this review. Your "taxpayer waste" argument is pretty weak.
Doc Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Come on doc--don't run! How was Upshaw "obviously" bluffing? He walekd out of the nogtiations, went down to the steak house, uncorked a bottle and said "hello uncapped NFL!" He was interrupted by an e-mail from Goodell asking him to call Tags one more time. If it was so obvious, how is it that you were the only one to know? Tell us how you know he was bluffing and why it worked. As for semantics--yeah I guess that's what you have to say after you made such a fundamental error. Anyway, SCOTUS asked Justice what they thought of it and Justice said, essentially, "don't review the case". Obviously they didn't think it would be a "slam dunk". They didn't want SCOTUS potentially ruling in favor of giving the NFL such powers--that the Court was not the appropriate place to decide this. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the justices (their clerks, actually) were already aware of the NFL's "single entity" theory that they won on at a lower court. They would also have understood the gravity of not taking the case and not ruling against the league. But again, there was zero downside to the league supporting this review. Your "taxpayer waste" argument is pretty weak. Why would I need to run? What Goodell should have done instead is e-mail Upshaw, tell him to stick that cork up has ass and prepare for a lockout, his players missing workout bonuses, and if need be, game checks. Like I said, he'd/they'd have come crawling back...like they are now. Why didn't the owners know he was obviously bluffing? Why did they vote in a CBA they barely had time to read, and then opted-out of as soon as they could and before anything really changed? They are questions for the ages. No error. You just have little else to argue about except for semantics. Again the NFL felt they had a good chance to win the case. They were wrong, which was the original point.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Why would I need to run? What Goodell should have done instead is e-mail Upshaw, tell him to stick that cork up has ass and prepare for a lockout, his players missing workout bonuses, and if need be, game checks. Like I said, he'd/they'd have come crawling back...like they are now. Why didn't the owners know he was obviously bluffing? Why did they vote in a CBA they barely had time to read, and then opted-out of as soon as they could and before anything really changed? They are questions for the ages. No error. You just have little else to argue about except for semantics. Again the NFL felt they had a good chance to win the case. They were wrong, which was the original point. OK tough guy! Barely had time to read. Anyway, here's the Munson piece: the end sums up what the NFL was taking flyer on (it doesn't really matter if they thought they would win or not, doc). If you get to the end and still claim to not understand why the NFL would test this case (for a couple of million in legal fees!) then there's nothing left to say. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261 I will help you: So the Supreme Court will hear powerful arguments and evidence that contradict the single-entity concept. But experts agree -- and the unions fear -- that the NFL and the other leagues have a chance for success. "The court is clearly pro-business and is cutting back on the use of antitrust laws," Edelman says. "They are relying on economic theories instead of theories of legal regulation. Instead of a violation, they see an efficiency." Speta adds, "For a long time, there were no antitrust cases decided in the Supreme Court, and now there are cases with the decisions moving in the direction of business."The NFL, clearly reading that trend, made a calculated commercial decision to agree to American Needle's request for a Supreme Court hearing, and coupled it with a demand to increase the stakes by asking the court to go well beyond the hats-and-caps market into a consideration of a single-entity rule for all leagues in all matters. Can the NFL and the other leagues succeed? A decision will come in the spring or early summer of 2010. If the NFL can find five votes for its single-entity concept, it will transform the industry. Leagues will enjoy unfettered monopoly powers. Salaries for players and coaches will drop. Free agency will wither away. Sponsors will pay more. Fans will pay more for tickets, television and Internet broadcasts and for paraphernalia. And owners' profits will soar. As for Upshaw, he was no fool, like D. Smith.: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218 When the NFLPA negotiating team walked out of the New York steak house, Upshaw checked his BlackBerry and found a one-line e-mail from Roger Goodell, the NFL's chief operating officer: "Can you call Paul?" "Gene," said Kessler, excited, "I think they're ready to fold." They took the elevator back to Kessler's office, and Upshaw called Tagliabue. Here, according to Upshaw, is how the conversation went: Tagliabue: "Gene, tell me, what will it take to move the [free agency] deadline?" Upshaw: "Paul, I can't move the deadline." Tagliabue: "Is there any way you'll consider moving the deadline?" Upshaw: "Only under one circumstance: Take my proposal to Dallas for the owners, with no changes, and give it a yes or no vote. That's it." Tagliabue: "I'll call you right back." Fifteen minutes later, after conferring with the Management Council's executive committee, Tagliabue called and told Upshaw, "If you give us 72 hours, we'll do it." Edited June 17, 2011 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 OK tough guy! Barely had time to read. Anyway, here's the Munson piece: the end sums up what the NFL was taking flyer on (it doesn't really matter if they thought they would win or not, doc). If you get to the end and still claim to not understand why the NFL would test this case (for a couple of million in legal fees!) then there's nothing left to say. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261 I will help you: As for Upshaw, he was no fool, like D. Smith.: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218 There's really nothing more to say, doc. It's right there in the quotes you're (I can only presume unwittingly) providing. The NFL felt, based on the court being pro-business, that there was a chance for success. They were wrong. Yes, I've said repeatedly that the owners folded and took a bad deal because they didn't want to go into the FA period with a lower salary cap. This isn't news to me.
CosmicBills Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Fans root for their teams, and by inference, the players (any players) on that team. It is assumed that the guys in the NFL are the "best of the best", but how do we know? Despite all of the work that goes into scouting these guys, busts are routine every year. And every year, 7th rounders and undrafted players become starters. You're looking at the wrong end---I would bet that at least 1000 of your 1800 players are in for a handful of plays, if any, each game. These guys are "the best of the rest". They could easily be replaced with another 1000 college guys who pro scouts completely whiffed on. The Bills roster has been completely replaced several times over since their heyday 20 years ago. The product is clearly inferior, yet the "game" (for the Bills) has not suffered one bit. The money keeps rolling in. In general, I don't think pointing out that if the NFL (or any company) wiped out it's workforce and replaced it with a group of poorly skilled employees it would cause it's product to suffer is a very strong argument. In fact, it underscores the fact that the end product is what is important, even if a highly skilled work force makes it so. There is so much wrong with (everything) you say in this post it's comical. Here's a helpful TSW tip: before posting something, be sure you know what you're talking about. First: Yes, fans root for their teams, but you're forgetting that the majority of fans in the NFL are CASUAL fans. We happen to be posting on a Buffalo Bills website right now -- which means that by definition everyone on here is a Die Hard fan (even if it's not of the Bills). We are the minority. Far more fans watch the NFL to see the best teams of the moment. There's a reason why the Patriots ratings went through the roof once they started to win championships. The population of New England didn't suddenly expand in that time period. Hell, half the people in Boston were Giants fans before 2001. What makes them switch? Winning. What makes teams win in the NFL? The teams with the best players. Brady and BB alone made Kraft the "genius" that people claim he is now. It has NOTHING to do with how he ran his business model. Zip. It had everything to do with winning football games and lucking into a super star QB that became the face of the franchise. If majority of fans only rooted for "their team" as you say, then every team's attendance record would always remain essentially static. But they don't. Which proves that you're wrong. The majority of fans come and go based on the quality of the team. Die Hards remain -- but those are the minority. To think otherwise is just ignorant. Like all of your posts on this matter. Second: The Bills have been GREATLY impacted by their inferior play for the past decade. They've lost countless scores of casual fans, season ticket sales are down (numbers not money since ticket prices have risen), ratings for their games have never been lower (the networks don't want them to get prime time games because of this), in short, without revenue sharing they would be losing money. Why? Has little to do with Buffalo's economy (though that certainly plays a role), it has far more to do with the fact that the Bills have been terrible because they constantly have one of the least talented rosters in the NFL. Casual fans don't want to watch the Bills. And casual fans are the backbone of the TV audience. The NFL is not the entertainment giant it is without TV contracts. The TV contracts account for more income than any other revenue stream for the Owners. But Networks aren't stupid. If you took all the star power out of the NFL tomorrow, the TV contracts would dry up faster than the last chick you tried to flirt with. (okay, that's unfair, you might get lots of ladies. I mean who wouldn't want to bang ya based on your limited IQ, irrational nature, distorted perception of the world and your inability to play well with others ... you're a catch!) Enough with this "the players are the product" nonsense. The players are not "made" by the NFL. They are paid entertainers playing in an NFL production (the game=the product). Just like actors on a TV show or in the movies. They are under contract to play games. And of course the Packers are there to make a profit--and they do. Okay, fine, let's bring it to this world because as you say, the NFL is just entertainment. You're right, the Players are just like the actors in Hollywood. And do you know what the number one thing Studio heads in Hollywood ask when they are deciding whether or not to green light a movie? What's the ONE thing that makes or breaks a movie's chances of being made, marketed and distributed? "Who's the star?" Yup. That's all that matters. It's not the budget, it's not the script, it's not the producer, it's not the AD, it's not the production coordinator, it's not the writer, it's not the grip, it's not the location, it's not the genre, it's not the quality of the story, it's not the studio -- it's THE STAR. Why? Because the studios and networks know people don't pay 13 dollars to sit in a movie theater and watch the best damn grip in town. They don't even pay 13 dollars to watch the best producers unless they're either behind the camera or in front of it. But they will pay 13 dollars to go see George Clooney or Matt Damon. It's ALWAYS about the star. Without the stars, the Studios don't make money. Without the stars, the networks don't get ratings. Without ratings, there's no ad dollars. With no ad dollars, there's no networks. That's why agencies exist -- to PACKAGE their clients. A hot script (in your analogy this would be the team) is nothing in Hollywood without the right "packaging". And the right packaging means attaching someone who can open the movie. There are VERY few people who can do that. And they cannot just be replaced by other actors off the street even though there are more actors in this town than there are cockroaches. No studio is going to bankroll 150 million dollar movie staring Joe Schmoe and Jimmy French. Just like no TV network is going to fork over BILLIONS of dollars to the NFL to air games featuring WEO and Tgreg99. So despite all your blustering at Doc (and everyone else) you once again end up not only making yourself out to be a fool -- but proving the other side's point. Thanks. Now relax and go have a drink.
Ramius Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 There is so much wrong with (everything) you say in this post it's comical. Here's a helpful TSW tip: before posting something, be sure you know what you're talking about. First: Yes, fans root for their teams, but you're forgetting that the majority of fans in the NFL are CASUAL fans. We happen to be posting on a Buffalo Bills website right now -- which means that by definition everyone on here is a Die Hard fan (even if it's not of the Bills). We are the minority. Far more fans watch the NFL to see the best teams of the moment. There's a reason why the Patriots ratings went through the roof once they started to win championships. The population of New England didn't suddenly expand in that time period. Hell, half the people in Boston were Giants fans before 2001. What makes them switch? Winning. What makes teams win in the NFL? The teams with the best players. Brady and BB alone made Kraft the "genius" that people claim he is now. It has NOTHING to do with how he ran his business model. Zip. It had everything to do with winning football games and lucking into a super star QB that became the face of the franchise. If majority of fans only rooted for "their team" as you say, then every team's attendance record would always remain essentially static. But they don't. Which proves that you're wrong. The majority of fans come and go based on the quality of the team. Die Hards remain -- but those are the minority. To think otherwise is just ignorant. Like all of your posts on this matter. Second: The Bills have been GREATLY impacted by their inferior play for the past decade. They've lost countless scores of casual fans, season ticket sales are down (numbers not money since ticket prices have risen), ratings for their games have never been lower (the networks don't want them to get prime time games because of this), in short, without revenue sharing they would be losing money. Why? Has little to do with Buffalo's economy (though that certainly plays a role), it has far more to do with the fact that the Bills have been terrible because they constantly have one of the least talented rosters in the NFL. Casual fans don't want to watch the Bills. And casual fans are the backbone of the TV audience. The NFL is not the entertainment giant it is without TV contracts. The TV contracts account for more income than any other revenue stream for the Owners. But Networks aren't stupid. If you took all the star power out of the NFL tomorrow, the TV contracts would dry up faster than the last chick you tried to flirt with. (okay, that's unfair, you might get lots of ladies. I mean who wouldn't want to bang ya based on your limited IQ, irrational nature, distorted perception of the world and your inability to play well with others ... you're a catch!) Okay, fine, let's bring it to this world because as you say, the NFL is just entertainment. You're right, the Players are just like the actors in Hollywood. And do you know what the number one thing Studio heads in Hollywood ask when they are deciding whether or not to green light a movie? What's the ONE thing that makes or breaks a movie's chances of being made, marketed and distributed? "Who's the star?" Yup. That's all that matters. It's not the budget, it's not the script, it's not the producer, it's not the AD, it's not the production coordinator, it's not the writer, it's not the grip, it's not the location, it's not the genre, it's not the quality of the story, it's not the studio -- it's THE STAR. Why? Because the studios and networks know people don't pay 13 dollars to sit in a movie theater and watch the best damn grip in town. They don't even pay 13 dollars to watch the best producers unless they're either behind the camera or in front of it. But they will pay 13 dollars to go see George Clooney or Matt Damon. It's ALWAYS about the star. Without the stars, the Studios don't make money. Without the stars, the networks don't get ratings. Without ratings, there's no ad dollars. With no ad dollars, there's no networks. That's why agencies exist -- to PACKAGE their clients. A hot script (in your analogy this would be the team) is nothing in Hollywood without the right "packaging". And the right packaging means attaching someone who can open the movie. There are VERY few people who can do that. And they cannot just be replaced by other actors off the street even though there are more actors in this town than there are cockroaches. No studio is going to bankroll 150 million dollar movie staring Joe Schmoe and Jimmy French. Just like no TV network is going to fork over BILLIONS of dollars to the NFL to air games featuring WEO and Tgreg99. So despite all your blustering at Doc (and everyone else) you once again end up not only making yourself out to be a fool -- but proving the other side's point. Thanks. Now relax and go have a drink. Not sure why you are having a tough time understanding that when Brady and Manning are gone, there will still be tons of fans rooting for those 2 teams. They'll just buy the jersey of "the next big name guy." There will always be another player to step up and take the place of the previous "star." Its the same thing in the movies. Take a look at favre. He WAS the franchise in GB. And i'll bet that of all the Packers fans with #4 jerseys, roughly 99.99% of them went out and bought an Aaron Rogers jersey when Favre left, and did NOT buy a #4 jets jersey. Fans root for teams, not individual players.
CosmicBills Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Not sure why you are having a tough time understanding that when Brady and Manning are gone, there will still be tons of fans rooting for those 2 teams. They'll just buy the jersey of "the next big name guy." There will always be another player to step up and take the place of the previous "star." Its the same thing in the movies. Take a look at favre. He WAS the franchise in GB. And i'll bet that of all the Packers fans with #4 jerseys, roughly 99.99% of them went out and bought an Aaron Rogers jersey when Favre left, and did NOT buy a #4 jets jersey. Fans root for teams, not individual players. I am NOT saying that there are never any replacements to be found. I AM saying that finding the next Brady, Manning or Favre is NOT easy. They do not grow on trees as some would suggest. Same with actors. If they did, we would have found the Next Kelly and Bruce the very next year after they retire. Right? I mean, if it's so easy to replace these guys, then there should never be any excuse for any team to ever have a dearth in talent, right? Oh wait, but it just doesn't work that way. Because elite talent is rare. Which is why the elite players, the ones who carry the league and bring in more revenue than any other aspect of the NFL (owners, teams, marketing, merchandise etc), are rewarded so richly. If players were NOT the reason fans tune in to the game, you'd NEVER see an owner willing to pay someone a 30 million dollar signing bonus. Ever. But they do. Why? The majority of NFL fans do NOT root for one team. Heck, even the people on this board who I know are die-hards have "second teams". And those "second teams" are never the Cleveland Browns or Jaguars. Casual fans, the overwhelming majority of the NFL's audience, root for GOOD teams. Good teams means GOOD players. Fans like us, the Die Hards (of which there are many) complain all the time about "rooting for the laundry" -- yet the majority of NFL fans change allegiances based on talent. In the 80s and 90s when the Bills were constantly in the playoffs and the Super Bowl, they had fans around the country. Young kids who LOVED the Bills because they saw them every weekend on TV kicking butt. Go to a city outside of WNY now and try to find a Bills fan under the age of 18 that doesn't have parents who are Bills fans. You won't find many, if any. Why? Because no one cares about the Bills on a national level because they have been awful for over a decade. We love them because we don't know any better. But we're not casual fans ... The point is that it is a star driven league. Just like the movies are driven by the actors -- not the studios that make the movies. Do you look at which studio releases a movie before you see it? Do you say, "nah, I am a Warner Brother's guy, screw Paramount". No, you go to a movie the same way most fans choose their teams -- by who's the most entertaining. It's funny that in your examples you name three QBs. It's not a mystery as to why the NFL rating exploded the past two decades in terms of TV ratings and dollars. It coincides nicely with the rule changes the League made to up scoring. The average fan doesn't care about three yards and a cloud of dust, they want points. Lots of them. They want BIG hits and LONG passes. The league changed the game itself to cater to those all important casual fans. The same ones that will walk away from the NFL if the 2011 season is lost. The same ones that account for the majority of the TV ratings and revenue streams. Fans like you, me, and even WEO (if he is a fan, I still don't think he is) will come back after the lock out regardless of how long it lasts because we are die hard fans. The casual fan? Maybe not. All this ridiculous BS that people are spouting in this thread about the product being "the game" is absolute horse-****. The product is, and always has been, the players. If it wasn't, then the game would still be without the forward pass. The league changed the rules of the game itself to cater to the players who have the most star power: QBs because long passes, touchdowns and big hits appeal to the overwhelming majority of casual fans. The NFL does not exist without the players. They are who the fans pay to see. They are who the networks pay to broadcast. Without star players, the NFL is the WNBA.
Mr. WEO Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 There's really nothing more to say, doc. It's right there in the quotes you're (I can only presume unwittingly) providing. The NFL felt, based on the court being pro-business, that there was a chance for success. They were wrong. Yes, I've said repeatedly that the owners folded and took a bad deal because they didn't want to go into the FA period with a lower salary cap. This isn't news to me. Follow the evolution: they thought they had a slam-dunk in the ANI case The NFL had NO chance to win it, and I said as much back then. Not wasting everyone's time with that farce was the "no brainer" move. The case had no chance of succeeding and was a waste of everyone's time Again the NFL felt they had a good chance to win the case. They were wrong, which was the original point. The NFL felt, based on the court being pro-business, that there was a chance for success. They were wrong. No, sir, your "original point" was that the NFL never should have pursued the SC review, that it was a "waste of time". Yes, since the court voted unanimously against them, they were wrong in their argument before the court I guess. But as even you acknowledge, there was a reason, spelled out clearly in the Munson article, which I wittingly posted, why they thought they had a chance and which you, by your last quote I listed, seem to understand now. You always come around doc. Although it's still news to you that Upshaw would not have taken some other deal from the owners other than the only one he ever offered before walking away to celebrate the coming of uncapped football. By your account (and counter to published accounts)--the owners had him right where they wanted him! Yet at the same time they "didn't have time" to even read the offer and the CBA that it became. Makes sense.
Doc Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Follow the evolution: No, sir, your "original point" was that the NFL never should have pursued the SC review, that it was a "waste of time". Yes, since the court voted unanimously against them, they were wrong in their argument before the court I guess. But as even you acknowledge, there was a reason, spelled out clearly in the Munson article, which I wittingly posted, why they thought they had a chance and which you, by your last quote I listed, seem to understand now. You always come around doc. Although it's still news to you that Upshaw would not have taken some other deal from the owners other than the only one he ever offered before walking away to celebrate the coming of uncapped football. By your account (and counter to published accounts)--the owners had him right where they wanted him! Yet at the same time they "didn't have time" to even read the offer and the CBA that it became. Makes sense. Yes, they never should have pursued the ANI case. I don't know how many times I can state this, doc. What they thought had no basis in reality, thus it wasted everyone's time, effort, and money. You just have to (vainly) defend it. Again it was yet another mistake, to go with the "lockout insurance" in exchange for a billion+ in TV revenue and... The owners used the FA deadline, which was pushed-back 3 times, as the deadline to make a deal, when they still had a couple years to make one (like we're seeing now). Upshaw's threat was an empty one because had the owners rejected his offer, they would have gone into the 2006 season with a ($7.5M) lower salary cap, meaning less money for the players. Then when 2007 rolled around with the "victory" of no salary cap, they would have learned the hard way that there was no cap floor and 6 years needed for UFA. If that wasn't enough to get Upshaw back to the table, being locked-out in 2008 surely would. Your whole argument is predicated on Upshaw having final say and the owners being infallible, which are both laughable.
K Gun Special Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Not sure why you are having a tough time understanding that when Brady and Manning are gone, there will still be tons of fans rooting for those 2 teams. They'll just buy the jersey of "the next big name guy." There will always be another player to step up and take the place of the previous "star." Its the same thing in the movies. Take a look at favre. He WAS the franchise in GB. And i'll bet that of all the Packers fans with #4 jerseys, roughly 99.99% of them went out and bought an Aaron Rogers jersey when Favre left, and did NOT buy a #4 jets jersey. Fans root for teams, not individual players. Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players arent so replaceable unless you cherry pick the only example you could come up with. GB If what you and others posit was remotely true, why on any given sunday are there still just as many, actually more, Kelly and TT jerseys than Fitz and Freddy??? arent they just the next line of players on the Bills? shouldnt fans just go out and buy them bc they blindly support the Bills? No it doesnt work that way now does it. Fans do root for teams, but the part that is lost on you is that star players get MORE people to root for teams. You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue. Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats. The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public. I
ganesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players abecause there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue. Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats. The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public. I Just like when it used be Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills Vs the Marino Led Dolphins or Vs the John Elway magic Denver Broncos. It is always about the players, especially the star ones. What the NFL must ensure is that these stars are constantly generated and replenished.
Recommended Posts