EDITION: Ashe County
FAQs PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS
Registered Users, Log In Here
NFL

publicinformation

Posted 9:47 pm, 09/25/2017

Lol. Yep I saw it - six post below. Didn't see any reference as to where you had copy and pasted it. I just figured you left that off by mistake.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 9:29 pm, 09/25/2017

Do you like showing how stupid you are?

proud native

Posted 9:20 pm, 09/25/2017

Well ****, if you think anyone read that self indulgent diatribe.. holy cow dude, lighten up.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 9:12 pm, 09/25/2017

PI, you didn't look about six posts below, did you? LOL

Heels09

Posted 3:22 pm, 09/25/2017

James the problem is that this weekend many of the owners came out in support of the players protesting. So who's going to fire them? Even though there are false reports of NFL rules that say they have to stand, there are no rules from the NFL that require them to do so. The NFLPA is one of the most powerful unions in the country. I doubt that any owner would want to fight them over something as small as this. Face it, the protest are here to stay. Especially now that Trump gave them a larger platform to do so.



I have been to sporting events all over the country and at this moment the crowd is typically the quietest it is during the event. Most people stand but there is a large portion that use this time to run to the bathroom or get another beer. Also, you can hear ****s yelling expletives at players and coaches. People have stopped removing hats, constant chatter going on. People don't respect the anthem, they are trying to force false patriotism on everyone.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 2:37 pm, 09/25/2017

James, up until 2009 players sat in the locker rooms during the anthem. They were not part of the pregame show. They were only brought out for the anthem because the army paid the NFL millions to turn football into a recruiting tool. All of us military fly overs, the big show on the fields with the color guards, sky divers, etc the army has to pay the NFL to let them do.

jrscott295

Posted 2:37 pm, 09/25/2017

Did you know that by the law that enabled the AFL and the NFL to merge in 1966 which essentially created a monopoly banned teams from moving cities (yeah I know it's one of those laws that's not enforced and as far as I know other than stating they could not leave their cities, no penalty was assigned if they did so it's a law with no fangs).

I believe much of what you wrote is true FINS. However I also believe the NFL is at a tipping point and these protest will damage it. While its true they've not always come out for the national anthem they chose in this last decade to accept money and did so. Doing that created expectations. I know many military veterans saying they are hanging it up and I've seen a few of their letters they've wrote in disgust of yesterday.

I'm also very much against taxpayer money going to any sports facility such as a football stadium or soccer stadium or what have you. The reason is the money you speak about, they make more than enough money to pay for their own stadiums.

I believe the 'guaranteed money' from cable and satellite TV transmission is going to dry up in the next few years as ratings drop and advertisers become more shy of spending such money, it's going to start drying up in contracts. I have rarely watched a full game on TV. (Most often I flip down from another channel and check the score) I did watch the full Superbowl where the Panthers lost to the Broncos, but I'm not sure I've watched a full game since and I couldn't tell you the last time before that I watched a full game.

JamesJones

Posted 2:33 pm, 09/25/2017

Professional football players are performers. Fans pay good money to attend their performances. Part of their performance in front of the fans, is paying respect to flag and country during the playing of the national anthem. They are on duty. This is not their free time to protest as they wish. I say the players can protest all they want when they are off duty, or else, they can take a knee in the unemployment line.

Heels09

Posted 11:05 am, 09/25/2017

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban made the controversial suggestion in March 2014 that the NFL "will implode in 10 years" and "Nothing can grow exponentially"




aFicIoNadoS

Posted 10:39 am, 09/25/2017

This is a very boring, simple explanation as to why the NFL’s ratings are declining. It is not an opportunity for you to shoehorn in your feelings about Colin Kaepernick protesting the game. No one really cares about your feelings about Colin Kaepernick’s protest, because if you are the kind of person who gets really offended by Colin Kaepernick’s protest, then your feelings in 2017 are the most boring and predictable thing about you, and telling on you in a deeply unflattering light.

The simpler and also boring systemic problem with the NFL that might actually explain something is its success, and how that success made the ownership class in the NFL fat, lazy, and locked into a business model they have no real reason or incentive to change, even with falling TV ratings.

The absence of real risk of failure is a start. Stakeholders in the NFL cannot lose�"at least not under the league’s current structure. Owners split money from the league’s massive TV deals and other media revenue streams. That stream is so dependable, so huge, and so guaranteed that it’s done what large, intractable pools of cash have done since the invention of markets. It has altered and distorted the very thing that created it, and broken the basic exchange between consumer and seller that made the NFL successful in the first place.

It’s a form of laziness, and a special kind different from the standard laziness in the NFL. Laziness bred from prosperity isn’t a new problem for NFL ownership and management. For every old-school Rooney or Mara or Hunt family intent on making at least an honest show of competing, producing a good product, and paying at least paltry attention to the demands of the consumer, there has been a Culverhouse or a Smith, owners who ran their franchises with the least possible effort and expenditure. The slumlords of the NFL took their rent, often without providing anything close to a finished building.

Note: This may be literally true of the 1970s and 1980s Buccaneers, whose stadium sort of looked like concrete that never set exactly right, so they just went with it and said, “yeah, it’s supposed to be shaped like a melted frisbee.” What you call a mistake, the 1970s called architecture.

That approach towards maximizing your dollar with the bare minimum of effort became more sophisticated over time. As the league’s revenues boomed, they became something less like points of civic pride run as passion projects by the locally wealthy, and something more like attractive investment properties with a promising rate of return for billionaires �" particularly those billionaires who entered the NFL as strangers to the league, but as intimate familiars of a corporate culture dependent on squeezing every profitable dollar, and trimming every wasteful one from the budget.

For instance: The legend of Dan Snyder tells a story of someone who was “passionate” about the Washington franchise on a personal level. It sometimes leaves out his ruthless economizing of the franchise, a focus on the bottom line interrupted periodically by splashing free agent signings to keep fans semi-interested in the team. That he keeps them in the worst stadium in the league, charges for everything short of oxygen, and rolls out a consistently mediocre product doesn’t matter: His great gift as an NFL owner, after nearly 20 years, has turned out to be a deep understanding of knowing exactly how little actual quality he could slip into the product without breaking the customer’s dependence completely.

That level of sophisticated coasting in the name of profitability became a laudable thing for owners. Jerry Jones, in particular, emphasized profitability and value for the league, leaning hard on new television contracts, stadium deals, corporate tie-ins, and whatever else he could grab in order to boost the value of the Cowboys to its limit. The momentum for moving the Raiders �" one of the league’s oldest recognizable brands, with one of its most insanely loyal fanbases �" from Oakland to Las Vegas came largely from Jones, and mostly for the holy grail of profitability. Jones is the crowning example of the NFL’s gargantuan gains in the financial weight room: Since buying the Cowboys for $140 million in 1989, Jones has grown the value of the franchise to $4.2 billion. The team makes a publicly declared $227 million a year.

The NFL was able to do this because, at a certain point, wealth outstrips the power of the assets that created it. In 2017, the league split over $7.8 billion between teams. The money and the success the league enjoyed became so huge that they attained their own gravity, and became separate from the main product that built the league in the first place: professional football.

That separation of the product from the wealth it creates should be familiar to any American consumer. A large company takes control of an entire economy, becomes so large it cannot fail, and thus has no real incentive to do anything but seek rent on that endless, belching pipeline of cash. The product produced generally does not improve, and often without the pressure of competition doesn’t have to improve at all. It might even get worse, or at least watch things like customer service and satisfaction take nosedives.

It’s not exactly a monopoly, but it’s also not-not exactly a monopoly, either.

The value in that kind of behavior doesn’t come from the product. That flatlined in terms of utility a long, long time ago. (The Patriots remain unusual for not only trying, but trying intelligently to produce a good product.) An NFL owner no longer needs that to continue to boost the value of the franchise using anything that happens on the field. Value comes from getting a new stadium someone else paid for, moving the franchise to a more valuable piece of real estate and doubling the value of the franchise overnight. Value comes from leveraging and re-leveraging your existing assets, not by creating anything new.

If you see an NFL franchise as just another asset to be maximized and squeezed for every dime, being good at football �" i.e. producing a good product �" doesn’t matter. It’s not even rational to put effort towards anything but “value creation,” i.e. shuffling around pieces of the franchise until they sit in the most profitable positions. The Rams doubled their value overnight by leaving St. Louis and moving to L.A. They are a miserable football team run by a despised owner playing in an empty stadium, but the Rams could care less. The fourth most valuable team in the NFL sucks by design, and shines bright enough on the balance sheet to eliminate any real concerns about how bad the product is on the field.

The Rams, the 49ers, and the Washington team are all in the top 10 most valuable NFL franchises. There are other reasons for that besides their efficient disinterest in making a good on-field product �" the real estate and cost of doing business in expensive places like L.A., the Bay Area, and D.C. being a huge one �" but the lesson for anyone acquiring an NFL team as an asset is pretty clear. Strip the place to the frame, gorge on TV money, and only do the bare minimum to keep people interested.

That distancing of the product �" and its overall quality as an experience �" from revenue makes for a dysfunctional exchange between the consumer and the producer.

What does that mean, exactly? It means that because the Rams don’t have to worry about quality, they can slog into the Coliseum, wait for a new stadium to be built, and bill themselves as a content company while playing in front of hundreds of bored fans. It means that being good, for a lot of teams, is an accident, or a periodic spasm to regain fan interest spaced between long troughs of minimal effort.

This explains why the NFL now functions less like an open market business, and more like a cartel. (Not a cartel exactly, economics pedants, but cartel-ish.)

A cartel really doesn’t care what you want. It knows what you need, and has it. All behaviors from that point forward only protect the cartel and its control of supply and delivery. There will be no innovation, no new ideas not in service of that maintenance of revenue streams, and no serious competition between cartel members. In fact, they’ll all cut the quality of the product wherever possible to take home the most possible cash.

The NFL isn’t alone in this in sports, and not even in football, either. The disease of guaranteed revenue has bitten college football, too. Texas, the most profitable athletic program in the nation, is a prime example of the strange incentives huge profits can create within a sports franchise. The more money the program makes, the less consistent or important the quality of the product has been to the priorities of those at the top running the cash machine.

But as the most popular sport in America �" and one that pools profits �" it is the most visible, and most visibly prone to this leveling by the demands of the spreadsheet. Even a distancing by slight degrees, like turning your basic exchange from one of fans opting into an experience into one of a television product given to captive subscribers, is enough to change how ownership behaves.

There is a structural reason live audiences aren’t even necessary anymore: Ticket sales make up such a shrinking percentage of team revenue that the Rams and 49ers might as well play on sound stages, if you think they don’t already. The distance between the sport and the mammoth business it built will only grow, and in that space will be those who loved the NFL, but now watch the condensed version of the NFL on RedZone, and those who make it begrudgingly while looking to the next successful investment opportunity.

That next something might be something like eSports, which the owner of the Patriots just dropped $20 million on via investment in an Overwatch league. When will we know eSports made it? When there are commercial breaks after load screens, fights over gaming arenas being paid for with public money, and a class of owner looking for nothing more than the next grandiose and guaranteed font of cash. eSports is lucky, for the moment: Kraft seems to enjoy making a quality product. It’s when the Haslams and Stan Kroenke* show up that gamers should panic.

Heels09

Posted 10:07 am, 09/25/2017

The decline that you are speaking of is largely false. Yes is has declined, but the decline is modest to insignificant. Streaming, which is not included in the ratings, is the biggest reason of decline which is consistent to other TV programs that have seen similar drops. So yes the ratings are down but the reason is not the protest. The NFL is the most watched Sport and Programming in the US....it is in no danger of losing that.


However, that is not to suggest that its not going to be a huge factor after this weekend, but data suggest that it will only be a 2-3% drop.

jrscott295

Posted 9:56 am, 09/25/2017

Given the drops in viewership, ticket sales, and merchandise I can't say that the NFL can continue this and survive. While most may not care, enough of a segment do that it's going to cause them severe problems. I suppose if you had a solution it might be better to just keep the teams in the locker room until after the anthem. The NFL had largely escaped the declines other sports faced in the last decade. However this could be the straw on the camel's back.

Heels09

Posted 8:40 am, 09/25/2017

The same constitutional right that you have to come on here and complain about them is the same right they have to kneel. As much as you want to "fire" them you can't and its obvious that the NFL agrees they have that right. Its going to continue, so by all means boycott. In the end most people don't care and will watch regardless.

Mr.Clodhopper

Posted 10:54 pm, 09/24/2017

Thank you humanist and finny, you are just to kind..

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 10:45 pm, 09/24/2017

https://sports.vice.com/en_...sm-problem

So let's fix the whole problem, and send them back to their locker rooms until time for kick off.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 10:42 pm, 09/24/2017

Actually, it's only been an NFL tradition for players to even be on the field during the anthem since the Army started spending big advertising money to turn the pregame shows into a recruitment event.

JamesJones

Posted 10:30 pm, 09/24/2017

What Jr Said.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 8:00 pm, 09/24/2017

Back in the 90's when flag burning was a hot topic, I had a Vietnam vet, that I highly respect, surprise me with his comments. He said those people's right to burn the flag in protest were the same rights he had sworn to protect and defend. He had absolutely no problem with them burning a flag, even though he hated the act itself.

The bigger question for those that choose to kneel during the anthem, is there stand actually doing anything? Or is it an empty gesture that does nothing but make them feel warm and fuzzy inside?

jrscott295

Posted 7:08 pm, 09/24/2017

I think it's disgraceful a bunch of millionaires kneeling and disrespecting the flag and country that allows them to be millionaires. This could hurt the NFL a lot, I remember the baseball strike in the 80s and then 90s baseball took a big hit afterwards.

Off the field I don't care what they do largely, they can espouse whatever programs they want etc. but on the field I want to be entertained and I consider it part of their job to stand for the national anthem and to have their hands over their hearts. It's been the tradition of the NFL since it's founding up until the unemployable Colin Kaepatrick started these last year (he could of done more good not doing this and putting his money to work helping the downtrodden. )

Advertise Here for only $1!
If you're seeing this ad, then so will your customers! Click here to create and manage your own ads, for only $1 a day!
KFC/Taco Bell
Now hiring all locations
Joines & James, Attorneys at Law
Need help with Disability? Joines & James, Attorneys at Law PLLC. 336 838-2701