Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="packa7x" data-source="post: 447427" data-attributes="member: 6594"><p>@Jaybadger, I feel like we're both missing what the other meant.</p><p></p><p>All I'm saying with the owners is...you take them away and there's no football like it is. Guys being great at football wouldn't make money without people funding it. At the same time, guys with money can't have football without great foootball players. Fans aren't watching for the owners themselves, I know that. What they are doing is watching a game aired at a carefully planned time in a carefully planned location on a carefully planned network. Yes, the public helps fund the stadium, but without the team's ability to make money, the owners wouldn't be able to get cities to help them out. The city gets tons of added benefits from a stadium. They play in uniforms designed by the teams specifically to create brand recognition. They play on beautifully maintained grass. They're taught by team employees how to improve their game and ascend. Some get there on a team bus or plane. They go to the game after their free meal at the team hotel. </p><p></p><p>The current manifestation of the NFL is because of owners, like it or not. They found ways to makevthe game popular and exciting. How fun would it be to go see an untelivised NFL game? Now change the stadium from an 80,000 seat stadium to an 8,000 seat HS stadium. Now change the uniforms from these sleek, shiny, beautiful uniforms, to old, ratty, loose fitting jerseys. The grass has rough patches. The gameplay is exactly the same, though. Could you honestly say you'd shell out $150 a ticket to go see it? I saw an NY Red Bulls soccer game a couple weeks ago and it was horrific. I paid $20 for the ticket, the 20,000 person stadium had MAYBE 7,000 people in it. This is the most popular sport in the world and in an area with extremely high immigration rates, we can't sell out a 20k stadium? I went to a Nets game back in HS. They gave away free tickets to people who showed "acts of kindness" (I still to this day don't know what I did to get the ticket <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" />)...the Nets won their conference that night to a crowd of maybe 18,000 at Continental Airlines Arena. I paid $5 to see one of the last 20 or so games at Yankee Stadium before they built the new one. The team with 27 titles couldn't come close to selling out their game.</p><p></p><p>I went to a Jets-Bills game, both teams were around 4-11 or 3-12. The stadium was packed on New Years Day. It was below freezing. Neither team had a shot. But without fail, the stadium was packed. Why? Everyone could watch it on TV. Why drive out? It's the experience the owners built. You can have the best talent in the world and not have anywhere to show it off and never make a dime off of it.</p><p></p><p>Believe me, I know the players deserve tons of money too. Their skill and their bodies are the main product, but it's not the only product that they put out and there are tons of things the owners do/have done that make the skills of the players relevant. It's not insane that they have 52% of the revenue. It will go into improving the game and making it more profitable. It has in the past and it will continue to do that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="packa7x, post: 447427, member: 6594"] @Jaybadger, I feel like we're both missing what the other meant. All I'm saying with the owners is...you take them away and there's no football like it is. Guys being great at football wouldn't make money without people funding it. At the same time, guys with money can't have football without great foootball players. Fans aren't watching for the owners themselves, I know that. What they are doing is watching a game aired at a carefully planned time in a carefully planned location on a carefully planned network. Yes, the public helps fund the stadium, but without the team's ability to make money, the owners wouldn't be able to get cities to help them out. The city gets tons of added benefits from a stadium. They play in uniforms designed by the teams specifically to create brand recognition. They play on beautifully maintained grass. They're taught by team employees how to improve their game and ascend. Some get there on a team bus or plane. They go to the game after their free meal at the team hotel. The current manifestation of the NFL is because of owners, like it or not. They found ways to makevthe game popular and exciting. How fun would it be to go see an untelivised NFL game? Now change the stadium from an 80,000 seat stadium to an 8,000 seat HS stadium. Now change the uniforms from these sleek, shiny, beautiful uniforms, to old, ratty, loose fitting jerseys. The grass has rough patches. The gameplay is exactly the same, though. Could you honestly say you'd shell out $150 a ticket to go see it? I saw an NY Red Bulls soccer game a couple weeks ago and it was horrific. I paid $20 for the ticket, the 20,000 person stadium had MAYBE 7,000 people in it. This is the most popular sport in the world and in an area with extremely high immigration rates, we can't sell out a 20k stadium? I went to a Nets game back in HS. They gave away free tickets to people who showed "acts of kindness" (I still to this day don't know what I did to get the ticket :D)...the Nets won their conference that night to a crowd of maybe 18,000 at Continental Airlines Arena. I paid $5 to see one of the last 20 or so games at Yankee Stadium before they built the new one. The team with 27 titles couldn't come close to selling out their game. I went to a Jets-Bills game, both teams were around 4-11 or 3-12. The stadium was packed on New Years Day. It was below freezing. Neither team had a shot. But without fail, the stadium was packed. Why? Everyone could watch it on TV. Why drive out? It's the experience the owners built. You can have the best talent in the world and not have anywhere to show it off and never make a dime off of it. Believe me, I know the players deserve tons of money too. Their skill and their bodies are the main product, but it's not the only product that they put out and there are tons of things the owners do/have done that make the skills of the players relevant. It's not insane that they have 52% of the revenue. It will go into improving the game and making it more profitable. It has in the past and it will continue to do that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
35 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 8:45 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
