Did it though? How much less is any player making? :think:
Town Quixote's
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The "less" will be in direct proportion to the TV revenue which will be lost because of his antics.
Has any been lost as yet? I know stadium attendance took a marginal dip for a while, mostly in non-competitive markets. The biggest problem everyone on tv has these days is from people like me, cord cutters. Makes it hard to track who is watching what and on what device.
The last time I saw stats that caused traditional measurements of viewers to drop across the board, though the NFL dropped significantly less than other content. Until they figure out how to fix that or glean what's going on it'll be hard for networks to not appease their biggest sure thing.
Also, filed under funny but true, polling has shown that when asked a number of Americans lie about whether or not they're watching the NFL (a conclusion arrived at by tabulating the difference between professed viewers and the numbers). Or at least they did last year. I think most of that politically motivated ire has petered out. I know that no one in my FB feed is talking about it any longer and they talked and talked it do death for around a year.
Now I mostly hear conversations about the Saints being robbed, or KC being robbed, and who they're pulling against in the SB. :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The advertising revenue was down about 20% for the 2018 season. No matter what the ratings were the NFL owners and players will never get the money which they would have if it were not for Colin.
I know ratings are down for everything, largely due to other devices for watching and habits changing...cord cutters are impacting their ability to know who is up to what as well. But if I'm not mistaken the NFL gets its money up front from the networks and given it's still the heaviest hitter in terms of grabbing viewers, my bet is that the millionaires and billionaires club boys will be just fine.
It will be interesting to see how interested America is in this Super Bowl though. Will the cycle narrative be enough to draw middle America? New England vs the Saints would have been a good draw, I think. I'm less sure about the transplanted Rams.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What I am saying is that the "advertising revenue" is down irregardless of the ratings. The NFL should never have tolerated "protests" of this kind in the first place because, after all, the NFL is a business.
Do you think that employees of any business enterprise have a right to make political protests of any kind while on the job, especially protests which can harm the financial well being of that enterprise?
The present NFL commissioner blew it!
It's an unusual one though, given that the players performance is the product. So the relationship isn't the traditional employer/employee relationship.
You'd think both sides could have gotten together and approached this differently. Part of the problem was that the NFL wasn't ready to consider it, had no unified position and scrambled for a while with what to do about it.
Oh, he's never going to get out in front of a thing. Ask the Saints.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I can't see how the employee's job description changes the fact that he has no right to make political protests of any kind while doing his job, especially if that protest can harm the financial well being of that enterprise.
The employer would not break any law if he fired such a protester. So Colin should have been given the choice of ceasing from his protest or of being fired.
Because the enterprise here is the entertainer, not the structure that supports him. No one is going to an NFL stadium to see the logo. And owners can't get around the players by putting lesser players in their place. We expect a superior product.
It gives the player's union a strength not found in any traditional corporation that uses people to make a thing.
It's all about the employment contract. So it depends. And here, even if the contract gave them the authority, it wouldn't be worth the cost come the next round of negotiations with the union.
No, not as I understand their contract. But it's a thing that could be negotiated in the next one. It looks like it got him blackballed though. I hope he wins his legal battle with the league, though I never cared for his choice of protest.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
By the time of the next round of negotiations the owners can tell the players union that the player's protests have lead to a big decrease in the advertising revenue and so the NFL's next contract with the networks will be less than it would have been if there had been no protests. So taking that into consideration the owners will be able to force the union to decide if they want to allow the players to protest or not. If the unions want the players to protest then they must be willing to allow the owners to cut the percentage the players get.
In any case the harm has already been done and it certainly didn't work out well for Colin and it will not for any of the other players or owners. And I see no evidence at all that Colin's goal for protesting resulted in any improvement at all.
They'd have to prove it. As it stands, revenue for all programming is down and the NFL appears to be doing better as a draw than most or all of the rest.
It will more than likely be a lesser increase, not less. The NFL, as a draw, has the upper hand in negotiating a commodity that outperforms the competition. Meaning that while the networks might attempt to slow the growth of what they pay citing the overall decline of viewers, the NFL will as likely only capitulate along the margin, responding that most of what we're seeing is a shift in how people view their games.
The networks will then (and already do) have a vested interest in figuring out how to reconfigure and relate to this shift, how to objectively quantify it. Should be interesting.
That rests on too many assumptions. Best bet? The pie gets larger. Not as large as it might have been, but you won't see a decrease. It will only impact the size of the increase while the networks and others who could profit by it, develop a new way to measure things.
I'd agree it didn't do Collin any financial or professional good and that it may take some potential coins off the table, but the conversation and investment, from NFL coffers to players and leaders in any number of communities taking time to more seriously commit themselves and resources to bridging the gap between minorities and authority, to review and reconsider the status quo, that's a public good that will continue to pay dividends, so long as the will is there to promote it.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I have seen absolutely no evidence that the NFL protests lead to any significant changes in regard to what the protests were about.
On the networks there was very little talk about that but instead the results were that the people who wanted to watch the games as pure entertainment were disgusted to see such political protests mixed with their entertainment. And it was even worse than that because the protesters showed disrespect to the American Stars and Sripes, the symbol of what is good with the USA.
I don't know about you, but I enjoy hearing the national anthem before the games and seeing the flag of the USA and every time I heard the words it made me proud, especially hearing the final words, "the home of the brave!" Today the liberals who run the public schools are turning out snowflakes who are afraid of their own shadows, not ready to face the real world.
I have lived outside of the USA for forty years and I can really appreciate the greatness of the USA and the men and women who have given their lives to defend the liberty and blessings enjoyed by Americans. The young people emerging from the public schools are on third base and think that have hit a triple. They don't understand the sacrifices that have been made on their behalf and they sure don't realize that it is free enterprise economic system that allows them to live better than the kings and queens of past centuries.
They take it all for granted and unfortunately they are easily swayed by the politicans today who tout bigger government and socialism and even those who are saying that the Constitution is outdated. All of this nonsense is a recipe for disaster and it is coming sooner than I ever expected. They will not know what they had until they lose it!
Maybe you're not looking in the right place, or your expectations are too high, or different. What he wanted and meant to do was spark national discussion of a topic that wasn't at the forefront of anyone's agenda. That happened. More, it took on a larger life within many communities, with police and civic groups coming together to form alliances and open dialogue, establish trust.
All of that is a public good, even if it rankled a number of feathers in the process.
To the contrary, there's been a great deal said and written on exactly that point. Not so much if you only or mostly watch Fox, whose agenda is to demonize and marginalize anything that doesn't come as a talking point from the NRA or a couple of hard right outlets, including the White House.
Some people were disgusted, to be sure. And, I'd suppose, many more were just irritated because the world they try to escape from for a few hours in one of the last bastions on non-agendized entertainment, became another platform for political upheaval and social messaging. I was in that camp. I got over it. And now it appears that, the message delivered and the discourse being ongoing, the game has largely returned to being the game. I can't say that doesn't appeal to me.
There's nothing more American than peaceful civil protest. That's one of the things that flag stands for.
My favorite part of the Olympics too, when they play the anthem and our flag is raised. Always gets me.
Yeah, to me that's just right wing propaganda on par with the left's demonized version of the closet racist right. And I'll listen to the fearful snowflake nonsense when people on the right stop playing the victim card, a thing they did as loudly with both houses of congress and the White House in their pocket...and a thing that led to them losing one of those to the other side. Enough already.
When and why did you live elsewhere? Not inquisition, just curious. Military? My dad was Navy. In our family we have at least one in the service in any generation going back to the beginning of the nation.
I think there's truth in that, generationally. If you don't personally go through hardship and sacrifice you never really understand the context of those who do, or don't until life hands you enough to approximate it and the wisdom attending. That said, the economic system is being played, the opportunities are harder to come by, and unless we do something about it the lottery mentality won't be enough to stave off socialism.
In my father's day a man could work a forty hour week and raise a family on it, with mom at home. Until the system returns that model disaster will be looming nearer and nearer. The abuse and war on that model by corporations, I'm convinced, has done more to fragment and diminish the American family than any misguided social program by the left (and there have been a few of those too).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Civil protest is indeed as American as it comes. But protesting by disrespecting the Stars and the Stripes, which among other things is the symbol of civil protest, is about as un-American thing that a citizen of the USA can do. It is even worse when it is done by someone like Colin Kaepernick, who should know that he is a role model for thousands of young people.
Last edited:
6 Keys for the NFL to institute a real shot at parity.
1. Limit Brady's playing time to the preseason: this would lower the Pats' chances of winning the SB by at least 10%.
2. Force the Pats to hire Hue Jackson as the "substitute playoff coach".
3. New "Oh no you don't" rule requiring teams win the SB by more than four points or it doesn't officially count.
4. Eli Manning now "guest" qb for every AFC Championship played against the Pats.
5. More highly pressurized balls.
6. Force other AFC East teams to hire professional quarterbacks.
1. Limit Brady's playing time to the preseason: this would lower the Pats' chances of winning the SB by at least 10%.
2. Force the Pats to hire Hue Jackson as the "substitute playoff coach".
3. New "Oh no you don't" rule requiring teams win the SB by more than four points or it doesn't officially count.
4. Eli Manning now "guest" qb for every AFC Championship played against the Pats.
5. More highly pressurized balls.
6. Force other AFC East teams to hire professional quarterbacks.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
:chuckle:
Of course, I did just read, and I haven't confirmed it but, if it's true ... NE's record against the AFC East, and against the rest of the league, during the regular season, during the Brady era, is just about even. iow NE has a similar regular season record against the AFC East as they do against the rest of the league.
So again, I haven't confirmed it, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if it's true. They'll reliably lose 1-2 games against the AFC East, though maybe more likely only one, and 5-1 is .833 and 4-2 is .667, and their overall record in the Brady era is about .750
The Pats have won the cupcake division all but 2 years during Brady and Bill's tenure. Even when they lost it twice they went 4-2 within the division.
From 2001 to present that division has been worth five to six wins 11 out of 18 years. The worst year it gave them 2 more wins than losses. And it never put them in the hole.
That's a pretty good foundation. If you play six games against softer teams you should have a better record against the rest of the league, comparatively. You're not as beaten up as the Steelers and Ravens and Bengals would be. There's been tighter competition in the other three divisions and usually at least two teams competing late in the season.
This year the separation among the other AFC teams was 1 game or fewer, while the Pats number 2 in their conference trailed by 4 games. Their larger record wasn't good enough to secure home field throughout, but it was good enough to get them in the door and give them a rest. In close and competitive years when the other contenders had at least one close foe it meant home field. A thing that, given the elements, worked to favor the Pats more than simple home field would for a southern team.
It's been part of the close shave dynasty, which was the joke I built into the SB winning edge.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
So you are saying that because the Pats in the Brady era are about .750 against their own division, that it explains how they're also about .750 against the rest of the league? Because to me it just seems like they are about .750 against the NFL in general, AFC East or otherwise. :idunno:The Pats have won the cupcake division all but 2 years during Brady and Bill's tenure. Even when they lost it twice they went 4-2 within the division.
From 2001 to present that division has been worth five to six wins 11 out of 18 years. The worst year it gave them 2 more wins than losses. And it never put them in the hole.
That's a pretty good foundation. If you play six games against softer teams you should have a better record against the rest of the league, comparatively. You're not as beaten up as the Steelers and Ravens and Bengals would be. There's been tighter competition in the other three divisions and usually at least two teams competing late in the season.
This year the separation among the other AFC teams was 1 game or fewer, while the Pats number 2 in their conference trailed by 4 games. Their larger record wasn't good enough to secure home field throughout, but it was good enough to get them in the door and give them a rest. In close and competitive years when the other contenders had at least one close foe it meant home field. A thing that, given the elements, worked to favor the Pats more than simple home field would for a southern team.
It's been part of the close shave dynasty, which was the joke I built into the SB winning edge.
What I'm saying is that it's a comparison that doesn't really tell you much. But going up against weaker teams, year in and out, gives you a decided edge when it comes to the playoffs because you don't have to work as hard to get home field, which they had for a very long time, more often than not. And what was there record in the playoffs without it?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You've got three teams in the AFC East. You've got 28 other teams. Against the three teams, the Brady Pats are about .750, and against the 28 other teams, the Brady Pats are about .750. idk if this tells us much beyond that the Brady Pats play everybody consistently good. And it still seems to me that you're suggesting that playing their own division to the tune of about .750 is the reason that they also play everybody else with about the same success. And meanwhile we know that for over a decade, unsuccessful teams when playing NE, play them like it's their season's SB. No matter how poorly they play in other games against other teams, they all tend to gear up to play the Pats. That's true for most of the AFC East contests, and for teams that aren't even all that bad, 'bubble' teams like this year's Titans and Steelers. Usually a losing team's best game, is against NE.
Probably something like Montana's Niners' overall playoff record.