Once again, Sally Jenkins nails it...

IllegalContact said:

Allow me to ask again....this should not be difficult.....I am not asking how the league is making money ... I only want to know what the cost difference TO ME of watching football on TV versus not watching football

Click to expand...

I don't know enough about you to answer that question, and don't really find it in the slightest bit relevant.

I don't have the first clue how you would be spending your time otherwise, so I sure can't go into any detail about what watching football "costs" you.

BUSTAMOVE said:

Monday we learn that Brady gets railroaded again. Now Jenkins whom I like for her support of Brady throughout this painful saga plays Monday morning QB with the woulda shoulda.

Why didn't she suggest this before the hearing. She is totally accurate on the wrongdoings of the league, but is late to the party on proposed strategy for the NFLPA.

I mentioned on this site once about details of false info from Wells report that should prove Brady's innocence in the Berman hearing. I was told by the so called Lawyers on this site that info from the investigation cannot be argued. Only the details of the CBA.

So please Sally and the rest of you so called lawyer hacks. You have about as much clue into big time Legal theatre strategy of this case as that goofy Maine attorney who embarrassed us all with his bush league stunt.

Brady is innocent and hopefully in the near future it comes to light. Enough with all these attorneys talking about sh*t they have no clue or real game experience on. Just puffing out their chests hoping someone will recognize them.

Click to expand...

Sally Jenkins has been right on from the moment she started talking about this. I enjoy her insight and certainly want her to keep blogging.

If Kim jun-Godell says your guilty, then it is so. Innocence is irrelevant.

archstanton543 said:

But his innocence or guilt was never going to be argued. In fact, in these types of cases it rarely is. It's about the fairness of the process as laid out in the CBA.

Click to expand...

Didn't stop the NFL. Just because guilt/innocence technically wasn't at issue doesn't mean it wasn't de facto at issue during the entire appeal. This was crystal clear from all the reports, and Brady's team was just not adequately prepared for it. They blew it.

XLIX said:

Sally Jenkins has been right on from the moment she started talking about this. I enjoy her insight and certainly want her to keep blogging.

Click to expand...

I love her positive outlook on Brady from the start. Certainly want her to keep bringing facts about the case to the Washington Post. One day hopefully the tide will turn.

My point is she and many others had no clue on a strategy pre hearing. Now all of a sudden they all are playing coulda shoulda. Belichick maybe should have elected to receive in OT. But then again maybe he should have called timeout at end of SB. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Only a few good ones get payed the big money. Sometimes they win sometimes they lose.

XLIX said:

I don't know enough about you to answer that question, and don't really find it in the slightest bit relevant.

I don't have the first clue how you would be spending your time otherwise, so I sure can't go into any detail about what watching football "costs" you.

Click to expand...

Watching football versus staring at the wall does not cost me an extra dime.

XLIX said:

Click to expand...

In other words, you've got nothing because you're just making **** up as you go along. Post some proof or STFU!

XLIX said:

I've never watched Julia Child on PBS, nor do I know how that program accounts for its ratings and marketing, which I believe has to do with public funding moreso than advertiser revenue, so I cannot speak to that example. However I will restate my thesis and attempt to be more clear:

(1) The NFL makes billions of dollars from ABC/ESPN, NBC, CBS and Fox

(2) The reason why those networks/stations pay so much money for broadcast rights is because so many people watch the games

(3) When people in here state "the NFL gains nothing from me because I don't buy NFL merchandise or buy tickets, I only watch the games" that is a fallacy. Even if all you do is watch the games, the NFL still makes money - and an awful lot of it - because of you

(4) An individual not being a Neilsen member is irrelevant to point (3). There are other statistical methodologies in play to account for the true number of viewers. Neilsen numbers are certainly important, but not all encompassing.

(5) And, since I apparently have to mention this for certain people in here (not you), no one single individual person registers as even a blip on the league's radar. You could spend your entire life ignoring (and I mean truly ignoring) the NFL or you could spend your entire life giving the NFL all your leisure time and money and they would not notice because you are only one single individual person. But collectively, as a group, all those people who "only watch the games" are still fattening the league's coffers.

Click to expand...

Again, you just keep making assertions and don't back anything up with anything except a longer post stating the same things without any proof.

First you say the NFL gets my money if I watch, regardless of whether they can monitor my watching directly. Then you say they won't notice whether I watch or not. Which is it?

IllegalContact said:

Watching football versus staring at the wall does not cost me an extra dime.

Click to expand...

What a wonderful life you must lead where that is your alternative to watching football.

ReverendMaynard said:

Again, you just keep making assertions and don't back anything up with anything except a longer post stating the same things without any proof.

First you say the NFL gets my money if I watch, regardless of whether they can monitor my watching directly. Then you say they won't notice whether I watch or not. Which is it?

Click to expand...

I have answered this question twice already. Go back and reread. I suggest you read slower this time since you're obviously not smart enough to understand the point after only one try.

ReverendMaynard said:

In other words, you've got nothing because you're just making **** up as you go along. Post some proof or STFU!

Click to expand...

I have posted some opinions, but every fact I've stated is 100% true. You may not like it, but that's your problem.

What is it *precisely* that I have said that you disagree with factually? Or are you just one of those people who tell "PROVE IT!" to anyone you disagree with, even though deep down you know they're right?

XLIX said:

I have answered this question twice already. Go back and reread. I suggest you read slower this time since you're obviously not smart enough to understand the point after only one try.

Click to expand...

Don't blame me for your inability to explain yourself. All you've done is make a bunch of vague assertions.

Even if you weren't contradicting yourself within a single post, you're not backing anything up. I'm asking for proof and you just keep repeating yourself.

By what mechanism does the NFL know whether I am watching if I'm not watching a neilson tv?

If it doesn't matter whether I watch or not, why do you keep saying they are getting my money if I watch?

XLIX said:

What a wonderful life you must lead where that is your alternative to watching football.

Click to expand...

It's actually pretty awesome

WHERE IS MY "JLAFF NAILED IT" THREAD?

I may be an extremely recent law grad, but I did at least take the class prize in Contract Law. And I've been saying this from the very beginning. For instance...

Again, the whole idea of the science exonerating was pushed aside in favour of more legalistic arguments. It seemed as though everyone involved, and some people here, thought that was too simple of an argument for a highly skilled lawyer like Kessler.

I was screaming from the rafters that it should be argued there was an implied term in the contract between the Union and the NFL that actual wrongdoing take place before any punishment can take place. And following that argument, proceed to demonstrate the science. But no, too simple an argument, wasn't sophisticated enough. This has to be about procedure. That was the argument that makes you a sympathetic party in the proceedings, and that's totally ignoring the ancillary benefit to Brady of clearing his name publicly.

Nope, everyone was too smart for that argument.

Click to expand...

Very much what Jenkins is saying in that you need conduct detrimental to find conduct detrimental.

And it is this sort of implied term argument that I believe would have allowed the Patriots to sue the NFL. Yes, the Patriots did indeed covenant to "not sue the NFL". But they did not agree to allow the NFL to commit fraud against the Patriots. In fact, even had they contracted to allow this - the fraudulent behaviour - you cannot enforce a contract to engage in illegal activity. So that part would be severed from the contact. So therefore, the Patriots did not agree to "not sue" the NFL for fraudulent behaviour which would deprive the Patriots of some benefit of membership in the league.

Along the lines of that same argument, it would of course also be an implied term that before the NFL punish the Patriots for wrongdoing, some wrongdoing would have to take place. The Patriots may have contracted to not sue the league, but they also likely contracted the above with the league, through implied terms. So I would argue the Patriots did NOT agree to not sue the league where they are punished without any basis for the punishment.

If I made mistakes, I'm still at work and it's almost 10pm for f-sakes, and I already had a 3 hour hearing today.

ReverendMaynard said:

Don't blame me for your inability to explain yourself. All you've done is make a bunch of vague assertions.

Click to expand...

I explained myself quite clearly in my 5-point thesis written above. I even generously adjusted myself for people like you who are either too stupid to understand or, for some reason, decided to be ridiculously belligerent.

ReverendMaynard said:

Even if you weren't contradicting yourself within a single post, you're not backing anything up. I'm asking for proof and you just keep repeating yourself.

Click to expand...

I refuse to provide proof unless you tell me what factual statement I have made which you consider to be erroneous. For the sake of clarity, tell me which of my 5 points you consider to be factually inaccurate.

Put up or shut up.

IllegalContact said:

It's actually pretty awesome

Click to expand...

If you say so, but you're the one who seems to find your time so worthless that you don't see any value in giving the NFL hours of your attention.

XLIX said:

I've never watched Julia Child on PBS, nor do I know how that program accounts for its ratings and marketing, which I believe has to do with public funding moreso than advertiser revenue, so I cannot speak to that example. However I will restate my thesis and attempt to be more clear:

(1) The NFL makes billions of dollars from ABC/ESPN, NBC, CBS and Fox

(2) The reason why those networks/stations pay so much money for broadcast rights is because so many people watch the games

(3) When people in here state "the NFL gains nothing from me because I don't buy NFL merchandise or buy tickets, I only watch the games" that is a fallacy. Even if all you do is watch the games, the NFL still makes money - and an awful lot of it - because of you

(4) An individual not being a Neilsen member is irrelevant to point (3). There are other statistical methodologies in play to account for the true number of viewers. Neilsen numbers are certainly important, but not all encompassing.

(5) And, since I apparently have to mention this for certain people in here (not you), no one single individual person registers as even a blip on the league's radar. You could spend your entire life ignoring (and I mean truly ignoring) the NFL or you could spend your entire life giving the NFL all your leisure time and money and they would not notice because you are only one single individual person. But collectively, as a group, all those people who "only watch the games" are still fattening the league's coffers.

Click to expand...

If you watch the NFL on TV you make the NFL money. If someone is arguing otherwise I'm stumped as to their premise.
With that said there are many particulars including data mining that come into play.
First, as you already know, you are equivalent to a minuscule of nothing as a single individual turning off the NFL. Further, if you are outside of the demo you are even significantly deeper below a minuscule of nothing (side note: that the NFL can deliver the correct age range demo is a HUGE deal and the reason why networks want a piece of their visual product).
Data mining and analytics also matter. If you have an addressable cable box (not sure there is any other kind now) and you use the internet to search NFL specific content, that kind of data can be monetized (when companies give you "free" content, outside of ads their aim is often to know your habits and help direct specific vendors at you for optimal sales potential).
As to who ends up with your pennies is not 1:1, however, if the NFL is the impetus of your actions it means they will be enjoying the lion's share.

If you want to affect the NFL as best you can, avoid NFL content or use private/anonymous browsers/browser settings and don't watch the NFL in any way that can become a measured statistic (they seem to have ways to measure OTA). But if you want to really hurt them then most important is to go out and convince 15 twenty something males to stop watching the NFL. You may cause them to lose a buck .

TheBostonStraggler said:

If you watch the NFL on TV you make the NFL money. If someone is arguing otherwise I'm stumped as to their premise.

Click to expand...

I am too.

XLIX said:

If you say so, but you're the one who seems to find your time so worthless that you don't see any value in giving the NFL hours of your attention.

Click to expand...

If that's your take, so be it

XLIX said:

I explained myself quite clearly in my 5-point thesis written above. I even generously adjusted myself for people like you who are either too stupid to understand or, for some reason, decided to be ridiculously belligerent.
I refuse to provide proof unless you tell me what factual statement I have made which you consider to be erroneous. For the sake of clarity, tell me which of my 5 points you consider to be factually inaccurate.

Put up or shut up.

Click to expand...

No. All you did was repeat the vague assertions you've already made. All of which we're just supposed to take your word for. Not happening.

At this point you should just provide proof for every single, supposed factual statement you've made, since your obvious reluctance to provide any tells me that you are unable to do so. Until you do do, I'll just consider it all to be manufactured BS.

I asked you two very direct questions and instead of answering them. you cut them out of the post that you quoted. Answer them. Directly. With citations. Or. Shut. The. ****. Up.