Rochesterfan

You are absolutely correct that they don’t need to change anything, but I disagree with the they are figuring it out part. The only reason the XFL and the USFL survived the first and second years is that TV providers (Fox, NBC, and ESPN) are part of the groups and are providing coverage for the leagues at little to no cost compared to the past leagues. The USFL saw a healthy drop in viewers from year 1 to year 2 and had average ratings of 600,000 lower than the XFL last year. The XFL last year averaged around 650,000 viewers, but week 1 was between 1.3 - 1:4 million for an average. The UFL was formed because both the USFL and XFL saw that they were failing and needed to pool resources and hopefully get a better pool of players by combing the 2 leagues. Week 1 for the UFL was an average of 1 million viewers - which is well down from what both the XFL and USFL did for week 1 last year. They seem to be hoping that the decrease is due to March madness, but if as in past seasons, they hemorrhage viewers weekly - the average for the UFL will be below 600,000 viewers on a weekly basis by seasons end. I expect the UFL will survive another year and may continue solely due to the networks having a stake in the league, but they have to be worried that the viewership for week 1 was down so much compared to last year and that the typical trend is a loss of viewers week to week until the championship game which draws back a % of viewers. They really need to see the fan base stabilize. The unfortunate thing is that it shows that the XFL and USFL were probably watched by the same pool of NFL fans as their ratings were very similar and the UFL is pulling a percentage of those fans, but it is not bringing in newer fans.

You are correct for the data we have there is a margin of error and it is correct - if nothing changes - yes we could expect the same 75% across the new stadium - which may or may not happen. This is like using 1930’s life expectancy models in 2024 and expecting the predictive model to be accurate. The problem is as you move to other sections the variables change significantly as I stated. 1) First the PSL cost are expected to drop dramatically based upon the original survey reports. If based upon the first section the PSL cost is about double what came from the survey - then the PSL cost in end zone and upper deck areas will be $1000 - 2000 or more per seat. 2) The pool of people changes as you move around sections - The end zones with lower PSL may see a similar 75% renewal rate, but with the extra people available 100% of the seats will be purchased by STH. 3) There is an additional pool outside the normal pool of people - if they decide to purchase tickets at a similar 75% rate (which they will not) - that creates a pool of 7500 additional new season ticket holders. The predictive model works great when the variables do not change, but until you know the impact of the variables in each area - your data is faulty. It is why insurance companies group people by age and sex - the variables change the data. In addition - as I stated 75% may still be higher than they expected for the new stadium - we do not know the expectations or goals. With a decrease of 16% in size and a waiting list of about 15% of capacity - if everyone purchased at only 75% you have 57,000 season ticket holders in a 61,000 seat stadium and that is 100% without any of the 25% changing sections or moving down. That is to many people. The Legends team are 100% hoping in the cheaper areas - the renewal rate drops - opening up more seats for the 25% of more well off STH from the club seats to move to those areas. The goal is to drive a percentage of the STH population that eat and drink 100% in the parking lot and spend nothing in the stadium away - to replace them with with people that will spend additional money in the stadium increasing their revenue. They are not worried about selling the season tickets in the new stadium - the 75% rate has already shown with super high pricing that they should be able to hit 100% of their goal as those club holders move out to less expensive areas.

I am very sorry, but as I have said before - I am only going to post when there is real information that is being glossed over or missed. I do not need to add the exact same info to an argument when someone is wrong because one additional person saying the same thing will not change anyone mind. With nothing to add - more people would be advised to just use both positive and negative reactions rather than just spewing incorrect information.

I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong and if you are truly a CEO/upper level leader - you should be ashamed. The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium. Therefore trying to use bull**** numbers as concrete values means very little. You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable. So for example if they stay at a 75% renewal rate in this section - which is predictive. Going to the next area to sell - they now have 125% of the fans to offer tickets to rather than 100% and the 25% that declined earlier are now getting a price closer to their current cost. So if the predictive value of 75% holds - that would leave 25% of section 2 unsold and about 25% of the initial buyers to purchase those seats. So now group 2 sells closer to 90-95% sold or more. Now you move to the third tier of pricing and you have the 100% of current holders, the 25% from the section 2 and all remaining people from the club seats vying for this section. So again if they get 75% of the initial group - you now have 30% vying for 25% of available seats. And this will continue and each subsequent area will have an abundance of current season ticket holders trying to pick up tickets because saying no to your current area does not lock you out. Finally in the end if there are open seats - which will be limited - there are 10,000 people on a waiting list to begin to fill in the different sections. so what you end up with is limited open seats in the most expensive area - which as @Kirby Jackson said can be packaged to other clients for advertising or offered to businesses that had suites, but with fewer suites are priced out or even certain ticket vendors to have a supply on the secondary market, but as they move out of the club seats - more and more seats will be filled by current season ticket holders and people on the waiting list. The predictive nature of your math begins to immediately fall apart because of the assumption built into it because a non renewal does not mean they can’t get tickets later - something a good CEO and leader would understand and something Kirby has tried to explain to you. You have no idea what the expectations were for renewal on this first set. They know that many of the “No’s” in the first pass become people happy to get a seat in a different section closer to their current rates and people from subsequent sections will also downgrade and thus the Bills decreased the capacity to cover that eventuality as some fans may be priced out or opt out. Additionally- it would be very, very bad for the Bills - if they had 100% of people renewing because the new stadium is 16% smaller than the current stadium and if 100% tried to renew they would be overcapacity. They need about 25% renewal failure in each section to allow people to drop sections to different areas and not have a percentage of people that could not be moved due to all seats being sold. Basic math says they are probably right on their goal so far, but you be you and come up with a different formula that is just used in the wrong context. 🤦‍♂️

The argument is because he does not want to accept the facts that this is business as usual across many sectors. That would reduce the fake outrage over nothing. You can find examples across tons of business models - everyday things like Amazon, Costco, Sam’s Club, BJs, and places like Movie theaters, Barnes and Nobles, Gaming places and indoor kids bouncy centers. Most companies - especially large places like Amazon - build facilities in communities on the back of tax breaks, salary tax cuts, and funding from small business groups that all come from the taxpayer. I mean look at all the hoops cut when Amazon even mentioned a Warehouse potentially getting built in NYS. Everyone was throwing taxpayer money just for a shot - including gifting them huge amounts of property that was state and county owned. Then the consumer - be it an Amazon subscriber or a Costco member - pays a fee typically yearly for the right to purchase items from these shops - with limited return or discounts. There are gas stations that were built and received large payroll breaks - especially during Covid - to maintain employment levels and they have monthly and annual fees. You still pay for gas, but get a 20 cent decrease compared to a non member. There are tons of city/state owned Golf courses that were purchased with tax payer money, you still need a membership to guarantee tee times and you still need to pay for your round. The model is all over - not just the NFL or European Football - they use different terms and in some cases slightly different tweaks, but it is not new nor exclusive to this situation. The membership and pay model is common and most new construction be it a bar, a restaurant, a bookstore, a gas station, a football stadium, a event center - all get funding or reduced taxes, payroll breaks for a certain time, low cost or free loans from the city/state, etc. the funding is not as open as the funding provided to the Bills, but there is money from the taxpayers involved in most builds. There are plenty of reasons to be angry, but the misplaced anger and the anger over perceived slights is just so overwhelming in this thread. The Bills could have done a better job, but at this point we know next to nothing and people are making up things to create anger. @Kirby Jackson has talked and given insight from actually going through this process as an insider/employee and people try to argue minor semantics. I will wait for my section to be called before I worry if my PSL is going to be $500, $1000, or $10,000 or anyplace in between. My outrage can wait until there is actually something to be upset about.

Although I do not disagree that a timeout or runoff makes sense - the actual architecture of this occurring is a very small and limited example. Literally the only time it has a slight impact is on a play like in the Bills game where the foul occurred and the Bills got the first down anyway with a lead and the ball. All other cases it is a huge negative to commit the foul. If Wilkins makes the tackle short - the penalty gives an automatic first down. If a defense jumps Offside to stop the clock the offense gets 5 yards and the down over. You could do that once, but a second time is a first down. A personal foul is 15 yards and a first down. All stopping the clock, but providing yards and downs that the defense is trying to stop. My guess is like the Belichick punt issue of a few years ago - it occurs so infrequently that it has gone unnoticed and it will get presented in the off season for review. It is not like Miami did it on purpose to gain the advantage because it could have cost them dearly if they had stopped Josh short. It was a bad play on their part that happened in this case to provide a small amount of help.

In addition, you have the college schedule to consider. If teams want to interview and hire a college coach as a HC or coordinator and you push the NFL hire window until mid February - you screw your college recruiting windows and transfer portal windows and then national signing day. All for a stupid request to keep a coach from doing a couple of hour interview during the playoffs that has never shown to be a huge deal and they already have rules around the process. Could they do it - sure with lots of other manipulation and issues and for almost no reward or reason.

Agreed and Teller has thrived in a run first - heavy run offense - which the Bills would not have been. Teller still struggles when the Browns are forced to throw and teams don’t respect the run. His pass blocking is not great and although he might be a slight improvement here - I doubt he is anywhere near the same player on a pass heavy - pass first team.

I mean I am pretty sure I heard on ESPN - they were debating who is the best WR and go well you know: Justin Jefferson with only 0.11 receptions per snap and 1.69 yards per snap Diggs with 0.1 receptions per snap and 1.7 yards per snap Nope it must be Hodgins when he played with the Bills on his 16 snaps - he doubled and tripled those guys. It does mean anything when he moved to the Giants and actually got snaps that those numbers became 2nd and 3rd tier. 🤦‍♂️

Holy crap this is the stupidest thing I think you have ever posted - here let’s compare a guy with only a few limited snaps (16) versus starters because every official WR ranking is based on yards or catches per snap. How did he look when he got more playing time with the Giants. In 8 games he got 33 catches on 417 offensive snaps and a paltry 350 yards on those snaps compared to Diggs who had 108 catches on 836 snaps and over 1400 yards. That means once he got playing time he fell to: 0.07 receptions per snap and 0.8 yards per snap - oh look the same as all the guys you mention once you get some numbers. if you convert Hodgins NYG numbers to a full year comparable to other players catching the ball - he is ranked 40-50th in receptions and 50-60th in yards and over 70th in yards per reception as a #1 WR on the team. He put up #2 or #3 type numbers as the primary target and terrible numbers in Yards per reception and yards after catch. Hodgins is the very definition of average and is a terrible fit in the Bills offense because with a lack of speed on the outside he brings nothing. As a legitimate 4th or 5th WR - you need special teams play and even on the Giants he got 0 ST snaps. After the Giants traded their #1 WR to KC and their other WR in Slayton was hurt - they needed to sign and then play Hodgins and like Robert Foster his rookie year - when that is all you have - you make due. Once the Giants get another WR threat on the outside - Hodgins falls back into his 3/4th outside role and with a lack of speed and special team abilities he will begin to drop back to unknown territory.

Not in the least - Daboll deserved his chance and we will see how it goes moving forward. Fans here did nothing but criticize Daboll for play calling and then suddenly love it when it was someplace else. The truth is teams starting figuring him out late in the season and the Giants outperformed expectations early and then maxed out luck and talent much like 2019 and 2020 with the Bills. Hodgins is an average WR on a team with no WR talent. If he remained on the Bills - he was still no more than a #6 WR that struggled to get open. Most games with the Giants he was completely invisible getting a couple of catches. He did seem to show up versus Minnesota for them, but other than that he was a nothing. It is ok to bring up Teller - much like Hodgins - he left Buffalo and fell into a great situation for him. His first year in Cleveland- Teller was bad - to the point most fans thought he was getting cut - much like his struggles in Buffalo. Then they brought in an OL coach and OC that fit him and he excelled. That was not happening in Buffalo because no matter the Bills were going to be a pass first team and even as an all pro - Teller is barely average in pass protection- especially late in games when teams can pin their ears back and are not worried about the run. Be happy for the players - neither was going to do anything in Buffalo. It is ok for people to find a scheme and become a better player. It is ok for a player low on the depth chart to go to a bad team and be higher up and get a chance - be happy and “LET IT GO”. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet QBs like Mahomes and Allen - rarely take the play clock down - they try to get the defense in confused states rather than take it down to zero.

Sorry - I just don’t care that much and I think it is a terrible idea for football. In basketball it is super annoying when the player clearly shoots the ball and the backboard lights up and a horn goes off for absolutely no reason. Football - that would be 10x worse. They snap the ball and the horn sounds and someone stops or the scoreboard flashes and causes a momentary distraction. the NFL could do a million things - they just don’t care as it does not give a team a true advantage. They decided on a legitimate way and they recognize that the start timing is not 100% consistent - so like certain motion penalties- they provide a little leeway to ensure teams get the plays off rather than stopping and adding penalties. If the NFL wants to really make it a non issue - stop allowing the networks to show the play clock.

Give me the Alligator every time. Both may result in death, but the slow painful death of listening to Collinsworth is like an evil torture.

I wouldn’t do anything more than what I do every time CC calls a game - I shut off the sound. He is one of the worst announcers to listen to in terms of how he talks about players and his favoritism. Therefore; we no longer listen at all to the broadcast and it is significantly better that way. He really needs to learn to shut up - give a touch of insight and let the Play by play caller drive the game.