2/18/2015: Schefter Blows Up ESPN's Earlier Story

obgod3 said:

Find some reason for a class action lawsuit against the league, since Kraft won't do anything, we the fans of the New England patriots sue the NFL...some reason I'm sure we can make up.

Lol

Click to expand...

Sure we all are having IBS everyday sifting through all this crap.

Patsfanin Philly said:

If he did run the charities, maybe he could explain why so little of the money made from the selling of pink NFL merchandise went for cancer research......


http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pinkw...-sales-only-3-54-goes-toward-cancer-research/

http://www.businessinsider.com/smal...andise-goes-to-breast-cancer-research-2013-10

Click to expand...

Those really seems like hit piece articles.

According to data obtained from the NFL by Darren Rovell of ESPN, the NFL "takes a 25% royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90% of royalty to American Cancer Society."

In other words, for every $100 in pink merchandise sold, $12.50 goes to the NFL. Of that, $11.25 goes to the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the NFL keeps the rest.

Click to expand...

Donating 90% of their profit is not exactly shady. They make 12.50 and give only 11.25? How awful, and then supposedly use the rest for awareness which they obviously are doing. The publicity from the NFL alone is worth probably tens of millions.

In fairy tale land 100% goes to cancer but the shmoe who makes the shirt, another that prints it, another that ships it, and another that sell it aren't getting rich, they're probably scraping by. So the NFL donates their own profits, and not someone else's. I mean, once the article goes on to blame the NFL because the American Cancer Society only gives 80% to Cancer it becomes clear they are off the rails. How is the NFL responsible for covering ACS's expenses once they donate?

Bobsyouruncle said:

Those really seems like hit piece articles.



Donating 90% of their profit is not exactly shady. They make 12.50 and give only 11.25? How awful, and then supposedly use the rest for awareness which they obviously are doing. The publicity from the NFL alone is worth probably tens of millions.
?

Click to expand...

You didn't quote the next two sentences from that article,

The remaining money is then divided up by the company that makes the merchandise (37.5%) and the company that sells the merchandise (50.0%), which is often the NFL and the individual teams.
Then consider that only 71.2% of money the ACS receives goes towards research and cancer programs.

BusinessInsider.com

In the end, after everybody has taken their cut, only 8.01% of money spent on pink NFL merchandise is actually going towards cancer research (see right).

Click to expand...

Stats can be used any way you want but as a percent, they don't donate much relative to other charities...

The point of the pink jerseys is to get awareness out, which is why October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. The earlier the cancer is detected the easier it is to deal with, and no one does public exposure like the NFL.

Unfortunately, that's also true in this deflategate debacle -- nothing generates publicity like the NFL...

Patsfanin Philly said:

You didn't quote the next two sentences from that article,

Stats can be used any way you want but as a percent, they don't donate much relative to other charities...

Click to expand...

I didn't quote it because it says the same stuff, they are just continuing to break the numbers apart into irrelevant sections. The NFL makes 1.25%, and even that supposedly gets spent on the campaign. If they sold regular merchandise they make 12.5%.

The main complaint here is that the NFL should take a loss, instead of merely making no profit. Oh, and they are responsible for the admin costs of the ACS for some reason. If they give ten dollars, it's why not eleven? So basically they run this whole campaign, and advertisement and donations for nothing. And yeah, they get some good PR out of it too but **** sakes what do you want? The NFL generates millions for breast cancer, and you and I don't come close. They don't have to give Jack ****. Run a negative campaign over it and that probably exactly what they'll give. There's thousands of other charities who the NFL doesn't give **** too that would happily take the PR alone for nothing. Sorry, but if the NFL was taking 90% of profits and donating 10% (Like some shady charity drives) they would probably have something, but this is nothing.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I didn't quote it because it says the same stuff, they are just continuing to break the numbers apart into irrelevant sections. The NFL makes 1.25%, and even that supposedly gets spent on the campaign. If they sold regular merchandise they make 12.5%.

The main complaint here is that the NFL should take a loss, instead of merely making no profit. Oh, and they are responsible for the admin costs of the ACS for some reason. If they give ten dollars, it's why not eleven? So basically they run this whole campaign, and advertisement and donations for nothing. And yeah, they get some good PR out of it too but **** sakes what do you want? The NFL generates millions for breast cancer, and you and I don't come close. They don't have to give Jack ****. Run a negative campaign over it and that probably exactly what they'll give. There's thousands of other charities who the NFL doesn't give **** too that would happily take the PR alone for nothing. Sorry, but if the NFL was taking 90% of profits and donating 10% (Like some shady charity drives) they would probably have something, but this is nothing.

Click to expand...

They don't have to give but they get lots of free PR by pumping up how much they give to charity. Trust me they are not losing money and that 1.25% doesn't include the 50% that is returned to the NFL. To me it is no different than the star player who starts a charity and gives 4% of proceeds to charity and the rest to "administrative". Unfortunately NFL Charities isn't evaluated by charitynavigator,com, which is an unbiased evaluators of charities.

Big-T said:

Schefter has kept this one quiet for one reason, the guy actually has some integrity and pride in his work and has obviously been checking, double checking and triple checking ALL of his sources on this before running it.

Click to expand...

This now begs the question: How much longer is Schefter going to be with BSPN? He's obviously not sticking to their script.

vyrago said:

Odd. The last time I looked ESPN was in Connecticut which, if memory serves me, is in New England. Ridiculously naive I know, but there it is. Could this hatred stem from Kraft's decision to screw Hartford and move to Foxboro?

Click to expand...

No. None of the ESPM mediots cares about CT. And the other 5 NE states are giving CT back to NY.

Patsfanin Philly said:

They don't have to give but they get lots of free PR by pumping up how much they give to charity. Trust me they are not losing money and that 1.25% doesn't include the 50% that is returned to the NFL. To me it is no different than the star player who starts a charity and gives 4% of proceeds to charity and the rest to "administrative". Unfortunately NFL Charities isn't evaluated by charitynavigator,com, which is an unbiased evaluators of charities.

Click to expand...

One huge difference is that people are buying a physical/tangible product that has costs associated with it as opposed to making cash donations.

If I donate $100 to a charity and 96% of that gets eaten up by administrative costs, I'd be pissed. But if I'm buying a jersey from a retailer, I'd understand that there are manufacturing costs, inventory costs, selling costs, etc.

Congrats to Borges for putting out quite possibly the worst Deflategate piece yet. That's impressive even by his standards.

Sciz said:

Congrats to Borges for putting out quite possibly the worst Deflategate piece yet. That's impressive even by his standards.

Click to expand...

I'm not giving him page views, what did he say? How did he manage to blame the Pats for the officials stealing?

VectorPrime said:

I'm not giving him page views, what did he say? How did he manage to blame the Pats for the officials stealing?

Click to expand...

Basically said your an idiot if you believe in any of the arguments defending the Patriots, especially the scientific explanation because why didn't it affect the Colts balls? And apparently whatever Wells turns up won't be believable. So even if the Patriots are not found guilty it means nothing. That's all you need to know. It's trash per usual.

However a wonderful thing happened when I clicked that link and began skimming. I just started to smile wider and wider. I didn't get annoyed or pissed. I just remembered that Borges is a plagiarizing weasel who is clearly devastated by the Pats continued success ever since mocking them in 2001 for drafting Richard Seymour and Matt Light. Oh and he hit a cripple.

VectorPrime said:

I'm not giving him page views, what did he say? How did he manage to blame the Pats for the officials stealing?

Click to expand...

He literally uses the word "idiot" to describe anybody who thinks the gas laws are in play here because the Colts balls were fine, ignoring that we don't know the starting pressure of the Colts' balls, the temperature of the air that they were inflated with, whether they have a process that artificially inflates the balls (like how Belichick described), or any other explanation for how the ending pressures could be drastically different. If you believe in the gas laws, you're an idiot in his mind and that's that.

He must be getting desperate if hes doubling down so hard.

Sciz said:

He literally uses the word "idiot" to describe anybody who thinks the gas laws are in play here because the Colts balls were fine, ignoring that we don't know the starting pressure of the Colts' balls, the temperature of the air that they were inflated with, whether they have a process that artificially inflates the balls (like how Belichick described), or any other explanation for how the ending pressures could be drastically different. If you believe in the gas laws, you're an idiot in his mind and that's that.

Click to expand...

He said "idiot" was putting it nicely, implying that you are completely ******ed if you believe in the scientific argument.

Anyone calling him out in the comments?

Borges also reminded everyone that the refs didn't need to "log" any ball specs prior to the game, and if you think he did, you're also an idiot for that too.

VectorPrime said:

Anyone calling him out in the comments?

Click to expand...

There were none that I saw. We all know Borges well enough to not waste time on him. Ron's fifteen seconds of fame was getting to gleefully needle Brady about being a liar and cheater to his face shortly before TB12 went out and made himself the greatest of all time.

Someone needs to give Borges a new article to trace or maybe another cripple to take his anger out on.

Kdo5 said:

There were none that I saw. We all know Borges well enough to not waste time on him. Ron's fifteen seconds of fame was getting to gleefully needle Brady about being a liar and cheater to his face shortly before TB12 went out and made himself the greatest of all time.

Click to expand...

"...liar and cheater...". Think about the irony in those 3 words from Ronbo...