25% of players (max!) care about winning the Super Bowl

[tasmlab]

I think I found the player survey results:

A. I just want to win, baby, and win it all! - 25%
B. I want to win the SB, but I manage my expectations because it I know not every team gets in - 25%
C. I balance multiple priorities - I want to win, but I also care about work environment, money, career stability, etc. - 25%
D. My main priority is money and providing for my future, but winning would be great - 25%

Only 25% of players cared about winning a super bowl. Those mercenary bastards!

 

[Clonamery]

I thought it was 87.3% (the decimal adds some validity to the number )

I think (rarely) that it is 100.0% certain (poppycock) that statistics (including decimal points) are used (manipulated) to prove (science, no it's God...no, it's science...) one's point of view (I usually - 99.9% of the time - wait for someone else to respond/explain before I agree or disagree because experience has proven over time I don't know anything but I do know nothing).

 

[Tuck]

Who knows what the actual percentage is but it does stand to reason that more players in football care primarily about financial gain than baseball or basketball players because of the precarious position they’re forced into by the CBA and he top heavy salary structure that leaves most guys at or near the bottom and only a handful of guys making enough to feel like they’re set for life. Kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs....The more relevent question for a fan is how many owners care about winning a Super Bowl? That I’d like to know.

 

[Kontradiction]

After all the **** that’s been lobbed at the Pats over the years, this is the talking point that the media is down to. That winning isn’t the be-all, end-all for every player. Well, no ****.

 

[jah]

After all the **** that’s been lobbed at the Pats over the years, this is the talking point that the media is down to. That winning isn’t the be-all, end-all for every player. Well, no ****.

And I think I prefer it this way compared to the "accusations of cheating that result in actual punishment" thing from before.

 

[Kontradiction]

And I think I prefer it this way compared to the "accusations of cheating that result in actual punishment" thing from before.

Yep. And obviously there is no one way to go about winning. You can have a culture of players that want to have fun or make money before working hard and still win a Super Bowl. Philly just did it. But this is just a really weak grenade to lob.

 

[BTTA]

I don’t see how you could justify leaving a portion of cash like that on the table. We are talking about 1/3rd difference in pay. Assuming the low end contract means the player is not a long term lock in the league, nor an end of career player looking for a twilight, I would absolutely take the money. That’s almost a couple decades worth of honest pay for most fortunate folks...

This. An NFL player can't count on getting paid any more than what is guaranteed in their current contract. Nor can they count on making a decent living after football; some will, some won't. Their entire life has been about preparing for football (most of their college degrees are close to worthless, because of the % that come from football factory schools). So the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can. $1M difference in a contract can make a huge difference 20 years later.

 

[Patriot Missile]

That's because as Darwin once said, "To survive in the NFL one must adapt skills and athleticism with greater desire to survive to earn good money or undoubtably suffer the negative consequences of natural selection and be thrust into a smarmy bile of toxicity and embarrassment in due course known as 'performing for the ****tiest for more monetary return' or more commonly known as playin for the Jete."

I think it was Connor Barwin, not Darwin that said that.

 

[Steve102]

After all the **** that’s been lobbed at the Pats over the years, this is the talking point that the media is down to. That winning isn’t the be-all, end-all for every player. Well, no ****.

This is why a player takes the $$ from a team that has no shot at winning a Super Bowl. Is it as high as 25%? I bet it's higher, but it's not a take it or leave it scenario. It's not so cut and dreid, that player X doesn't give a chit about winning.

I would suggest there's a large amount of players that will sign for... let's say Miami or San Diego... because of location. Imagine being a wealthy 20-something in one of those cities. There's a bunch that will sign with a team because that team is in an area of the country that is a nice place to raise a family. There's a bunch of players that will sign with a team because it affords them more off the field opportunities. Other's will pick a coaching staff. I think there's a smaller group that is the ultra-focused, winning is the only thing that matters. Some of those guys end up here.

Of course, I could've just said "No chit" like Kontra did, too.

 

[Clonamery]

I think it was Connor Barwin, not Darwin that said that.

I'm not sure. Barwinism, or the theory of the evolution of college defensive linemen to the professional football league by natural selection in the draft, is in regards to positional transition to playing other positions such as linebacker.....not necessarily the ability to play for more money in the swamplands of NJ.

 

[borg]

Who knows what the actual percentage is but it does stand to reason that more players in football care primarily about financial gain than baseball or basketball players because of the precarious position they’re forced into by the CBA and he top heavy salary structure that leaves most guys at or near the bottom and only a handful of guys making enough to feel like they’re set for life. Kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs....The more relevent question for a fan is how many owners care about winning a Super Bowl? That I’d like to know.

Bingo on the green portion of your message. College stars sitting out irrelevant bowl games demonstrates the mindset of many. Survive to get paid.

Disagree on the red opinion. All NFL teams are equal in the sense they have essentially the same costs and all are profitable. Creating excess income doesn't necessarily translate to better field performance..aka ....winning. Refer to the Dallas Cowboys. The formula for championships includes quality QB play and coaching....two very scarce commodities.
In the NFL, there is no incentive to be bad. The bump in franchise values for winning teams is a major incentive.

 

[XLIX]

May be correct for the fringe athlete who is hanging on for a minimum contract, but for the average player in a billion dollar business like the NFL or NBA it's a ridiculous take. Let's say contender A offers a player 2 million per year guaranteed and 4 overall. Team B offers the same player 3 million guaranteed with 6 overall. You really want to argue that it's not possible "put food on the table and have a roof over your head" with 2 million per year?

I see fans employ this logic all the time and it's easy to do when it's not your money. However, in the scenario you just painting, an extra $1 million is a 50% raise which is a huge amount of money. The vast majority of pro athletes would take the 50% raise. (Now, of course, in the real world there are all sorts of other considerations such as the fact that winning a championship may lead to greater long term financial gains, but let's for the sake of argument look at this hypothetical in a vacuum)

I think with all things being equal, athletes would prefer winning championships. Duh. The question is for how many athletes is that their top priority? I believe that is just for a very small amount.

 

[Joey007]

You’re missing the point here.

Players have to perform well if they want paid well, and a collective group of players performing well usually leads to more winning.

They both come hand in hand. It’s not like they have no desire to win, because winning is part of what gets them paid.

 

[maust]

May be correct for the fringe athlete who is hanging on for a minimum contract, but for the average player in a billion dollar business like the NFL or NBA it's a ridiculous take. Let's say contender A offers a player 2 million per year guaranteed and 4 overall. Team B offers the same player 3 million guaranteed with 6 overall. You really want to argue that it's not possible "put food on the table and have a roof over your head" with 2 million per year?

That's hardly realistic. It's not about feeding their family for $2m a year. In a business that has an average career span akin to the life of a may fly that $2m (maybe $1.4m after taxes) needs to be looked at in terms of what it will yield over the 50 years of life obligations that follow the end of a career. By volume alone agents represent a lot more guys at the lower end of the earnings scale than they do guys whose futures are already bulletproof. Looked at in the correct light the average player that doesn't maximize his earnings is being irresponsible towards his family obligations. People that knock an average player by intimating they are doing something wrong in putting money over 'other priorities' are ignoring a very basic fact, for most of us providing for our families is rightfully our highest priority.

 

[Deus Irae]

This. An NFL player can't count on getting paid any more than what is guaranteed in their current contract. Nor can they count on making a decent living after football; some will, some won't. Their entire life has been about preparing for football (most of their college degrees are close to worthless, because of the % that come from football factory schools). So the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can. $1M difference in a contract can make a huge difference 20 years later.

Once you've made enough money to cover financial needs for your life and a bit more, the rest is gravy. The notion that "the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can" is actually a very bad one. The smart player with family responsibilities, who's made sufficient money for his liftetime, should have a host of priorities above money.

 

[Kontradiction]

Once you've made enough money to cover financial needs for your life and a bit more, the rest is gravy. The notion that "the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can" is actually a very bad one. The smart player with family responsibilities, who's made sufficient money for his liftetime, should have a host of priorities above money.

Maslow’s hierarchy.

 

[Angelpats]

Seems reasonable. Most of them want to get paid and if they happen to win a championship they embrace that too. Most of them came from families that have known struggle so it’s understandable that’s what they would seek fight first.

 

[BTTA]

Once you've made enough money to cover financial needs for your life and a bit more, the rest is gravy. The notion that "the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can" is actually a very bad one. The smart player with family responsibilities, who's made sufficient money for his liftetime, should have a host of priorities above money.

Depends on how one defines "family." I should have also included community.

Here's a values sorting exercise. Choose your preference of:
1. Making $10M and playing for a winning team
2. Making $14M and playing for a winning team while being the lead donor on a community hospital and making it possible.

 

[maust]

Once you've made enough money to cover financial needs for your life and a bit more, the rest is gravy. The notion that "the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can" is actually a very bad one. The smart player with family responsibilities, who's made sufficient money for his liftetime, should have a host of priorities above money.

The notion that "the smart player with family responsibilities will be as mercenary as they can" is actually the realistic one since the overwhelming number of contracts are not being negotiated for players that have 'made sufficient money' for their lifetime.

 

[Deus Irae]

Depends on how one defines "family." I should have also included community.

Here's a values sorting exercise. Choose your preference of:
1. Making $10M and playing for a winning team
2. Making $14M and playing for a winning team while being the lead donor on a community hospital and making it possible.

???