This is so true...NBA vs NFL

[Bill Lee]

I disagree re: the concussion stuff, though. That's a huge issue that's literally killing these guys, and there's still too much that we don't know about the specifics of it: how far back does the brain damage go? How many years is it 'safe' to play? Etc. I can do without the other stuff, but I don't know how we can just hand-wave that away. It's a sobering realization and it's made football a lot less enjoyable to watch; I feel guilty for even enjoying it now. But ignoring that is no solution, and I think awareness is huge, at least in that it makes sure younger folks are educated on the risks they're taking before they start playing.

Thanks for the long-form posts. I feel some days that I'm catching up on Thaler, perhaps you are too?

It is a sobering realization, and one that would really be shaking up the "****tiest league office" if it wasn't so ****ty . Even their dumb ass reptilian brained drive openly stated since 2010 to reach $25B revenue (regardless of what it does to the sport) should allow for detection of the obvious threat to their greed filled desires.

It's clear that there is not going to be a simple answer because this is a medical situation where no simple rule can be used to answer things like "How many years is it 'safe' to play?". Doctors are going to be conservative and say "play as little as possible", etc. Given this, the reptiles might begin to think it's hard to have a league if the potential players are being told to play as little as possible. Then again, they'll probably see if they can't find a pool of "expendable" players they can draft in, or move towards a "flag football" version of the game and start letting the players take their helmets off after plays in the hopes that it'll boost the league's standing in this day of social media hype.

See, I meandered my way right back on target!

 

[Koma]

To a non-NFL fan, the predominant use of social media in the NFL seems to be about who is getting punished by the league and why. That's on Fraudell. He chose to make discipline his thing. Fraudell chose to generate months of drama over how much air was in a ball rather than nipping it in the bud. Now the owners have renewed his contract till 2024 so there's no reason to expect a change.

That's something that doesn't make much sense in trying to promote the NFL product. The amount of attention devoted to player or team misconduct makes it so that's one of things people think of when they think of the NFL. No one is going to buy a ticket or turn on a game because Goodell is a stickler for the rules*.

Consider the what happened around Brady's appeal and then the first court ruling in 2015. The NFL's decision mentioned spygate and then the ESPN hit piece after the Berman ruling re-hashed it again. Considering the company that produced that article, it's hard to believe that didn't go out without the NFL's blessing. In the middle of a "cheating" scandal the league created, the NFL was making sure people remembered a scandal from 8 years earlier. This was the league, not somebody on a message board or sports talk radio host, going out of their way to do this about a team that just won a title. How many casual fans are going to decide to become more dedicated when the NFL is telling you it's product is shady?

One other minor thing about social media: I have a Game of the Week for the Patriots-Steelers 2004 AFCCG on VHS. I always enjoyed the intro and music of both teams preparing and then coming out onto the field and decided to put that part on Youtube. I tried uploading it twice and it was taken down both times within minutes. It makes no sense to me. There are entire games out there, but a two minute clip can't stay out there.


*As long as NY team or the Steelers aren't involved.

 

[Pats1989]

I'll be honest here: I can't watch one minute of an NBA game. I lasted 30 seconds. NFL is a better, more popular product by a mile. When is the last time the Celtics were more popular than the Patriots? 80's?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'll be honest here: I can't watch one minute of an NBA game. I lasted 30 seconds. NFL is a better, more popular product by a mile. When is the last time the Celtics were more popular than the Patriots? 80's?

Early '90s, but that's what a 20 year NFL dynasty will get you.

 

[catent]

I'll be honest here: I can't watch one minute of an NBA game. I lasted 30 seconds. NFL is a better, more popular product by a mile. When is the last time the Celtics were more popular than the Patriots? 80's?

The first half of that sentence is entirely subjective, the latter is simply untrue. There is plenty of objective evidence and statistics that bear out that the NFL is not the more popular product - or at the very least, if it is, certainly not "by a mile". Not to mention the popularity gap (should one exist) is closing, and quickly.

 

[thecore762]

World wide the NBA is ahead, they are just better at marketing their product globally, they send their players overseas to promote it, with the NFL all they do is make 1-2 games a year in England and Mexico and I think Canada.

 

[Bill Lee]

How many casual fans are going to decide to become more dedicated when the NFL is telling you it's product is shady?

It's a great point. Viewing things in the best possible light, the NFL is a team game and integrity is important because individual/small acts can bring down the entire team and perhaps the league itself. However to take it to the extremes Fraudell opens up this never ending dialog about what is fair and what is not, and it takes so much energy away from the things people should be talking about, which is the performance of the players on the field.

If Tags was in charge during deflategate, he probably would have hit the Pats up for a stiff penalty but no player suspensions and moved on. Kraft would have took one for the 32 and it would have all blown over. The domestic violence stuff would be dealt with via the legal system, not by Roger appointing himself the czar. Note that Tags even overturned one of Fraudell's judgements when he was made independent arbiter. I bet Tags hates the way Fraudell is over-emphasizing discipline.

 

[Bill Lee]

World wide the NBA is ahead, they are just better at marketing their product globally, they send their players overseas to promote it, with the NFL all they do is make 1-2 games a year in England and Mexico and I think Canada.

NFL of course has a built-in impediment of needing two or more plane loads of players, staff and equipment to host a match. NBA needs a few balls, some sneakers and shorts, two dozen players, staff and some hangers-on.

It is a big deal for world wide adoption of NFL. World football just needs a ball and a pitch. NBA is a bit worse because hoops are needed, but that's largely manageable even in poor areas. With US football you end up with either a castrated form of the game such as flag football, or it ends up being a huge, expensive thing for even amateur level competition.

I don't think the NFL can aspire to world wide adoption like world football or basketball. I think its goals of playing in Europe are merely to attract new fans and new advertisers, and I can't see it leading to the kind of penetration that NBA/basketball has.

 

[Bill Lee]

I'll be honest here: I can't watch one minute of an NBA game. I lasted 30 seconds. NFL is a better, more popular product by a mile. When is the last time the Celtics were more popular than the Patriots? 80's?

I am not a huge NBA fan, but can see why others are. It's not just about what you see on the court, it's about the personality of the players and what they do on and off the court. It's celebrity driven, like so many things are these days.

Given your recollection of the 80s, chances are that you (or I for that matter) are not part of the target demographic that displays this phenomena the strongest.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I wish the NFL was the same

 

[lufc]

I agree on one hand. The domestic violence cluster**** is the other shoe dropping on the league: when you demand the kind of authority it now has, you become responsible for wielding that authority, and when you wield it in stupid and callous ways you're accountable for that. So no sympathy to the league for its current predicament, but I don't see the point in relitigating it every time some entitled, piece of ****, roided up moron beats his girlfriend. We're just covering the same old territory, and concluding yet again that the NFL is disproportionately comprised of ****ty, violent people, and that the league doesn't actually care for anything beyond PR purposes. We get it. It's a violent sport played by violent people

Likewise, I'm thoroughly over the Kaepernick stuff. There are legitimate football reasons not to want the guy as your backup. I respect Kaep's decision to take a moral stand that he felt compelled to take, and I like that it's spread across the league since I like politically active athletes, but I don't need to hear how he's better than the alternative every time some JAG QB sucks, because that's an overly simplistic analysis that I'm not convinced is actually true. Kaepernick is a ****ty quarterback who requires an offense to be built around his few strengths, and nobody's going to waste their time building offenses around ****ty players. It's the same roadblock that Tim Tebow ran into, and now they're both out of the league, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I disagree re: the concussion stuff, though. That's a huge issue that's literally killing these guys, and there's still too much that we don't know about the specifics of it: how far back does the brain damage go? How many years is it 'safe' to play? Etc. I can do without the other stuff, but I don't know how we can just hand-wave that away. It's a sobering realization and it's made football a lot less enjoyable to watch; I feel guilty for even enjoying it now. But ignoring that is no solution, and I think awareness is huge, at least in that it makes sure younger folks are educated on the risks they're taking before they start playing.

The concussion issue is obviously very important, but I don't think it's the gamebreaker for the nfl that a lot people do. In many ways now is the best time to be playing the game, with how serious concussions are now treated it's going to become a competitive advantage to avoid them, where as 10 years ago you could bash your head against a wall for 60 mins and nobody cared. So hopefully improvements in technology and tackling technique will all help.

 

[SalemPats]

NFL is a better product where every game matters, but the credibility of the league will increase when Goodell gets fired (my dream is that he gets deported to Syria, then arrested and thrown in a Syrian jail for the rest of his life).

Basketball is great, but it's a regional sport - if the Celtics suck, viewership goes down. The one thing about basketball is there are killing small market teams and there is not much parity

 

[slam]

I wish the NFL was the same

bballbreakdown is an awesome YouTube channel. The equivalent football X's and O's channels don't compare. There are also other basketball channels that break down tactics as well. And I can't count how many very good soccer strategy channels there are out there, instantaneously pointing out X's and O's and teaching strategy, going over the history of the game, highlighting past and current players. It's remarkable.

Football wise every attempt to do an X's and O's series seems half assed and underfunded. Usually the most you might see is a guy putting the camera on himself and talking about a game he just saw, which isn't as interesting as someone illustrating strategy points over footage, like the Belistrator segments. The channels which do that seem very sporadic, like Matt Chatham's attempts. It's a shame. Football is the sport which would benefit most from someone knowledgeable pointing out stuff you missed. The NFL office SHOULD quietly promote and help these ventures, or at least stay out of their way. Instead they're probably sending them cease and desist letters if they use too much footage.

 

[Bill Lee]

Basketball is great, but it's a regional sport - if the Celtics suck, viewership goes down.

Not sure they are all that different. A lot of the NBA hot teams are going to draw a national audience, and a lot of NFL teams lose audience when they suck. Some people are going to watch LeBron regardless of who he plays for. I watch a few different NFL teams out of this region just because I want to see how the star players perform. As above, it seems easier for the NBA star players to raise their profile than NFL players.

The one thing about basketball is there are killing small market teams and there is not much parity

Yep, that is the one thing the NFL has over others, a hard cap with a spending floor and spending limit. MLB could really use the same too.

 

[Jackson 2]

NFL is a better product where every game matters, but the credibility of the league will increase when Goodell gets fired (my dream is that he gets deported to Syria, then arrested and thrown in a Syrian jail for the rest of his life).

Basketball is great, but it's a regional sport - if the Celtics suck, viewership goes down. The one thing about basketball is there are killing small market teams and there is not much parity

I'll agree with you about the parity, or lack thereof. But, I believe it's an often repeated myth that small market teams can't be successful in the NBA: San Antonio, OKC, Cleveland, Phoenix, San Francisco are several cases in point. Knicks, Nets, Lakers have sucked for years now.

 

[SalemPats]

I'll agree with you about the parity, or lack thereof. But, I believe it's an often repeated myth that small market teams can't be successful in the NBA: San Antonio, OKC, Cleveland, Phoenix, San Francisco are several cases in point. Knicks, Nets, Lakers have sucked for years now.

It's more about the superteam trend

 

[SalemPats]

Not sure they are all that different. A lot of the NBA hot teams are going to draw a national audience, and a lot of NFL teams lose audience when they suck. Some people are going to watch LeBron regardless of who he plays for. I watch a few different NFL teams out of this region just because I want to see how the star players perform. As above, it seems easier for the NBA star players to raise their profile than NFL players.

Agreed - but NBA star players profile is greater because star players careers are longer and one player can change the fortune of a team. Their like QBs for football

 

[TommyD4207]

The one thing about basketball is there are killing small market teams and there is not much parity

There are 16 teams in the AFC.

Since the Super Bowl became an actual championship game, and not an AFL/NFL Exhibition (Super Bowl V), there have been 46 Super Bowls. These are the AFC Teams that have been to a Super Bowl:

New England - 9
Pittsburgh - 8
Denver - 7
Miami - 5
Oakland/Los Angeles - 4
Buffalo - 4
Baltimore/Indianapolis - 3
Baltimore - 2
Cinicnnati - 2
San Diego - 1
Tennessee - 1

So 11 teams from the AFC have represented the Super Bowl since it became a championship game, 37 of those 46 have been represented by 6 teams. 24 of the 46, or more than half, have been represented by 3 teams.

There are also 16 teams in the NFC.

Dallas - 8
San Francisco - 6
NY Giants - 5
Washington - 4
Los Angeles/St. Louis - 3
Green Bay - 3
Minnesota - 3
Seattle - 3
Atlanta - 2
Carolina - 2
Chicago - 2
Philadelphia - 2
New Orleans - 1
Tampa Bay - 1
Arizona - 1

15 of 16 teams from the NFC have gone to the Super Bowl (Poor Lions), but 8 of those acccount for 35 of the 46 appearances.

The NBA certainly doesn't have much in the way of parity, but the idea that the NFL has any parity at all is a myth. With one exception (Tennessee in 2000) since the 1996-97 season, the AFC has been represented in the Super Bowl by: New England, Pittsburgh, Denver, Oakland, Indianapolis or Baltimore.

 

[SalemPats]

There are 16 teams in the AFC.

Since the Super Bowl became an actual championship game, and not an AFL/NFL Exhibition (Super Bowl V), there have been 46 Super Bowls. These are the AFC Teams that have been to a Super Bowl:

New England - 9
Pittsburgh - 8
Denver - 7
Miami - 5
Oakland/Los Angeles - 4
Buffalo - 4
Baltimore/Indianapolis - 3
Baltimore - 2
Cinicnnati - 2
San Diego - 1
Tennessee - 1

So 11 teams from the AFC have represented the Super Bowl since it became a championship game, 37 of those 46 have been represented by 6 teams. 24 of the 46, or more than half, have been represented by 3 teams.

There are also 16 teams in the NFC.

Dallas - 8
San Francisco - 6
NY Giants - 5
Washington - 4
Los Angeles/St. Louis - 3
Green Bay - 3
Minnesota - 3
Seattle - 3
Atlanta - 2
Carolina - 2
Chicago - 2
Philadelphia - 2
New Orleans - 1
Tampa Bay - 1
Arizona - 1

15 of 16 teams from the NFC have gone to the Super Bowl (Poor Lions), but 8 of those acccount for 35 of the 46 appearances.

The NBA certainly doesn't have much in the way of parity, but the idea that the NFL has any parity at all is a myth. With one exception (Tennessee in 2000) since the 1996-97 season, the AFC has been represented in the Super Bowl by: New England, Pittsburgh, Denver, Oakland, Indianapolis or Baltimore.

There's parity that you can quickly rise from the bottom to the top

 

[primetime]

Yep, that is the one thing the NFL has over others, a hard cap with a spending floor and spending limit. MLB could really use the same too.

These are indicative of ownership's power over labor, which leads to Goodell. I'd prefer a soft cap in the NFL with a luxury tax and players capturing a larger share of the revenue over the ostensible field-leveling that a hard salary cap provides.