Once again, Sally Jenkins nails it...

[Ring 6]

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.

Your 5th point is why you and other posters disagree.
Those saying they are not giving the NFL any money by watching games are actually mimicking your 5th point.
They believe the NFL makes no more or less money whether they watch it not. Your arguments are based upon them being one of millions but as your 5th is clear on is they stopped watching the NFL would not know,care or lose a nickel.

 

[IllegalContact]

Your 5th point is why you and other posters disagree.
Those saying they are not giving the NFL any money by watching games are actually mimicking your 5th point.
They believe the NFL makes no more or less money whether they watch it not. Your arguments are based upon them being one of millions but as your 5th is clear on is they stopped watching the NFL would not know,care or lose a nickel.

nope.......I'm merely making the point that watching football doesn't cost me any money....and it doesn't

as far as ratings go and advertising dollars they earn based on the number of viewers, it's beyond my control........I don't make a difference whether I watch or not......so I'll watch because I feel like watching and not because of something absurd like personal feelings towards an owner or commissioner

 

[XLIX]

nope.......I'm merely making the point that watching football doesn't cost me any money....and it doesn't

as far as ratings go and advertising dollars they earn based on the number of viewers, it's beyond my control........I don't make a difference whether I watch or not......so I'll watch because I feel like watching and not because of something absurd like personal feelings towards an owner or commissioner

You wouldn't make a different if you bought merchandise or tickets either. For that matter, you wouldn't make a difference if you didn't vote this November. That's why these 3 person boycotts (which aren't even really boycotts) are ridiculous.

 

[XLIX]

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.

I do not need to provide proof of my assertion because nobody has challenged it.

If you want me to prove something, you have to tell me where I am wrong. So put up or shut up, little cry baby.

 

[Ivan]

You wouldn't make a different if you bought merchandise or tickets either. For that matter, you wouldn't make a difference if you didn't vote this November. That's why these 3 person boycotts (which aren't even really boycotts) are ridiculous.

While true for the most part I won't put more money in the owners pockets by buying their merchandise. It won't make any difference but at least I feel better spending it elsewhere.

 

[IllegalContact]

You wouldn't make a different if you bought merchandise or tickets either. For that matter, you wouldn't make a difference if you didn't vote this November. That's why these 3 person boycotts (which aren't even really boycotts) are ridiculous.

I don't care about a boycott.......I'm not spending my money on it, that's all I was saying all along

Your counter is what's pointless and ridiculous

 

[IllegalContact]

I do not need to provide proof of my assertion because nobody has challenged it.

If you want me to prove something, you have to tell me where I am wrong. So put up or shut up, little cry baby.

I'm not spending money on the NFL

challenge that

 

[XLIX]

I'm not spending money on the NFL

challenge that

I don't have the first clue what you're spending your money on.

You seem to think I have tremendous insight into your personal life and leisure activities. Not really sure why that is.

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't have the first clue what you're spending your money on.

You seem to think I have tremendous insight into your personal life and leisure activities. Not really sure why that is.

that was my point all along...I don't spend money on the NFL.....been 10 years now......I'm not sure of the relevance of the nielsen ******** you provided......I'm not boycotting

 

[ReverendMaynard]

I do not need to provide proof of my assertion because nobody has challenged it.

If you want me to prove something, you have to tell me where I am wrong. So put up or shut up, little cry baby.

Sorry. That's not how things work. You make assertions, you back them up.

Still didn't answer the questions I've already asked.

Full of ****.

 

[XLIX]

Sorry. That's not how things work. You make assertions, you back them up.

Actually that is how things work. If I make a factual assertion in a debate, and no one challenges its veracity, I can choose not to provide any supporting evidence because the statement is strong enough to stand on its own.

Still didn't answer the questions I've already asked.

Full of ****.

I answered every question you asked; you just didn't like the answers.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

Actually that is how things work. If I make a factual assertion in a debate, and no one challenges its veracity, I can choose not to provide any supporting evidence because the statement is strong enough to stand on its own.
I answered every question you asked; you just didn't like the answers.

I've challenged the veracity. I've asked over and over for proof because I don't believe the statements to be true.

You only "answered" by repeating yourself. You provided no additional clarification or any sources that could provide such.

I'm done with you.

 

[XLIX]

I've challenged the veracity. I've asked over and over for proof because I don't believe the statements to be true.

And I stated that I can't provide a graduate level course over a football forum, especially to someone as ignorant as yourself.

If you want a fantastic explanation of what I am saying, go read TheBostonStraggler's explanation in post 97.

I'm done with you.

buh bye

 

[IllegalContact]

And I stated that I can't provide a graduate level course over a football forum, especially to someone as ignorant as yourself.

If you want a fantastic explanation of what I am saying, go read TheBostonStraggler's explanation in post 97.
buh bye

I never got that "I'm done with you crap"

this place would be a morgue if someone expressed an opinion and everyone else went "yuh.....uhuh"

 

[XLIX]

I never got that "I'm done with you crap"

this place would be a morgue if someone expressed an opinion and everyone else went "yuh.....uhuh"

My favorite part is when someone says "I'm done with you" and then continues to respond anyway.

 

[Joker]

You're done with me.

 

[grux]

Another great article from Sally Jenkins. Keep up the great work Sally!

Redskins/NFL
The NFL acts as if it’s above science and the law — and that’s unacceptable

“Biased, agenda-driven, and self-approving.” With that powerful smack of a sentence, attorney Theodore Olson summed up the NFL. This is how the league conducts itself under Commissioner Roger Goodell, whether in its travesty of an arbitration with Tom Brady or its sham of a commitment to the National Institutes of Health on brain study, and attempts to foil and discredit legitimate researchers.

A pair of short, ringingly clear documents delivered a one-two punch to the league Monday. First, a congressional report condemned the NFL for its “improper” attempt to steer the NIH study of brain diseases afflicting players. Then an appeal by Olson on behalf of Brady to the 2nd Circuit brilliantly destroyed Goodell for running “roughshod over the rule of law” in suspending the New England Patriots quarterback for four games on no evidence. They should be read as companion pieces, and read closely, because they form a consistent portrait of how the league does business. It has no real respect for law, or labor or science.

The NFL acts as if it’s above science and the law — and that’s unacceptable

 

[PatsBoy12]

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.

Yup. Berman and the Circuit Court is not ruling on his guilt or innocence. You're right.

 

[Bill Lee]

Another great article from Sally Jenkins. Keep up the great work Sally!

Given the context of this thread about what we should or should not click on, and your stated support for Sally, why not just put a link to her article instead of quoting it all inline so she *might* get a bit of credit for writing it?

 

[turkeyneck]

That was just the start of the NFL’s attempt to pressure the NIH into depriving Stern of a grant. Dr. Richard Ellenbogen, the “independent” co-chair of the league’s Head, Neck and Spine committee, made two calls to the NIH’s Dr. Walter Koroshetz, telling him outright that he wouldn’t recommend that the NFL honor its pledge if the money went to Stern, according to the congressional report. Ellenbogen had applied for the grant and been rejected, finishing second. Ellenbogen told USA Today that the calls were strictly about “protocols” of the study. But he had no business even picking up the phone.

Jeff Miller, the NFL’s head of health and safety, and other league medical advisors also assailed the NIH with calls and emails, trying to discredit Stern and suggesting the selection process had been flawed. Even though Stern’s proposal had been chosen after a lengthy peer review and evaluation.

The congressional report describes one impropriety after another. The NFL not only continually attempted to redirect grant money away from Stern and BU, but, conveniently, every one of its suggestions for redirecting the money had it going instead to the NFL’s own medical consultants.

The NFL was attempting to capture the NIH's imprimatur for what they hoped would be, in effect, an NFL in-house study. That is, the NFL attempted to assure that their 'donation' to NIH was steered to their pet researchers. The resulting report, no doubt favorable to NFL interests, could then be touted as "Independent NIH Says No Harm From Football Concussions". Kudos to NIH for both smelling out the rat and doing a proper study instead.