Jobot Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 If they sit out until changes are made, then I'll respect these decisions, until then it's hollow. 1
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 42 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said: Is Kordell Stewart going to run it? No Doug Whaley is running it so it is sure to run as smoothly as the XFL. 2
machine gun kelly Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 So, I like both of you guys. Simple math. $5 bil. today was $320,200,000 in 1930. Not sure what was boxing and horse racing back then. Not worth my time so you two can figure that one out.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: Talk about comparing apples to oranges!!!!! So you want to compare sports media revenue in the 30s to what is it today in 2020? You do realize there was no TV in the thirties? You do realize that $5 billion today isnt worth anything close to what the inflation adjusted equivalent would be in the 30s. But i am the one comparing apples to oranges, LOL. If you cant understand the simple concept the sports popularity evolves over time that is your problem. That was sarcasm. Sports revenue in the 1930’s is absolutely irrelevant!! This is mind-blowing that you cant see the difference. The money is what drives everything. Football has a $5B annual media deal. That isn’t in any sort of jeopardy. Comparing horse racing in the 1930’s to the NFL in 2020 is like comparing Walt Disney World to tarter sauce. 7 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: You are right except for that last line- there is no longer the line except for maybe the NFL. The regional tv networks did not go for nearly as much as expected and usually they have the other big three. I think people like me are not willing to pay to watch guys half walk through a regular season and then turn it on for the playoffs. I think that MLB and NBA are facing that issue and I don't have a solution. I am linking to sale of regional tv channels and MLB money https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/ I’m talking about the NFL.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: That was sarcasm. Sports revenue in the 1930’s is absolutely irrelevant!! This is mind-blowing that you cant see the difference. The money is what drives everything. Football has a $5B annual media deal. That isn’t in any sort of jeopardy. Comparing horse racing in the 1930’s to the NFL in 2020 is like comparing Walt Disney World to tarter sauce. I’m talking about the NFL. Well then I gave you a lot of good info to ponder later.
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said: So, I like both of you guys. Simple math. $5 bil. today was $320,200,000 in 1930. Not sure what was boxing and horse racing back then. Not worth my time so you two can figure that one out. Thank you Siri
RoyBatty is alive Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: That was sarcasm. Sports revenue in the 1930’s is absolutely irrelevant!! This is mind-blowing that you cant see the difference. The money is what drives everything. Football has a $5B annual media deal. That isn’t in any sort of jeopardy. Comparing horse racing in the 1930’s to the NFL in 2020 is like comparing Walt Disney World to tarter sauce. I’m talking about the NFL. OH OF COURSE, NOW IT WAS "SARCASM", lol. Ace, you are the one that brought that up, not me. nice try to put your idiotic comment on me. If you simply cant see how the future of sports popularity has, and can evolve, that is your lack of foresight and intellectual curiously, not mine. 1
Midwest1981 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) If the players- or some players- decide at some point to sit out a game, though as Mike Florio pointed out it's not technically "their right" since it runs contrary to the CBA just negotiated and signed in March, I hope it achieves their objective, which should be everyone's objective: to eradicate police brutality and bring about (more) equal treatment under the law. But if the players are withholding their services, their pay will be withheld too. That's hundreds of millions of dollars for whatever week this happens. For Dak Prescott alone, that's $2 million that week. I feel a more effective response would be donating a sizable chunk of that week's salary to a cause that furthers this movement and purpose, not forfeiting the money entirely. Besides, the reason fans particularly care about players in the NFL is because they play in the NFL. That's obvious and axiomatic so what's my point? For players to have maximum influence, opportunity, and a platform and not just be like "the rest of us" with opinions only those closest to us care about, ultimately they need to be playing. Edited September 2, 2020 by Midwest1981
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 *Sigh* i was hoping this just meant no one would run that stupid formation anymore where the QB lines up as a WR and the RB takes the snap... 1 1
Florida Bills Fanatic Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 2 hours ago, H2o said: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/02/nfl-seems-to-be-willing-to-accept-a-wildcat-strike-over-social-justice/#respond So the NFLPA is talking about possibly sitting out a week at some point during the season, just like the NBA pulled their boycott, and apparently they have spoken with the NFL about it. The owners would have to be okay with it because of the no strike/ no lockout provisions that exist in the collective bargaining agreement. It would be extremely costly for the players to do it unilaterally. Fan reaction would probably be a mixed bag. At this point nothing would surprise me. 1
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: *Sigh* i was hoping this just meant no one would run that stupid formation anymore where the QB lines up as a WR and the RB takes the snap... 'Hide the midget' hasn't been 'hide the midget' since the 'midget' retired. ? * (Can I still say 'midget'?)
nucci Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Can it be called a wildcat strike if the union approves and they are discussing it with the owners? That's not considered wildcat
Don Otreply Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 1 hour ago, aristocrat said: can't wait for the board to explode if this happens. Actual adults of all persuasions deal perfectly well with entertainment desires, and the more important societal issues of our times when they happen at the same moment during our lives. These things can co-mingle and we can all likely learn something from the experience, And still enjoy a beer ? and some good food ???????, oh, did I say beer ?? And and the games when they get played. Go Bills!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 21 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: OH OF COURSE, NOW IT WAS "SARCASM", lol. Ace, you are the one that brought that up, not me. nice try to put your idiotic comment on me. If you simply cant see how the future of sports popularity has, and can evolve, that is your lack of foresight and intellectual curiously, not mine. 1930’s sports revenue is irrelevant compared to today. That wasn’t the sarcasm. The sarcasm was “I didn’t realize horse racing and boxing had a $5B media rights deal in the 1930’s.” I actually did realize that. The future of sports CERTAINLY can evolve but we are probably AT LEAST a generation away from football becoming even a little vulnerable. We are multiple tv rights deals away from that happening. I’m 39 years-old and football will almost certainly be the dominant sport for my entire lifetime. I’m really not sure the point that you are trying to make but the league is absolutely bulletproof for years to come. 1
Chuck Schick Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: Not really, the players need the networks. The networks fall all over themselves for football. The fans are such a small piece of that. It will take a MASSIVE migration away from football for the networks to change their tune. That’s not happening. The NFL is bulletproof and the players and league know that. If they do this it will have minimal impact on the bottom line. To say any business- or even industry -is bullet proof is kind of a weird thing to say these days. My kids’ HS team had to cut kids just 4 or 5 years ago, and now they’re barely fielding a team with like 25 guys. Things change, appetites change, and sometimes you don’t see it coming. 1
RoyBatty is alive Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: 1930’s sports revenue is irrelevant compared to today. That wasn’t the sarcasm. The sarcasm was “I didn’t realize horse racing and boxing had a $5B media rights deal in the 1930’s.” I actually did realize that. The future of sports CERTAINLY can evolve but we are probably AT LEAST a generation away from football becoming even a little vulnerable. We are multiple tv rights deals away from that happening. I’m 39 years-old and football will almost certainly be the dominant sport for my entire lifetime. I’m really not sure the point that you are trying to make but the league is absolutely bulletproof for years to come. Beating a dead horse already. Again, like my grandfather thought Boxing and Horse Racing popularity would never want,,,it sure did.
Bronxbomber21 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Don't they do this every year already it's called a bye week
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: Beating a dead horse already. Again, like my grandfather thought Boxing and Horse Racing popularity would never want,,,it sure did. No, it is tied to the media deals and where they are heading. The NFL currently receives $5B a year from media partners. Football is the crown jewel of networks. That isn’t changing anytime soon. We are multiple TV contracts away from that changing. That is a generation or more. I’m not trying to be rude but you really aren’t grasping a very simple concept. The money involved in sports now is SO different from the 1930’s. That is what drives stability. Until there is a MASSIVE migration from football and the networks pull out it is bulletproof. You really don’t understand this and the next deal is going to grow making football MORE bulletproof moving forward. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/22/nfl-tv-rights-up-for-renewal-in-2022-and-big-media-will-pay-more.html 12 minutes ago, Chuck Schick said: To say any business- or even industry -is bullet proof is kind of a weird thing to say these days. My kids’ HS team had to cut kids just 4 or 5 years ago, and now they’re barely fielding a team with like 25 guys. Things change, appetites change, and sometimes you don’t see it coming. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/22/nfl-tv-rights-up-for-renewal-in-2022-and-big-media-will-pay-more.html Apple is bulletproof too. Their market cap is at $2,000,000,000,000. It took them 42 years to get to half of that. Edited September 2, 2020 by Kirby Jackson 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: 'Hide the midget' hasn't been 'hide the midget' since the 'midget' retired. ? * (Can I still say 'midget'?) Hmmm we’ll see that depends... i think there would be a contingent who will find it not only offensive but repressive, and as a result believe all people should have their legs amputated for justice and of course ban the word, rename people named Midge, and remove the letter m from the alphabet. Then on the other hand there would be those offended that it might be considered offensive, maintain using the word is their god given right and if we must go to war and die to use the word, so be it AND too bad for those born into that lack of height... it’s their problem, society owes them nothing. Their parents were probably sinners. so somewhere in between there. Edited September 2, 2020 by Over 29 years of fanhood 1
Sherlock Holmes Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 You know this would be the year we go 15-0... 24 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: 'Hide the midget' hasn't been 'hide the midget' since the 'midget' retired. ? * (Can I still say 'midget'?) No, we prefer short person or shorty for short..
Recommended Posts