NFL

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by tx_tuff

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

Originally Posted by Starscream

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.

What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Stephen

No, that's not what you did. You ignored a good percentage of their monies received because, well, actually I don't know why you did that. But you did.

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives. And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Starscream

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.

I believe the discussion started when it was said that MLB players make significantly more money than their NFL counterparts, despite being the most popular sport in America.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives.

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one last time, slower still...

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squadwould be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player

Did you see? If not, I'll break it down again...

Originally Posted by Stephen

top 25 paid players

You comparing salary vs. salary is a strawman set up by yourself to knock it down. The only time I even used the word, "salary" is when I directly quoted the source (USA Today page here) which included all bonuses earned for total compensation.

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed.

Pleae tell me which eight players out of the top twenty five were no longer on the Saints roster...

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that.

Does reading comprehension escape you? Seriously man...

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care.

Originally Posted by Stephen

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Originally Posted by Starscream

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers.

Originally Posted by Stephen

...his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

That should about bring you up to speed. Now you can get back to constructing strawmen...

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Stephen

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despite putting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despiteputting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?

Baseballs attempt to give mid and small market teams a better chance to stay competive with large markets without capping salaries. Team that do use it properly use it to good effect. Revenue sharing itself isn't enough to save a team running in the red, look at the Expos. The Marlins have it toughest in all of baseball finacially, yet they still turn a profit.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

I know it applies to the Reds. Management put a winning ball club on the field this year, yet ticket sales were only up by a small margin. Their pathetic attempt in the playoffs were sold out though.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Starscream

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.

I know Andy

To add to what you said, I do think that any team that makes the post season will see attendance spike. But the regular season numbers will be mostly the same, regardless of winning %.

[Bruins Fan]

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?

Originally Posted by Bruins Fan

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?

Funny thing is the NFLPA wanted a lower cap on the rookies also, they just didn't agree with what to do with the money saved. But I think they agreed on the lockout.

Funny how the NFL players are no longer part of the NFLPA, and in fact the undrafted players would not be anyway. But NFLPA is still running the show? Please!

[Bruins Fan]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

Originally Posted by Bruins Fan

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

I'm sure finding a network would be the easy part. Even if they do its not the same thing as being at the real draft. If you are a top 10 prospect you would be crazy not to attend the real deal and get to walk across the stage. You only get to do it once. Not far for the NFLPA to ask these guys to do this, the lockout will be over in a few months no mater what but you missed out on a day you should never forget!