I want mo' money

[Ring 6]

For the record, and something that you seem to fight against constantly:

It destroys your argument. That's the level that matters.

Then again, you've been wrong on just about everything regarding this, so why should one more example matter to you, right?

1) I specified that I was not talking about the short term, so 3 weeks is an irrelevant example.
2) I specified that the knowing the best players were being held out would affect it
3) The scabs had next to no practice time, so the play was not real competitive
4) There were dramatic differences in the talent level between teams so it wasn't competitive.

Should I go on?
Please explain to me how the 3 games with scabs in 1987 is a shining example to prove that the popularity of the NFL is based upon the individual athleticism of the players and not the competiveness of the games.

It does nothing to my argument because it doesnt come close to being an example, other than being an example of what you are incorrectly pretending my argument is.

Of course adding in your obligatory insult is sound evidence that even you know your argument is weak so you must try to support it with crap.

 

[jsull87]

These would be the same owners who worked out broadcast contracts that screwed the players and protected themselves in the event of a work stoppage, right? The same group that has had Mike Brown giving himself a "GM bonus"?

Can't imagine why the players wouldn't feel trusting of such gents. :bricks:

Is he the GM? Do GM's receive bonuses? Therefore he has the right to give himself a GM bonus... was there something wrong in that line of reasoning?

And as far as the Broadcast rights i don't know alot about that personally other than they negotiated a deal with the TV companies that the money they receive can be back loaded to 2011 all legal but i understand how it can be viewed as "sneaky" in my opinion it's just a business trying to mitigate it's risk.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No we are talking about running a business.
You stated that they should have to prove they are losing money in order to backup their proposal of lower costs.
If they simply want to make more profit that is their prerogative.
Perhaps you feel they have no right to make their profits, but of course they do, and there will not be an NFL if they do not have the ability to get there.

The analogy was not intended to be analalogous to the labor negotiations it was to address you saying this:

If you do not understand the difference between a company making money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can make more money" versus a company losing money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can return to profitability" then there's nothing I can say to help you

Where you imply they have a right to address loses but not increase profit.

You're still ignoring that it was the owners who opted out, and the union has a level of say in the matter that your analogy doesn't account for, because the antitrust exemption is contingent on a CBA. Unless you can come up with an analogy that addresses that simple fact, it won't be a good a one.

 

[Ring 6]

Is he the GM? Do GM's receive bonuses? Therefore he has the right to give himself a GM bonus... was there something wrong in that line of reasoning?

And as far as the Broadcast rights i don't know alot about that personally other than they negotiated a deal with the TV companies that the money they receive can be back loaded to 2011 all legal but i understand how it can be viewed as "sneaky" in my opinion it's just a business trying to mitigate it's risk.

He is citing an article where it was revealed in court during an estate settlement that Mike Brown was given a GM bonus when the team was bad as an example of malfeasance by the owners.

He has yet to show anyone how that was used to anyones detriment, since it is legal for Brown to pay himself, and legal to do it as a bonus, and the implied 'cooking of the books' by calling it payroll rather than profit was somehow evil, even though the Bengals have never used their resulting profit or loss for any purpose that this expense determination would affect.

In other words, there was an article about Mike Brown that put him in a bad light (because he got paid while his team played badly) and therefore that means the NFL owners are corrupt.
Sensationalism on a message board. Is that what we have come to?

 

[Ring 6]

You're still ignoring that it was the owners who opted out,

Not at all, Ive mentioned it 100 times.

and the union has a level of say in the matter that your analogy doesn't account for,

Yes they can make an offer, and accept or reject the unions.

By the way the analogy was used for the narrow purpose of responding to the claim that the owners would have a right to ask for more if they were losing money but not if there profits were lower than they found acceptable. It was never intended to be analagous to the NFL/NFLPA dispute.

because the antitrust exemption is contingent on a CBA. Unless you can come up with an analogy that addresses that simple fact, it won't be a good a one.

See above, you are misapplying the analogy.

Side note and a pet peeve of mine: when someone tries to reduce complex economic issues down to an analogy about shoveling snow or selling lemonade or anything oie that, they usually either don't understand the real issues themselves or they're making a disingenuous argument.

Or, as I have stated for the second time, they are not making an analogy to the complex economic issue but to an aspect of the discussion.

In this case, to the argument that the owners would have the right to ask for more revenue if they were losing money but not if they were making an unacceptable profit.
The analogy made it simple to illustrate. Thats usually the point of an analogy to apply a concept to an easier to understand example.

Leaving aside the fact that analogies are borderline useless as logical devices, running a real business, let alone a multi-billion dollar league, is so much more complicated than a lemonade stand that an analogy becomes completely pointless.

Again, the analogy is simply to the point that it would be OK to justify their point with losses but not with mediocre profits.

Obviously I wasnt comparing the NFL to a lemonade stand.

Are you saying that the owners have a right to ask for a higher portion of revenues if they are losing money they have no right to ask for that to increase unacceptable profits? That is the discussion you jumped into.

 

[Ring 6]

1) I specified that I was not talking about the short term, so 3 weeks is an irrelevant example.
2) I specified that the knowing the best players were being held out would affect it
3) The scabs had next to no practice time, so the play was not real competitive
4) There were dramatic differences in the talent level between teams so it wasn't competitive.

Should I go on?
Please explain to me how the 3 games with scabs in 1987 is a shining example to prove that the popularity of the NFL is based upon the individual athleticism of the players and not the competiveness of the games.

It does nothing to my argument because it doesnt come close to being an example, other than being an example of what you are incorrectly pretending my argument is.

Of course adding in your obligatory insult is sound evidence that even you know your argument is weak so you must try to support it with crap.

Prediction:

This one goes down in the record book along with
"Nick Kaczur won the starting LG job because he worked out there on the first day of camp"
and
"The salary cap hasn't affect NFL teams decisions to sign players for years"

as the failed Deus Irae arguments that never get responded to after they are exposed.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Prediction:

This one goes down in the record book along with
"Nick Kaczur won the starting LG job because he worked out there on the first day of camp"
and
"The salary cap hasn't affect NFL teams decisions to sign players for years"

as the failed Deus Irae arguments that never get responded to after they are exposed.

We can't say with any certainty how it would have turned out, but up until he got hurt Kaczur was clearly the starting LG.

 

[Deus Irae]

Prediction:

This one goes down in the record book along with
"Nick Kaczur won the starting LG job because he worked out there on the first day of camp"
and
"The salary cap hasn't affect NFL teams decisions to sign players for years"

as the failed Deus Irae arguments that never get responded to after they are exposed.

You do like to slant what people have posted, I'll give you that. What you're claiming about Kaczur is not what I said.

What you're claiming about the cap is twisting what I said.

What's obvious about the GM bonus shouldn't need explanation. Whether you like to admit it or not, it's an owner playing money games with the books.

 

[Deus Irae]

Is he the GM? Do GM's receive bonuses? Therefore he has the right to give himself a GM bonus... was there something wrong in that line of reasoning?

Yes. It completely misses the point.

 

[Deus Irae]

1) I specified that I was not talking about the short term, so 3 weeks is an irrelevant example.
2) I specified that the knowing the best players were being held out would affect it
3) The scabs had next to no practice time, so the play was not real competitive
4) There were dramatic differences in the talent level between teams so it wasn't competitive.

Should I go on?
Please explain to me how the 3 games with scabs in 1987 is a shining example to prove that the popularity of the NFL is based upon the individual athleticism of the players and not the competiveness of the games.

It does nothing to my argument because it doesnt come close to being an example, other than being an example of what you are incorrectly pretending my argument is.

Of course adding in your obligatory insult is sound evidence that even you know your argument is weak so you must try to support it with crap.

TV revenues were down 20% just in that short period of time.

The scabs were short term because of external circumstances. That was good, because people were hating them more and more. The USFL, UFL, XFL, and other leagues have also failed, as long term attempts. Only the Arena League lasted for any significant time (not surprisingly, it was the least like football, and the most easily transferred to significantly smaller venues), and that, too, bit the dust eventually.

There are dramatic differences in the talent level even today.

 

[Ring 6]

We can't say with any certainty how it would have turned out, but up until he got hurt Kaczur was clearly the starting LG.

He worked there for 1 day. That is far from clear that he was the starter. He had never played there, he was competing.

 

[Ring 6]

You do like to slant what people have posted, I'll give you that. What you're claiming about Kaczur is not what I said..

You have said repeatedly that Connolly only played because 2 starting LGs, Mankins and Kaczur were not there. Now you are backtracking. Nice thing is when I have time, I will find the post because they are on the record

What you're claiming about the cap is twisting what I said.

Again I will look it up and repost, because you did say the cap has not affected signing for years, and even credited it to Miguel, who as far as I can tell never backed that up.

What's obvious about the GM bonus shouldn't need explanation. Whether you like to admit it or not, it's an owner playing money games with the books.

It shouldn't need explanation because there is nothing at all wrong with it, which is why you will refuse to explain.
The owner has every right to pay that bonus. It is not playing games with the books. He can pay himself whatever he sees fit.
The only reason it could be even considered questionable was if he did it, hid it, then used a lower profit to his advanatage claiming it included all his own income. If you know ANYTHING about accounting you would know that there is nothing inappropriate about this.
Please do explain how you feel an owner of a company paying himself out of the company is wrong.

 

[jsull87]

Yes. It completely misses the point.

Well stated and articulate argument... no wonder your swaying the masses.

there is no point in even having this discussion because when someone counters your point you just make a snide remark and dismiss that persons point of view... respect

 

[Ring 6]

TV revenues were down 20% just in that short period of time.

The scabs were short term because of external circumstances. That was good, because people were hating them more and more. The USFL, UFL, XFL, and other leagues have also failed, as long term attempts. Only the Arena League lasted for any significant time (not surprisingly, it was the least like football, and the most easily transferred to significantly smaller venues), and that, too, bit the dust eventually.

There are dramatic differences in the talent level even today.

Aside from trying to give a history lesson what does any of that do to illustrate your argument that my position of:

The drawing card of the NFL is not the individual talents of the players but the competitiveness of the games, and if you took away the top 100 players after an initial decrease in popularity, the NFL would be just as popular because the games being competitive would be the main attraction.

Because you said earlier that the 3 scabs games completely invalidates that long term assessment.
The 20% decline in ratings are probably less than my scenario would suggest.

All of the other stuff is irrelevant to you showing how "The scabs" invalidated my entire argument.
Are you conceeding that you were wrong?

 

[Ring 6]

You do like to slant what people have posted, I'll give you that. What you're claiming about Kaczur is not what I said.

What you're claiming about the cap is twisting what I said.

What's obvious about the GM bonus shouldn't need explanation. Whether you like to admit it or not, it's an owner playing money games with the books.

Your words on the cap:

1.) As I believe Miguel has noted multiple times in the past, salary cap has not been an issue for NFL teams in years. It certainly wasn't an issue for the Patriots. The team had the money to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, particularly with the 2010 season being uncapped.

Please explain how I twisted your words?
These are your words and they say, just as I posted that the cap has not been an issue for teams in years. You even said Miguel has noted it mulitple times, but never showed even one when I asked.

Concede on this point?

 

[Ring 6]

You do like to slant what people have posted, I'll give you that. What you're claiming about Kaczur is not what I said.

What you're claiming about the cap is twisting what I said.

What's obvious about the GM bonus shouldn't need explanation. Whether you like to admit it or not, it's an owner playing money games with the books.

Your words on Connolly/Kaczur

Connolly

wasn't good enough to win the starting job. Connolly wasn't good enough to win the backup job. Connolly was the 3rd option who was forced into action when the player who was "good enough to start" (Mankins) decided not to sign his tender, and the player who was being converted from tackle to guard and taking the snaps with the first team (Kaczur) got injured. Then, when Mankins came back to the team, Neal, the guy who was "good enough to start" at RG went on the IR. Connolly was not the "good enough to start" player. He was the "The guys who were good enough to start are injured, and so is the #1 backup, so he's next on the list" guy.

What part of this is too difficult for you to grasp?

So if Connolly wasn't good enough to be the starter or backup and was the 3rd option, then Kaczur beat him out.
As I said you claim Kaczur had the starting job because he lined up there for 1 day in camp.

Concede this one?

 

[upstater1]

Yes, I think Division 1AA football is great. I think High School football is great too.
My point is that the NFL doesnt attract fans because of the level of talent but the level of competition.
For example, there could be 100 people out there that are better than anyone in the NFL right now and we dont know it because we havent seen them. The issue is how competitive they are. No one is paying to see them go through drills to show off their athleticism, they are paying to see them compete against equally talented players.

The owners side is not the same thing because I am not talking about the individual owners, I am talking about what they do to increase the popularity of the game.

A better way to put it is:
If the owners owners did nothing to increase the popularity of the game, through marketing, exposure, stadium investment, media relations, etc, it would have a bigger impact on the popularity of the game than it the talent level of the players was watered down, as long the play was competitive.

Of course the current players have name value, so there would be an immediate affect on popularity, but it would not last long, as is evident by the growing popularity even though the most poplular players of 15-20 years ago are retired. Individual players are replacable, the efforts of ownership to grow the popularity of the sport is not.

Even if I were to partially agree with you about competition, I think you're missing out on the brand the stars have built, the Brady's, Manning's, brees's. They would attract viewers elsewhere away from the NFL and create the perception that there was better football being played elsewhere.

By the way, the NFL is such a passing league, and I don't think you could easily trade say Brady for another QB. Some college ball is really really bad. some of these guys can't complete a pass to save their lives. Even at the BCS college level. Even in the BCS bowls we see horrid throwing and bad accuracy, very few passes completed. They get viewers, but again I wonder how many are alumni etc. Take a school like PSU for instance. Their alumni base is enormous.

 

[Ring 6]

Even if I were to partially agree with you about competition, I think you're missing out on the brand the stars have built, the Brady's, Manning's, brees's. They would attract viewers elsewhere away from the NFL and create the perception that there was better football being played elsewhere.

By the way, the NFL is such a passing league, and I don't think you could easily trade say Brady for another QB. Some college ball is really really bad. some of these guys can't complete a pass to save their lives. Even at the BCS college level. Even in the BCS bowls we see horrid throwing and bad accuracy, very few passes completed. They get viewers, but again I wonder how many are alumni etc. Take a school like PSU for instance. Their alumni base is enormous.

I recognize that dynamic.
The question was whether the players or efforts of ownership (marketing, etc) are more responsible for the growth of the league.
My point was that the popularity of the league is based more on the competitveness of games than the talent level of individual players.
If you replaced players across the board with less talented ones who played equally competitive games, the league would be as popular and THOSE players would be the Bradys, Mannings, etc.
If you remove the job the league has done in marketing itself the talents of the players would still not have produced the same popularity. If you remove the competiveness of the games no one will watch, like the pro bowl.
Of course it is all hypothetical, and of course if the owners fired those players their would be backlash from fans, but to get to the point of the topic, if those players never existed, the ones in their place would be as popular and the league would as well.
In other words if the worst players good enough to make the league were the best players in it and nothing else changed, I believe it would be as popular, and those players would the stars that are idolized.
I do not believe you would notice an appreciable difference in the quality of the game with the 1000-2600th best players in the world than you would with the 1600 best.
In fact, as other sports show us, there are athletes in other countries who would be better than many NFL players, and no one is missing their elevated skills.
I don't know if I am being real clear here.

 

[bucky]

Yes. It completely misses the point.

You keep telling everyone that they're "missing the point". And yet you refuse to explain the point. I realize that you're a certifiable genius and it's difficult for you to deal with any imbecile who might disagree with any of your "points" from time to time. However, if you happen to wake up on the right side of the bed, perhaps you can enlighten the world with some of the incredible valuable content bottled up inside the Royal grey matter of Deus Irae .

 

[Ring 6]

You keep telling everyone that they're "missing the point". And yet you refuse to explain the point. I realize that you're a certifiable genius and it's difficult for you to deal with any imbecile who might disagree with any of your "points" from time to time. However, if you happen to wake up on the right side of the bed, perhaps you can enlighten the world with some of the incredible valuable content bottled up inside the Royal grey matter of Deus Irae .

Good point wrong thread because he will be ignoring this one now.