spartacus Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players arent so replaceable unless you cherry pick the only example you could come up with. GB If what you and others posit was remotely true, why on any given sunday are there still just as many, actually more, Kelly and TT jerseys than Fitz and Freddy??? arent they just the next line of players on the Bills? shouldnt fans just go out and buy them bc they blindly support the Bills? No it doesnt work that way now does it. Fans do root for teams, but the part that is lost on you is that star players get MORE people to root for teams. You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue. Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats. The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public. I "You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff." sure sounds like the Bills since Kelly left no money spent on replacing the stars - yet the fans keep selling out the stadium and putting big bucks in Ralph's pockets sure seems that Ralph figured out that it's about the charging Buffalo - and not about specific players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Yes, they never should have pursued the ANI case. I don't know how many times I can state this, doc. What they thought had no basis in reality, thus it wasted everyone's time, effort, and money. You just have to (vainly) defend it. Again it was yet another mistake, to go with the "lockout insurance" in exchange for a billion+ in TV revenue and... The owners used the FA deadline, which was pushed-back 3 times, as the deadline to make a deal, when they still had a couple years to make one (like we're seeing now). Upshaw's threat was an empty one because had the owners rejected his offer, they would have gone into the 2006 season with a ($7.5M) lower salary cap, meaning less money for the players. Then when 2007 rolled around with the "victory" of no salary cap, they would have learned the hard way that there was no cap floor and 6 years needed for UFA. If that wasn't enough to get Upshaw back to the table, being locked-out in 2008 surely would. Your whole argument is predicated on Upshaw having final say and the owners being infallible, which are both laughable. The reasons they persued it are nicely summarized in that article, as you see. The individuals quoted disagree that such reasons "had no basis in reality". Go figure. "Wasted everyone's (government workers)time" is a good one, though. The overtime the justices must have racked up mulling over this one must have cost a "billion +". The People should not bother SCOTUS with their trivial grievances. So the lockout insurance cost them not $500 million ("splitting the difference"), but a billion plus. Again, link me to the site that says how much more they would have gotten without the insurance (in '13-'14, no less). By all apperances, Upshaw did have the final say (reread the article). Having no salary floor has little impact in 2007--you can't rewrite 53 contracts to bring down your costs in a year. But you can sign FA's for as much as you are willing to pay, as there would be no cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The reasons they persued it are nicely summarized in that article, as you see. The individuals quoted disagree that such reasons "had no basis in reality". Go figure. "Wasted everyone's (government workers)time" is a good one, though. The overtime the justices must have racked up mulling over this one must have cost a "billion +". The People should not bother SCOTUS with their trivial grievances. So the lockout insurance cost them not $500 million ("splitting the difference"), but a billion plus. Again, link me to the site that says how much more they would have gotten without the insurance (in '13-'14, no less). By all apperances, Upshaw did have the final say (reread the article). Having no salary floor has little impact in 2007--you can't rewrite 53 contracts to bring down your costs in a year. But you can sign FA's for as much as you are willing to pay, as there would be no cap. Yes it's obvious why they pursued it: they wanted to be able to have almost complete and unprecedented control over the players. Again they were never going to get it and as such, pursuing it was a waste of time and money. Doing the math, $500M/year for the 3 years from tacked-on years of 2012-2014 is...$1.5B. Again I'm using the contracts from 1998-2005 compared to 2006-2011 and the well-known fact that the NFL gave up money in order to get the "lockout insurance," hence the reason why Doty ruled against the owners seeing that money. Hell, even if it were $200M/year, that's still $600M they lost. But no doubt, I'm sure you'll say it was worth giving that up, in order to get the lockout insurance. Forget players already under contract, doc. Less money available in FA in 2006 because of a $7.5M lower salary cap means less money for the players who were scheduled to be UFA's. The following year 200+ players who otherwise would have be eligible for UFA would instead have been RFA's, and teams wouldn't have had to spend a minimum amount, again meaning less money for the players. Then they lockout the players during the 2008 off-season, if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) "You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff." sure sounds like the Bills since Kelly left no money spent on replacing the stars - yet the fans keep selling out the stadium and putting big bucks in Ralph's pockets sure seems that Ralph figured out that it's about the charging Buffalo - and not about specific players http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/1/4/1913932/buffalo-bills-attendance-drops-dramatically-in-2010 Bills had 2nd lowest attendence in AFC in 2009 http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2007/01/01/daily45.html Bills drop 5% while rest of league has record year. Last year they played to 86% capacity. Sounds just like the glory years!! Next time use facts. Edited June 20, 2011 by K Gun Special Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 http://www.buffaloru...tically-in-2010 Bills had 2nd lowest attendence in AFC in 2009 http://www.bizjourna...01/daily45.html Bills drop 5% while rest of league has record year. Last year they played to 86% capacity. Sounds just like the glory years!! Next time use facts. you support my argument Bills are filling the stadium yet have a team of misfits (front offioce, coaches and players) which hasn't been to the playoffs in over a decade no star power anyway on the roster yet the fans keep coming to the stadium yeah- Ralph has a goldmine and it does not revolve around any irreplaceable players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 you support my argument Bills are filling the stadium yet have a team of misfits (front offioce, coaches and players) which hasn't been to the playoffs in over a decade no star power anyway on the roster yet the fans keep coming to the stadium yeah- Ralph has a goldmine and it does not revolve around any irreplaceable players No you said they keep selling out when they arent. For a low revenue team like the Bills its imperative for the future to have people in the stands buying concessions etc. You cannot survive long term playing at 85% capacity. So no It is not a goldmine. Look at jacksonville, a team that has problems filling the stands. They are likley to be a relocation candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players arent so replaceable unless you cherry pick the only example you could come up with. GB If what you and others posit was remotely true, why on any given sunday are there still just as many, actually more, Kelly and TT jerseys than Fitz and Freddy??? arent they just the next line of players on the Bills? shouldnt fans just go out and buy them bc they blindly support the Bills? No it doesnt work that way now does it. Fans do root for teams, but the part that is lost on you is that star players get MORE people to root for teams. You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue. Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats. The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public. I http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131152-too-all-the-ralph-haters/page__view__findpost__p__2180143 specifically, the last paragraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131152-too-all-the-ralph-haters/page__view__findpost__p__2180143 specifically, the last paragraph Every star player could quit the NFL and it would have no adverse effect on the NFL ?? Is that why Irsay wants to make Manning the highest paid player? because he has no positive effect on his franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 No you said they keep selling out when they arent. For a low revenue team like the Bills its imperative for the future to have people in the stands buying concessions etc. You cannot survive long term playing at 85% capacity. So no It is not a goldmine. Look at jacksonville, a team that has problems filling the stands. They are likley to be a relocation candidate. won't survive long term? what's long term? 50 years? It's been Ralph's MO for most of that time except when he stumble on Polian He quickly corrected that problem and returned to his usual methodology of doing just enough to keep the fans paying (and collecting his portion of the TV money and revenue sharing) why do you think he bitched and moaned about the last CBA - his suibsidy from the big market teams was not addressed at the time of the vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131152-too-all-the-ralph-haters/page__view__findpost__p__2180143 specifically, the last paragraph There will never be another Tiger Woods Rory McIlroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 There will never be another Tiger Woods Rory McIlroy. oh yea very good comparison. Im sure Rory is the next golf superstar and can make golf even more popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 oh yea very good comparison. Im sure Rory is the next golf superstar and can make golf even more popular. As opposed to your argument, which is that millions of Colts and pats* fans are going to walk away from the game when Peyton and Brady retire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 oh yea very good comparison. Im sure Rory is the next golf superstar and can make golf even more popular. As I was just borrowing from recent events and headlines, you should take your beef up with the sports media industry. I'm sure you could bring all sports writers around to your views on how things really work and what people actually think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 As opposed to your argument, which is that millions of Colts and pats* fans are going to walk away from the game when Peyton and Brady retire? I dont believe I ever said millions. But the numbers show a dip. The Bills haven't had any stars or success in the past few years and it has hurt attendance. Again, if star players didnt mean anything, and owners are going to make the same amount of money regardless, why do they pay for star players? As I was just borrowing from recent events and headlines, you should take your beef up with the sports media industry. I'm sure you could bring all sports writers around to your views on how things really work and what people actually think. The media asking that question is quite different from you using in the context of this thread in support of the notion that star players dont matter to the bottom line and can easily be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Which do you think will happen first? a) This thread will end with agreement by the members of The Stadium Wall. b) The NFL CBA will be approved by both sides. I'm betting on b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but the PGA's TV ratings have consistently been down during times and events when Tiger Woods is not playing. In addition, the overnight ratings for the U.S. Open are indicating that the ratings are down 20% from last year. So the Tiger Woods aspect really supports the idea that superstar players drive ratings. Golf's popularity is actually shrinking right now according to several measures. Back to the NFL and superstar players, I think this is it in a nutshell: When the Bills were great and had superstar players, they drew better attendance home and away and of course in TV ratings, including being on several nationally televised games each year. That's no longer the case so even though the NFLs popularity is at an all time high, the Bills popularity is not. However, the Colts and Patsies* were bad teams during the Bills glory years and now they have ascended to "pick up the slack" in helping maintain the NFLs popularity. In other words, the NFL can benefit from superstar players on all teams but the fortune of individual teams fluctuates with how many great players that team has. Like several have already pointed out, the league can replace a superstar more easily than a team can. Jim Kelly retired in 1996 after a short period of decline. In 1995 Brett Favre won the first of 3 straight MVP awards… so you could say that from an NFL perspective, Favre replaced Kelly. But that hasn't done the Buffalo Bills or their fans much good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but the PGA's TV ratings have consistently been down during times and events when Tiger Woods is not playing. In addition, the overnight ratings for the U.S. Open are indicating that the ratings are down 20% from last year. So the Tiger Woods aspect really supports the idea that superstar players drive ratings. Golf's popularity is actually shrinking right now according to several measures. Hence the need to find and build a new star in that sport. Back to the NFL and superstar players, I think this is it in a nutshell: When the Bills were great and had superstar players, they drew better attendance home and away and of course in TV ratings, including being on several nationally televised games each year. That's no longer the case so even though the NFLs popularity is at an all time high, the Bills popularity is not. However, the Colts and Patsies* were bad teams during the Bills glory years and now they have ascended to "pick up the slack" in helping maintain the NFLs popularity. In other words, the NFL can benefit from superstar players on all teams but the fortune of individual teams fluctuates with how many great players that team has. Like several have already pointed out, the league can replace a superstar more easily than a team can. Jim Kelly retired in 1996 after a short period of decline. In 1995 Brett Favre won the first of 3 straight MVP awards… so you could say that from an NFL perspective, Favre replaced Kelly. But that hasn't done the Buffalo Bills or their fans much good. The bold part speaks directly to the nature of a zero-sum game like the NFL, and why using the Bills lack of a star QB as a circular support for why the Bills need a star QB is such a weak linchpin argument. PS: Here's another recent headline that speaks to "star power" -- and in particular a certain select individual's perceived star power -- being the only thing of any importance at all in entertainment related business: Megan Fox got canned from the latest Transformers movie. Now, that may mean Megan Fox loyalists may not go see the movie, but apparently Spielberg is comfortable enough that the movie can stand on its own without her and her not quite politically correct interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Hence the need to find and build a new star in that sport. The bold part speaks directly to the nature of a zero-sum game like the NFL, and why using the Bills lack of a star QB as a circular support for why the Bills need a star QB is such a weak linchpin argument. PS: Here's another recent headline that speaks to "star power" -- and in particular a certain select individual's perceived star power -- being the only thing of any importance at all in entertainment related business: Megan Fox got canned from the latest Transformers movie. Now, that may mean Megan Fox loyalists may not go see the movie, but apparently Spielberg is comfortable enough that the movie can stand on its own without her and her not quite politically correct interviews. I made the mistake of seeing the first two Transformers movies. I'd draw a comparison between those movies and the Joel Schumacher Batman movies. They were that bad. It wouldn't have occurred to me to see the third Transformers movie, either with or without Megan Fox. That being said, Spielberg is capable of finding some other actress to serve as eye candy. To address your larger point, I agree that the NFL is a zero-sum game. There will always be a few teams at or near the top of the league, and those teams will always attract large numbers of new fans. There will always be a few teams at the bottom of the league, and those teams will tend to have problems filling their stadiums. The media will always build up the dozen or so best players in the league. In some cases they'll even build up guys into stars before they achieve much, if anything, on the field. Kordell Stewart comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts