rockpile Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 ...the NFL wants to expand down to Mexico, are you kidding me? Mexicans are crossing the border to work for $2 an hour in the United States. You think they can afford a $50 ticket to see a football game. 281307[/snapback] I talked to several people in Mexico about wages when I was there recently. The average person, working in the resorts, makes $5 a day plus tips. They considered themselves fortunate to have steady paychecks, even if the hours were so long. They felt that (for them) the only reason to go to the U.S. was for the money. They preferred living in the Puerto Vallarta area, than moving to the U.S. It was also very hard for them to legally get permission to emigrate. These were non-professionals, service industry folks, but face it, how many of us are blue collar and low-end white collar but still own cars, homes, PCs, and yes, season tickets? Our peers in Mexico are just getting by. Someplace like Mexico City or maybe Guadalajara might be able to make some money off exhibition games, but I cannot see how they would support a franchise. I am also not opposed to exhibition games in Toronto to increase the regional nature of the Bills IN BUFFALO. I have friends in Hamilton who are Bills season ticket owners.
zonabb Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 OK, as a former reporter (worst job ever) and current social science dork, I found this AP snippet disgusting for numerous reason and emailed the AP about it. I know AP sports guys and they all suck. Anyway, here's the main point of my anger about it, based on semantics and data/statistics (not rushing yards but "significance in point no. 2). As a former reporter, nothing drives me crazier than vague verbiage that intends to pick a side in a story while circumventing. When a reporter uses terms like "regularly" and "well", it provides them an out for not providing further details or data. Having a masters degree in a social science, I feel it is imperative to provide at least some summary data when trying to make a point or stance. Now, as a Buffalo Bills fan and lifelong Buffalonian, I had an extremely hard time digesting a short piece I read in the LA Times about an NFL game in Mexico and potential other games being moved to neutral sites. Here a short piece of the story that is the problem. "...That the NFL would discuss playing a regular-season game in Mexico is no surprise, considering commissioner Paul Tagliabue's desire to make the sport even more international. That the Arizona Cardinals would be the host also is no shock, with the Cardinals routinely drawing small crowds in their current home on the Arizona State campus. If such an experiment works, where else might Tagliabue propose in-season games? Toronto, which has the 53,000-seat Rogers Centre (formerly SkyDome) is a potential choice because the Bills have a strong following in Ontario and they don't regularly sell out home contests. Vancouver might be another choice, but the Seahawks do draw well at home...." Reading that, one would assume the Bills aren't drawing. And it puts the region and fans in a poor light while making it seem like Seattle is a better football town. So here is my problem. The sentence in paragraph two uses the phrase "doesn't regularly sell out home contests" and follows it up in the next sentence with "...the Seahawks do draw well at home." The most obvious problems is the writer is using two different ticket sales marks to attempt to justify something. One is a "sellout," in the Bills' case, and the other is "do draw well." So my question is, what is regularly? Fifty percent of the time, 75 percent ? And what is well? Fifty percent of capacity, 75 percent? The next problem is, where is the data? How many seats does each respective stadium hold and what is the average attendance for each? Where does each team rank in terms of average or total attendance? So it took me all five minutes worth of internet research to pokes holes in this story and argument. Let's look at the stadiums. The Bills stadium, Ralph Wilson Field holds 73,967. Seattle's stadium, Qwest Field, holds 67,000. First off, the Bills have averaged 70,651 per game the last three seasons. The Seahawks have averaged 64,120 . I used the last three seasons because the Seahawks moved into the new Qwest Stadium previous to the 2002 season. Basically there are a couple things here that should have been noted in this story: 1. Over the previous 3 seasons, the Buffalo Bills have drawn more people than Seattle. Obviously stadium capacity is a factor but Seattle built a smaller stadium, so that's on them. The following are ranks for 2002-2004 2002 Buffalo 13th Seattle 23rd 2003 Buffalo 8th Seattle 22nd 2004 Buffalo 9th Seattle 18th 2. Over the same span, Seattle has had a 95.8% capacity rate. The Bills have had a 95.5% capacity rate. I would argue that a new stadium would easily account for the three-tenths of one percentage point difference and at the same time argue that if the author considers this "drawing well" it should also be considered the same for Buffalo, despite the attempt to make it seem the opposite. Three-tenths of one percentage point difference is not exactly what can be called statistically significant. And it hardly enough to write a story about how one team draws "well" and infer that another does not. 3. Sellouts. According to a story on in the Seattle Times, Seattle needed a deadline extension to sell 6000 tickets for a PLAYOFF game. Unheard of in Buffalo. They sellout immediately, even though games are in the dead of winter here. However, it was the Seahawks 16 consecutive sellout, meaning that for the two previous seasons, all games but the 2003 home opener, were sellouts. However, Buffalo sold-out the entire 2003 season and 7 of 8 this season (none sellout out was against the Cardinals, always a poor draw). So over the last two regular season, both teams have sold out the exact same number of games, 15 0f 16. Playoff games are another matter altogether and not relevant since the Bills haven't made the playoffs in the last 3 years. So the bottomline is this story was poorly researched and sheds a deceptive look at the Bills and their attendance when in fact, the Bills have a slight attendance edge due to the number of seats and average attendance. The ability to write clear, concise, substantial and properly-researched stories is a lost art. The population doesn't demand it; reporters don't strive for it and big business and the media itself only care about ad revenue. I doubt I'll get a reply but they'll get my point. A-holes.
ajzepp Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 I doubt I'll get a reply but they'll get my point. A-holes. 281404[/snapback] lol, nice job
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 Outside of AP stories, the only other source for NFL news at the LA Times is TJ Simers, and unfortunately there could not be a worse sports writer in the world (though Sullivan gives him a run) when it comes to football. Given that we have no football team, Simers finds it necessary to discuss what is happening with other teams in the league during the season, and it's pathetic because he simply would regurgitate what he skimmed off the wire...but try to sound authoritative about it...and much like some posters here he would say things just to get people up in arms. I'm surprised Simers didn't author something as stupid as this article, because it's not outside the realm of his laziness and inability to cover football.
Recommended Posts