Goodell says there’s momentum for expanding the playoffs

ausbacker said:

This suspiciously reads like the opinion of someone not prepared to investigate further claims and open up the discussion. That, is rather important.

Click to expand...

I asked you what other means, besides popularity of the sport and revenue generated, you feel are relevant by which we should judge the commissioner.

Feel free to answer that question anytime now.

rlcarr said:

Well, given the record NFL popularity and revenue, apparently the "perspective of the fans" is that things are going really well.

Click to expand...

Funny.... Baseball's numbers are the best they've ever been, yet people talk about the impending doom of the sport.

Deus Irae said:

It's generally bad for a sport when the ownership side is thrilled with the commissioner. That usually means that he's gone way too far into the tank for them. That certainly seems to be the case with the current NFL headman, who really might as well just put on the clown shoes before addressing anything that isn't owner revenue related.

Click to expand...

Ummm he works for the owners. Are you expecting him to do things that aren't in their best interest?
Interesting take. the sign you are doing a bad job is that your boss is pleased with you.

SB39 said:

I asked you what other means, besides popularity of the sport and revenue generated, you feel are relevant by which we should judge the commissioner.

Feel free to answer that question anytime now.

Click to expand...

Corporate strategy, human resources (which includes the overall performance of NFL affiliates), NFL culture, decision making process and outcomes, and delivering performance outcomes would be a few I would start with. Within those fields you can delve deeper into specifics.

For the purpose of this conversation, let's work with NFL culture and the decision making process and outcomes.

Deus Irae said:

Funny.... Baseball's numbers are the best they've ever been, yet people talk about the impending doom of the sport.

Click to expand...

Actually they're not. Not by a long shot.

ausbacker said:

Corporate strategy, human resources (which includes the overall performance of NFL affiliates), NFL culture, decision making process and outcomes, and delivering performance outcomes would be a few I would start with. Within those fields you can delve deeper into specifics.

For the purpose of this conversation, let's work with NFL culture and the decision making process and outcomes.

Click to expand...

I think he's doing a pretty good job in those areas too, although none of those things are even remotely as important as popularity and revenue. And, of course, high popularity and lotsa revenue strengthens those things.

Given that the league is insanely popular, it's pretty tough to argue the corporate strategy is not going in the right direction, huh? I'm even ignoring the fact that the NFL is not a corporation so that's a silly criteria to mention. Almost like you just made up a bunch of random, completely worthless stuff.

SB39 said:

I think he's doing a pretty good job in those areas too, although none of those things are even remotely as important as popularity and revenue. And, of course, high popularity and lotsa revenue strengthens those things.

Given that the league is insanely popular, it's pretty tough to argue the corporate strategy is not going in the right direction, huh? I'm even ignoring the fact that the NFL is not a corporation so that's a silly criteria to mention. Almost like you just made up a bunch of random, completely worthless stuff.

Click to expand...

So what we have here, and correct me if I am wrong, is someone arguing in favor of the commissioner without going to the trouble to investigate pretty big things like why so many players are coming and speaking out against Goodell, grievances being filed left, right and center and to compound the issue, a rules committee confusing players as to what they can and can't do on the field and hell, the replacement official fiasco?

Looks to me like you don't have much of an informed opinion other than the league is popular and making money. That's great and important but for someone who has spruiked objectivity, it's not enough.

The positives and the negatives all occur under Goodell's watch SB39. It appears that you're only interested in the positives. That is not being true to the notion of objectivity.

SB39 said:

The ridiculousness of this analogy pretty effectively destroys any point you are trying to make.

Click to expand...

Your response amounts to total nonsense. See what I did there?

neuronet said:

Because some people (well, just you, really) are acting as if the main overarching concern he has with every decision is profits. That is false.

Click to expand...

Then was is the 'main overarching concern he has with every decision'? Since you are the one who created this phenomena that there is one, please fill me in.
His priority is making money for the owners. The fact that there are other considerations doesn't change that. And your strawman argument that anyone has suggested there are not other considerations is silly.

Just read the bylaws, and look at some of his decisions. E.g., how did it help the NFL economically to take away our draft pick for spygate?

Click to expand...

You are joking right? Are you seriously saying that for his primary concern to be profitablility that he should sit in a room and do nothing except generate money, and ignore every other facet of his job?
However, ULTIMATELY his decision to take away our draft pick was based upon punishing the appearance of an unfair advantage, in order to protect the image of hte league, thereby enhancing (or at least guarding) its image in order to ultimately make more money.

No, moral and other concerns about the NFL are also sometimes central (e.g., Rapistburger suspension).

Click to expand...

The only moral concern is protecting the image of the league. It is not his job to preach morality to the players in the NFL. It is his job to protect the image of the league.
Even so, if he was making moral based decisions that still doesnt mean his primary function isnt making money for the owners.
Somehow this discussion has gone from me saying that his job is to make money for the owners, to you saying I said every task he has is about making money. My job is to make money for my company. But there are many times I must do things that don't make money (compliance, planning for the future, training, hiring or firing) that don't make money but are part of an overall philosophy that the purpose of the company is to make money. Hopefully you get that.

Things are not so one-dimensional.

Click to expand...

Strawman. I never said they were.

That said, I have never ever seen you admit you were wrong, or unclear in expression, on this site, so I don't expect it now. :singing:

Click to expand...

This is an interesting and curious comment.
98% of discussion on this board is OPINION. No opinion is wrong. Your opinion could be that George Bush (selected to emphasize the point) is the greatest US President ever. We could debate endlessly about that. You would explain all of the criteria you used to make that judgment and I could explain all of the criteria why my opinion differs. Since it is an OPINION no one is right or wrong and it would be ridiculous for someone to 'admit they were wrong'. If a convincing argument were made, perhaps one or the other would change their opinion, but that does not mean their opinion was wrong. Of course in this type of forum that would be extremely rare just because of the confines of communication. To expect someone to 'admit they are wrong' about their opinion is a bizarre expectation.
Facts are facts, and everyone is wrong about facts from time to time. I would contend that I have admitted I was wrong about a fact every time I posted one that was wrong. However, I am diligent in looking up facts before I post, so it is a rare occurance.

Since oyur implication here is that you are open-minded and I am stubborn, please give me a few examples of when yuo have 'admitted you were wrong' about an opinion. That should end this one way or another.

AndyJohnson said:

Since oyur implication here is that you are open-minded and I am stubborn, please give me a few examples of when yuo have 'admitted you were wrong' about an opinion. That should end this one way or another.

Click to expand...

Dude I'm the one who started the stupid football questions thread. There shouldn't be much question about my acknowledged uncertainty in the X's and O's of football.

That said, I regret making it personal like that, though, and I apologize I should have kept to the facts of the argument.

Getting to that: some opinions are better than others, more informed than others. Also, there do exist facts in the case, not just opinions. It isn't an opinion that Goodell's sole job is not to make money: it is a fact that can be found in the NFL bylaws and read from his words and actions.

But ultimately it is like arguing against the silly view that "Everything we do is selfish" because there is some labyrinthian sophistry that could lead one to the conclusion that Mother Teresa was selfish. In the Goodell case, anything he did, you could come up with some logic-bending route to the claim that he was really doing it to increase profits, even taking away our first-round pick (though frankly you also have backed off your claim that it is all about money, while also seeming to try to defend it...so I am not sure what the heck you are saying).

thenepatsrule said:

Soon we will have a 160 game season with games played every day and teams will have a roster of 400 players with 10 QBs and all 32 teams will make the playoffs where all teams play against each other, Then finally SB will be comprised of 10 teams who fight for the ultimate prize (like we see in KING OF THE RING in WWE)

Click to expand...

Someday .... Playoff Tiebreaker - YouTube

neuronet said:

Dude I'm the one who started the stupid football questions thread. There shouldn't be much question about my acknowledged lack of knowledge and plentiful uncertainty.

Some opinions are better than others, more informed than others. I regret making it personal like that, though, and I apologize I should have kept to the facts of the argument.

That said, there do exist facts in the case, not just opinions. It isn't an opinion that Goodell's sole job is not to make money: it is a fact that can be found in the NFL bylaws and read from his behavior.

Click to expand...

It is your opinion that my opinion is that his sole job is to make money.
That is not an opinion I have stated at any time.
That is why this discussion is so silly. I say his primary function is to make money and you argue one thing he did that had a different purpose proves his sole funtion isn't to make money.
Lets put it another way.
I say its mostly sunny. You point to a cloud and say I'm wrong its not 100% sunny.

neuronet said:

But ultimately it is like arguing against the silly view that "Everything we do is selfish" because there is some labyrinthian sophistry that could lead one to the conclusion that Mother Teresa was selfish. In the Goodell case, anything he did, you could come up with some logic-bending route to the claim that he was really doing it to increase profits, even taking away our first-round pick (though frankly you also have backed off your claim that it is all about money, while also seeming to try to defend it...so I am not sure what the heck you are saying).

Click to expand...

You added this after I responded.

For the nth time, you are arguing against an opinion I have never given, but against one you chose to assign to me.

AndyJohnson said:

You added this after I responded.

For the nth time, you are arguing against an opinion I have never given, but against one you chose to assign to me.

Click to expand...

So I am right but have simply misinterpreted your prose.

neuronet said:

So I am right but have simply misinterpreted your prose.

Click to expand...

If your opinion is that his primary job and motivation profits and he has other responsbilities as well then yes, we agree.

Chevy said:

Someday .... Playoff Tiebreaker - YouTube

Click to expand...

Hahaha thanks for that, that is very very apt

ausbacker said:

So what we have here, and correct me if I am wrong, is someone arguing in favor of the commissioner without going to the trouble to investigate pretty big things like why so many players are coming and speaking out against Goodell, grievances being filed left, right and center and to compound the issue, a rules committee confusing players as to what they can and can't do on the field and hell, the replacement official fiasco?

Click to expand...

Really? That's how we're measuring the commissioner? By how many players complain when they get fined??

Oh, there's a surprise. Players don't like getting fined. Gee, thanks for the insight.

Observer said:

Your response amounts to total nonsense. See what I did there?

Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you did. In order to make Goodell look bad, you concocted a ridiculous scenario whereby he literally turns the NFL into American Idol.

So yeah, you're really only hurting your own argument at that point.

SB39 said:

Yeah I see what you did. In order to make Goodell look bad, you concocted a ridiculous scenario whereby he literally turns the NFL into American Idol.

So yeah, you're really only hurting your own argument at that point.

Click to expand...

If the sole purpose of Goodell and his office is to make as much money as possible, then what is there to prevent arbitrary changes to the league rules and format in any manner that would increase popularity?

Some 25 million viewers watch american idol. The NFL could stand to benefit in popularity by pulling in some of that crowd. What is so ridiculous about it? If you have a counter-argument, make it instead of arbitrarily dismissing it.

So I'm sitting here wracking my brain trying to figure out just what it is that the great Roger Goodell has done that has resulted in the NFL's great popularity.

Still thinking ...