I refuse to acknowledge that it proves anything, because it doesn't.Originally Posted by OpIv37
I also wouldn't say those are the biggest moves we've made. Rex is definitely, but the other 2...eh. Extending Dareus, Hughes, Glenn, releasing Mario, franchising Gilmore, terminating Jim Schwartz...I think those are bigger than signing Clay and probably bigger than McCoy too.
Well you can refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but Russ Brandon has created an organizational culture where the bottom line is valued over football success. This team has not won in the 10 years he's been in an executive position and they won't win until he's gone.
Historian (09-27-2016),Slick (09-27-2016),trapezeus (09-28-2016),WagonCircler (09-26-2016)
He can die
They won't win what? The Superbowl or a playoff game?
They definitely won't win the SB. I highly doubt they will even win enough games to make the playoffs. But as long as that bottom line is healthy....
I bet they do.
0-11 with Brandon as an executive, going on 0-12
Slick (09-27-2016),WagonCircler (09-26-2016)
0-1, going on the 2nd year under Pegula.
Same **** different day. Balanced the books by not spending under Ralph, balances the books by investing in marketable assets with Pegula. Football be damned either way.
Oh and while it's a little off topic, Pegula is making the EXACT same mistakes with the Bills that he made with the Sabres. The Sabres are up and coming now, but Pegula had to learn his lesson the hard way and it set the team back 3-4 years. And those were painful years. The wheels are already in motion for the streak to hit 20.
I don't follow hockey, so I'll take your word on that.
I'm still willing to bet that the Bills make the playoffs while Russ is employed by them.
The downside of keeping Russ is the chance that he's still involved in football decisions. Or the chance that, even if he's technically removed from football decisions, that he'll still exert influence on the football side from time to time.
The upside to keeping him is that he might be doing a better job on the business side than his would-be replacement would do. Even if that upside exists, which it might not, Bills fans don't benefit from it. On the other hand, the more involvement Brandon has on football, the more he'll drag the team down. Even if he goes for very long periods of time without exerting influence on the football side, who's to say that pattern will continue? Especially if he thinks he sees a "big chance" to make what he believes will be a positive impact on the team?
If you're 100% sure that he can be successfully quarantined over on the business side then sure, maybe you keep him. But if there's even a 10% chance that he will continue his consistent pattern of polluting the organization with his own football input, then you get rid of him. He simply isn't doing enough good on the business side to make up for the risk that his input might be included on the football side.
Let's not sell Russ's business acumen short. I mean he did get a Buffalo based sportswear company to sponsor the stadium for a Buffalo based sports team. I mean, who saw that one coming?
Given the NFL's tv ratings decline, the business side may gain in importance:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/2...ard-in-week-3/
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Noli timere. Laus Deo.
coastal (09-28-2016)
literally one article on declining TV rating. every time they parse out rights, the costs go up. and the playoffs and draftkings/gambling remains strong. they can keep shilling out a losing team and their revenues are a certainty.
Mace (09-28-2016)
Plenty of articles out there - search and find.
Sooner or later, some bunch of politicos will force meaningful "de-bundling", so to speak, of cable and satellite tv offerings. There are millions who don't give a rat's patoot about sports programming, who would drop ESPN, FSN etc. like a rock.
which is why the NFL network has the rights to show the highlights first and ESPN has been crushed on their pre game and post game shows. the underlying product is what people want and the NFL is parsing out all the digital, tv, radio on a tiered basis. and it still is such a huge advertising bonanza, that even declining ratings, still has a huge interest to smaller channels. they are fine. the imminent decline of the NFL is not today or tomorrow. it's 10-20 years if they don't keep the game moving at an interesting pace. but even as the game has gotten sloppier, more people than ever are gambling on it via vegas and fantasy. people are wildly vested in pro football, even if they aren't watching the games.
Mace (09-28-2016)
I'm all about parsing, it's a glorious word that needs to be used more often. Not to parse your post, but you maybe mean parcel ?
I like the word parcel too, if I might parcel your post in parsing.
I don't think anyone is predicting the imminent decline of the NFL.
The broadcast networks and ESPN have large contracts with the NFL. While there are other avenues as you mention for folks to get their NFL jollies, as viewership on TV declines, advertisers certainly take note, and will not pay as much. I would guess the airers have contractual language that reduces the NFL's piece of the pie, then.
I recall the battle that was waged for years between Time-Warner cable and the NFL regarding NFLN. T-W was fine with offering it on a sports tier (those who want it, pay for it). The NFL wanted it on regular cable - because the actual and potential viewership would be much higher - and therefore, ad revenue at a higher rate.
Like he didn't learn that from Ralph and Littman. He's a good student.
Twenty years ago, my favorite part of a televised football game was halftime. During halftime they'd give you a tour of games around the league. You felt like you were a bird in the sky, keeping an eye on a number of games at once.
That "tour of games" during halftime still exists. But it's been pared back so that they only show you one play per game. It's a shell of what it once was. Barely even worth watching at this point.
The decision to eliminate the bulk of the "tour of games" is part of a larger trend in the NFL. That trend consists of worsening the value proposition for the fans, with the clear expectation that fan support will stay the same or increase. "Worsening the value proposition" comes in many forms: increased advertising, increased ticket and PSL prices, increased costs for concessions, etc.
But there is another, more subtle trend at work as well. In the past, announcers were often chosen from among former players. Those guys know and love football, and both those things came through over the course of a game. Announcers are still frequently chosen from among former players. But now they are given "guidance" by the league, to a much greater extent than in the past. Typically this "guidance" takes the form of some marketing agenda or hype that the NFL wishes to promote. In-depth analysis of the game has largely been displaced by various marketing and promotion efforts. Not only is there an over-abundance of television advertising, but even when they're not taking a commercial break there's a certain amount of marketing of the league or its star players going on.
The players are represented by one organization: their union. The owners are represented by 32 individuals: themselves. There are millions of fans, and no organization to represent us. The players are in the strongest bargaining position, which is why the bulk of the NFL's revenues are allowed to flow through to them via the salary cap. The fans are in by far the weakest bargaining position, which is why we've been thrown under the bus. The only method fans have of exerting any influence at all is to vote with our feet. Stop doing anything which would generate revenue for the NFL. If the fans were represented by a union, we could collectively threaten to all walk out at once, unless the NFL pared back its in-game marketing efforts/hype, while also cutting back on television advertising. In the absence of a fans union, we can still hope that the NFL is taking notice of reduced viewership, and that it will respond by doing more for the fans in the future than it's done in the recent past.
Last edited by Arm of Harm; 09-30-2016 at 08:53 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote