Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then...

  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 9:19 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

m:
If we are questioning their character and how that affects relationships, then I think we are overvaluing morals in the cutthroat world of the NFL, and overlooking the overriding importance of winning for gaining respect and admiration. For example, Bill Belichick was branded a jerk in CLE, but is now worshipped universially even though he was caught cheating is spy gate. Ray Lewis obstructed justice is a murder case, but he's hugging the Commish like he's leaving the planet for good because he's an all time great. Sean Peyton gets a raise after bountygate. On the other hand, Romeo gets canned despite handling a player murder/suicide in season with tremendous class and dignity. So, the reality is Haslam and Banner put the opportunity to build a winner how they see fit above telling the honest truth to the fickle local media.

g:
The NFL is a business. Money knows no morals. 

A lot of deals are done by people who like and respect each other. When you have an administration that no one likes or respects (personally) you lose some of that. Second, agents have been known to steer clients away from teams when they feel they can't trust the team. 

It costs. It doesn't shut down business, but it costs nonetheless.

---------------------------------------------
You are contradicting yourself. Money knows no morals, but a FO lacking respect/trust will cost the team (in terms of overpaying or adding talent, or both - you didn't clarify)? Again money knows no morals, so let the money talk. Plus, Banner is on record as believing that FA are not the main avenue for building a team.

I'd say winning speaks louder than money. So whatever it costs the team in the open FA market for having a FO that is perceived as having a questionable character, winning games moreso than money will supersede those costs. If they don't win soon and often, then morals, character, etc... are still irrelevant because being a loser is worse in the business world.

Show me a good loser (Mr. Nice Guy), and I'll show you a loser.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 12:24 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

m:
If we are questioning their character and how that affects relationships, then I think we are overvaluing morals in the cutthroat world of the NFL, and overlooking the overriding importance of winning for gaining respect and admiration. For example, Bill Belichick was branded a jerk in CLE, but is now worshipped universially even though he was caught cheating is spy gate. Ray Lewis obstructed justice is a murder case, but he's hugging the Commish like he's leaving the planet for good because he's an all time great. Sean Peyton gets a raise after bountygate. On the other hand, Romeo gets canned despite handling a player murder/suicide in season with tremendous class and dignity. So, the reality is Haslam and Banner put the opportunity to build a winner how they see fit above telling the honest truth to the fickle local media.

g:
The NFL is a business. Money knows no morals. 

A lot of deals are done by people who like and respect each other. When you have an administration that no one likes or respects (personally) you lose some of that. Second, agents have been known to steer clients away from teams when they feel they can't trust the team. 

It costs. It doesn't shut down business, but it costs nonetheless.

---------------------------------------------
You are contradicting yourself. Money knows no morals, but a FO lacking respect/trust will cost the team (in terms of overpaying or adding talent, or both - you didn't clarify)? Again money knows no morals, so let the money talk. Plus, Banner is on record as believing that FA are not the main avenue for building a team.

I'd say winning speaks louder than money. So whatever it costs the team in the open FA market for having a FO that is perceived as having a questionable character, winning games moreso than money will supersede those costs. If they don't win soon and often, then morals, character, etc... are still irrelevant because being a loser is worse in the business world.

Show me a good loser (Mr. Nice Guy), and I'll show you a loser.
A bad rep won't stop a team from doing business. But it can affect how it does that business.

If a free agent has an option between two teams, the team with the bad rep will almost always lose unless it overpays. A bad rep can also affect coaching searches as the really good coaches always have options and they will opt away unless paid extravagantly.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 1:59 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

m:
If we are questioning their character and how that affects relationships, then I think we are overvaluing morals in the cutthroat world of the NFL, and overlooking the overriding importance of winning for gaining respect and admiration. For example, Bill Belichick was branded a jerk in CLE, but is now worshipped universially even though he was caught cheating is spy gate. Ray Lewis obstructed justice is a murder case, but he's hugging the Commish like he's leaving the planet for good because he's an all time great. Sean Peyton gets a raise after bountygate. On the other hand, Romeo gets canned despite handling a player murder/suicide in season with tremendous class and dignity. So, the reality is Haslam and Banner put the opportunity to build a winner how they see fit above telling the honest truth to the fickle local media.

g:
The NFL is a business. Money knows no morals. 

A lot of deals are done by people who like and respect each other. When you have an administration that no one likes or respects (personally) you lose some of that. Second, agents have been known to steer clients away from teams when they feel they can't trust the team. 

It costs. It doesn't shut down business, but it costs nonetheless.

---------------------------------------------
You are contradicting yourself. Money knows no morals, but a FO lacking respect/trust will cost the team (in terms of overpaying or adding talent, or both - you didn't clarify)? Again money knows no morals, so let the money talk. Plus, Banner is on record as believing that FA are not the main avenue for building a team.

I'd say winning speaks louder than money. So whatever it costs the team in the open FA market for having a FO that is perceived as having a questionable character, winning games moreso than money will supersede those costs. If they don't win soon and often, then morals, character, etc... are still irrelevant because being a loser is worse in the business world.

Show me a good loser (Mr. Nice Guy), and I'll show you a loser.
A bad rep won't stop a team from doing business. But it can affect how it does that business.

If a free agent has an option between two teams, the team with the bad rep will almost always lose unless it overpays. A bad rep can also affect coaching searches as the really good coaches always have options and they will opt away unless paid extravagantly.

---------------------------------------------
This is a possibility, but not the rule. When the 49ers hired Bill Walsh (whom wasn't high in demand), that organization was the epitome of a franchise with at bad rep. Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson weren't seen as high character guys at first for their insensitivity in firing Landry. Yet, after 1994, FA Dion Sanders is lining up to play for the Cowboys and the chance to win.

The point is a bad reputation MAY affect hiring, but not necessarily winning. It is not a causal relationship. Sometimes the opposite happens. A bad rep leads to winning because a "bad rep" FO may be left to selecting "2nd tier" HC who've been passed over for a variety of reasons irrelevant to winning, but as a result become great HCs due to having a chip on their shoulder. Look no further then Mike Brown (bad rep), hiring Marvin Lewis (turned around the franchise). Same applies to FAs. Sometime the great FA pickup is the unnoticed, unwanted guy. BB had no problem adding those types in NE prior to ever winning a SB and resurrecting his reputation in the eyes of the media or agents.

So, your statement is as valid as the other side of the argument because bad rep. does not necessarily equal a negative impact on the franchise. It holds little water.

Banner's philosophy of finding the right HC who can build a program for longterm success holds more water than the threat of having a questionable character negatively impacting the organization. The whole key is Chud. If Chud builds a winner, everything written about Haslam, Banner, and Lombardi changes for the better. If not, a reboot will be around the corner. Nothing has changed.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 2:44 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 4:11 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 4:18 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:35 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:35 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Mes,

I think you missed my point. I don't consider the Bengals as a "winning" franchise. And NE's first SB was an anomaly, one of the worst to first type turnarounds that happen every 5 or 10 years.

Like I said, not debating your take, just saying your examples don't reinforce the POV
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:58 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Oh. Right at the end you fall down.  When Randy became owner he got rid of Butch. When Haslam got rid of Holmgren and the rest. Randy talked to winning owners and NFL coaches and got all their advice. So did Haslam. Randy hired a business guy. So did Haslam. Then Randy got one of the top coordinators in the business. So did Haslam (Chud doesn't have the same acclaim as Romeo did after three SB, but I'm kind).  

From the exact same MO at the start you determine one is determined and one was not....because he said so? Randy said so, too.

Again, this overlay of special attributes onto Haslam is ridiculous. He hasn't done anything special yet, except get rid of a GM the fans liked and hired one the fans hate.   That's the reality.

We'll see if Lombardi and Banner are as good as they believe they are. They sure have Haslam convinced that he was lucky to snatch Lombardi from all the teams that weren't interested in hiring him.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 7:36 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Oh. Right at the end you fall down.  When Randy became owner he got rid of Butch. When Haslam got rid of Holmgren and the rest. Randy talked to winning owners and NFL coaches and got all their advice. So did Haslam. Randy hired a business guy. So did Haslam. Then Randy got one of the top coordinators in the business. So did Haslam (Chud doesn't have the same acclaim as Romeo did after three SB, but I'm kind).  

From the exact same MO at the start you determine one is determined and one was not....because he said so? Randy said so, too.

Again, this overlay of special attributes onto Haslam is ridiculous. He hasn't done anything special yet, except get rid of a GM the fans liked and hired one the fans hate.   That's the reality.

We'll see if Lombardi and Banner are as good as they believe they are. They sure have Haslam convinced that he was lucky to snatch Lombardi from all the teams that weren't interested in hiring him.

---------------------------------------------
The reality is the only "special attribute" I've assigned to Haslam is a determination to win, which I've based on actions, not supposed warm and fuzzy sentimentalism for a sympathetic owner.

Haslam's actions speak louder than his money, and definitely his words. He stepped down from CEO of Pilot Flying J to focus on the Browns. Randy's personal focus was divided between business, soccer, and the Browns.

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

Haslam is currently in the process of stadium improvements to make the gameday experience as enjoyable as other NFL franchises. Randy, not so much.

Haslam immediately bought a home in the area. Randy spent most of his time in NY.

Haslam has taken a leadership role for the organization he owns. Randy hired Holmy to fulfill his duty, so he could finalize his status as the most absentee owner. One step above neglect.

Randy threw money at problems with the organization hoping it would all work out. He couldn't stomach all the responsibilities of being an owner. He went through the motions, at times tried to play the part as much as his personality would allow, and probably agonized over his missteps. Yet, through it all, he could never step up and get his hands dirty and fully embrace his responsibility. At the end, he paid someone else to avoid his position. It was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried. His heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity. Hate to break your heart.

Haslam's actions and money say he wants this job. So when Randy and Haslam say similar things or some moves coincide, the perception is overlooking the reality. Jimmy is determined to try and win. Randy would've liked to win to fulfill his obligations.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/21/2013 9:51 AM

Thermonuclear 


The only real sentimental attachment some fans had to Randy Lerner was that he, like us,  grew up as a fan of the team.  And unlike his father, Randy at least made an attempt at "best practices."  His father, knowin' nuthin' 'bout birthin babies, left it allll up to Carmen.

The desire and determination of any new owner to win can be so much lip service when there was never a previous attachment to a team.  It would stand to reason that Haslam's desire to win would have a little more oomph behind it had he purchased the Tennessee Titans. 

Now having that sort of lifetime attachment to a team doesn't make anyone more competent to lead a team to success.  We can all imagine an alternate universe where, if things had just gone differently, David Modell would have become a poor man's Mike Brown (".... the horror... the HORROR..."). Just speaks to the level of lip service that is desire and determination to win.

And many owners split time between the business ventures that got them all that money in the first place, and their new pursuit.  If you think Haslam divested himself entirely from involvement with Flying J, you're welcome to the notion. 

Like Lerner, he bought a pad in Cleveland, and said from the outset that he would split time between Knoxville and Cleveland.  Apparently he is so determined to win that he's adopted the same practice as his predecessor, namely keeping his fingers on those other pursuits back home.  Hopefully he'll spend a greater percentage of his time on the Browns than Lerner.  But that's a "time will tell" proposition and not some given from the outset because he seems like a macho man of action.

And the connection between naming rights to a stadium and making a team more competitive is a bit of reach.  Won't change the salary cap.  And if it's money Haslam really needed in order to apply to getting the best front office money can buy, then his financial situation would have been marginal enough that the NFL would not have approved him.
He's entirely within his rights to go that route and take the money.  But Lerner purposely avoided that tact for a reason.  As a fan, I appreciated that.  With Haslam, we now have a generically named stadium, and I'm sure he'll use those funds to enhance my game day experience... like telling me I should be in my seat for the opening kickoff.

As for taking a leadership role for the organization he owns, it's same old, same old:  he's either a meddler or an absentee landlord.  He sticks his nose into the football side for which he knows nothing and he should leave that to the football people, or he's a hands on, involved guy who's determined to win.

I'd agree with this: "it was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried."

What I'd take issue with is "his heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity." 

IMO he was willing to make a go of it, but realized that after so many attempts at "best practices," he still ended up shooting 112.  All the golf lessons and great equipment couldn't help him.  And as said years ago, he gave himself one more opportunity to get it right, and vowed that if it still turned to shyte, then that was it.  As Chuck Noll used to say, he'd know that this just wasn't his life's vocation, and it was time to move on-- for the sake of the fans, for the sake of his own sanity.

Now WHERE that decision came to him in his ten year tenure, I don't know.  Lerner DID sell at the first opportunity.  Whether that was ALWAYS his intent is debatable.  Had somewhere along the line he found a great GM, who in turn begat a great front office and HC and a contending team, he could have come to the realization his father might have hoped he'd reach:  give it ten years, and if it works out, continue the legacy.  If it doesn't, then sell.

Haslam's actions and money said he wanted the ultimate status symbol of being an NFL team owner.  And all owners want to win and enjoy a honeymoon with fans.  Northern Florida fans just LOVED Shahid Khan.  He is personable, talked the talk of winning, and not many cities can boast the novelty that is a major league franchise owned by a Pakastani-American.  But now the Jags ended up with the worst record in the league, and the honeymoon for Khan is evaporating.

The difference, in terms of moves, is that Lerner's at least were met with some optimism from fans and media.  Haslam's were met with a large degree of pessimism. 

Doesn't mean they can't work out.  But we can all judge individual moves, and enough good ones can give us optimism about the person making them, and enough bad ones can make us careful for what we wished. 

If Lerner never sold and instead made all the moves Haslam has made, the fans would have gone thermonuclear on him.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/21/2013 11:49 AM

Re: Thermonuclear 


Knowing what sentence should be the last sentence is an art.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/21/2013 9:08 PM

Re: Thermonuclear 




---------------------------------------------
--- Aardvark wrote:

The only real sentimental attachment some fans had to Randy Lerner was that he, like us,  grew up as a fan of the team.  And unlike his father, Randy at least made an attempt at "best practices."  His father, knowin' nuthin' 'bout birthin babies, left it allll up to Carmen.

The desire and determination of any new owner to win can be so much lip service when there was never a previous attachment to a team.  It would stand to reason that Haslam's desire to win would have a little more oomph behind it had he purchased the Tennessee Titans. 

Now having that sort of lifetime attachment to a team doesn't make anyone more competent to lead a team to success.  We can all imagine an alternate universe where, if things had just gone differently, David Modell would have become a poor man's Mike Brown (".... the horror... the HORROR..."). Just speaks to the level of lip service that is desire and determination to win.

And many owners split time between the business ventures that got them all that money in the first place, and their new pursuit.  If you think Haslam divested himself entirely from involvement with Flying J, you're welcome to the notion. 

Like Lerner, he bought a pad in Cleveland, and said from the outset that he would split time between Knoxville and Cleveland.  Apparently he is so determined to win that he's adopted the same practice as his predecessor, namely keeping his fingers on those other pursuits back home.  Hopefully he'll spend a greater percentage of his time on the Browns than Lerner.  But that's a "time will tell" proposition and not some given from the outset because he seems like a macho man of action.

And the connection between naming rights to a stadium and making a team more competitive is a bit of reach.  Won't change the salary cap.  And if it's money Haslam really needed in order to apply to getting the best front office money can buy, then his financial situation would have been marginal enough that the NFL would not have approved him.
He's entirely within his rights to go that route and take the money.  But Lerner purposely avoided that tact for a reason.  As a fan, I appreciated that.  With Haslam, we now have a generically named stadium, and I'm sure he'll use those funds to enhance my game day experience... like telling me I should be in my seat for the opening kickoff.

As for taking a leadership role for the organization he owns, it's same old, same old:  he's either a meddler or an absentee landlord.  He sticks his nose into the football side for which he knows nothing and he should leave that to the football people, or he's a hands on, involved guy who's determined to win.

I'd agree with this: "it was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried."

What I'd take issue with is "his heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity." 

IMO he was willing to make a go of it, but realized that after so many attempts at "best practices," he still ended up shooting 112.  All the golf lessons and great equipment couldn't help him.  And as said years ago, he gave himself one more opportunity to get it right, and vowed that if it still turned to shyte, then that was it.  As Chuck Noll used to say, he'd know that this just wasn't his life's vocation, and it was time to move on-- for the sake of the fans, for the sake of his own sanity.

Now WHERE that decision came to him in his ten year tenure, I don't know.  Lerner DID sell at the first opportunity.  Whether that was ALWAYS his intent is debatable.  Had somewhere along the line he found a great GM, who in turn begat a great front office and HC and a contending team, he could have come to the realization his father might have hoped he'd reach:  give it ten years, and if it works out, continue the legacy.  If it doesn't, then sell.

Haslam's actions and money said he wanted the ultimate status symbol of being an NFL team owner.  And all owners want to win and enjoy a honeymoon with fans.  Northern Florida fans just LOVED Shahid Khan.  He is personable, talked the talk of winning, and not many cities can boast the novelty that is a major league franchise owned by a Pakastani-American.  But now the Jags ended up with the worst record in the league, and the honeymoon for Khan is evaporating.

The difference, in terms of moves, is that Lerner's at least were met with some optimism from fans and media.  Haslam's were met with a large degree of pessimism. 

Doesn't mean they can't work out.  But we can all judge individual moves, and enough good ones can give us optimism about the person making them, and enough bad ones can make us careful for what we wished. 

If Lerner never sold and instead made all the moves Haslam has made, the fans would have gone thermonuclear on him.

---------------------------------------------
AA,
You make some valid points, especially about the timeframe and intent when Randy decided to sell.

However, the hiring of de facto owner, Holmgren, sheds so much light to the mindset of Randy and it's a stark contrast to Haslam's actions. Randy sold his role in ownership 2 years before he could legally sell the franchise. That move is made for 1 or 2 reasons - you're admitting to complete incompetency and throwing in the towel OR you have no determination, heart, desire to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. IMO, it's maybe a little of both, but I don't think Randy is truly incompetent. Either way, it's a sure fire indicator, and I don't need any sources to feed me that.

Yet, it may further indicate his intent from the outset. Whether it was Mangini, his chase for Cowher, his hiring of Collins, or the elevation of Butchie's power, Randy was always ready to cede his responsibilities to someone else. He may have deceived the sentimental crowd that he was going to let football people handle the football side. I bought it for a long time. I even was able to allow the local media types convince me that he really was an ideal owner because he had deep pockets, cared (he's a lifelong fan for gods sake), and stayed out of the way of the football stuff that he knew little about. His hand-picked interviews with local media friends helped shape this view.

Given the revealing of the final pieces to the puzzle, the final picture is in full view. Randy's handling of the team is similar to an absentee, workaholic parent who got roped into having kids. They both cared about their obligation, but not enough to be fully involved in their development. Whether it was from a lack of desire, heart, or determination or some other reason they were unwilling or unable to deliver on their fated obligation. From afar, they threw money at the problems hoping that someone else could step up and handle their responsibility. Once the money was put out, they left town, carried on with their other interests, and poked their head in now and again to make sure the house wasn't on fire. They only stepped in and "cared" when $hi+ hit the fan and fan pressure made changes inevitable. Changes were made in name, but not in philosophical practice. More problems, more money thrown at the solution. After 8 years, Randy officially gave up custody and let the kids live under the rules and guidance of someone else, signing the checks that were due but otherwise taking a step back (albeit from a closer geographical location). When 10 years was up, he checked out (got paid), shook hands with his f-ed up kids and said, "Best of Luck."

Randy was bequeathed a franchise he never wanted to own. Randy was willing to pay a premium to anyone to handle his obligation, so he could carry on with his life. After 8 years of failure, he checked out as a day-to-day owner in every way, but name and signing paychecks - but was smart enough to turn over responsibility to cheap-a$$e$ who wouldn't recklessly spend his money. When his legal obligation was fulfilled, he left town and lined his pockets.

Now in terms of Haslam's mindset, He has become the leader of the organization - watching him dominate a press conference shows this is pretty evident. He has fully involved himself in the franchise, maybe even so much as to overbearing. He hasn't hired Banner to be the de facto owner, he's hired Banner to provide his expertise in building a winner (whether it works or not, time will tell). Haslam has set the objective - winning - been out front for every single action his franchise has made, and has yet to take his hands off every detail of his business. It's not an obligation for Haslam, it's a business. The business of the NFL is winning (not making money, every NFL team is currently making money, and all owners in the nfl have money).
Reply | Quote
  • Doberman
  • Fluffy Puppy
  • 272 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 1/21/2013 11:49 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate." - Vince Lombardi

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 12:59 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Doberman wrote:
mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.
Not really.  When you pay top dollar for an investment you have an even bigger challenge when competing with those who paid less.  Selling the naming rights is a common way to increase revenue.  If we are to compete we need to keep up with the rest of the pack.  Here is how much and what it means to our competitors.  

 

The Plain Dealer has learned First Energy has acquired the naming rights to Cleveland Browns Stadium. It's unclear yet how much the Browns will reap from the deal, but in 2011 Bloomberg Businessweek assembled a list of 23 NFL stadiums with title sponsors and the deals that acquired them. They are as follows:

Baltimore Ravens: M&T Bank Stadium -- 5 years, $75 million

Carolina Panthers: Bank of America Stadium -- 20 years, $140 million

Denver Broncos: Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium -- 25 years, $150 million

Detroit Lions: Ford Field -- 20 years, $40 million

Houston Texans: Reliant Stadium -- 32 years, $320 million

Indianapolis Colts: Lucas Oil Stadium 20 years, $122 million

Jacksonville Jaguars: EverBank Field -- 5 years, $16.6 million

Miami Dolphins: Sun Life Stadium -- 5 years, $37.5 million

Minnesota Vikings: Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome -- 3 years, $6 million

New England Patriots: Gillette Stadium -- 15 years, $105 million

New York Jets/Giants: MetLife Stadium -- 25 years, $400 million

Oakland Raiders: O.co Coliseum -- 6 years, $7.2 million

Philadelphia Eagles: Lincoln Financial Field -- 21 years, $139 million

Phoenix Cardinals: University of Phoenix Stadium -- 26 years, $154 million

Pittsburgh Steelers: Heinz Field – 20 years, $57 million.

San Diego Chargers: Qualcomm Stadium -- 20 years, $18 million

St. Louis Rams: Edward Jones Dome -- 12 years, $31.8 million

Seattle Seahawks: Century Link Field -- 15 years, $75 million.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Raymond James Stadium -- 13 years, $32.5 million

Tennessee Titans: LP Field -- 10 years, $30 million.

Washington Redskins: FedEx Field -- 27 years, $205 million

Future Los Angles franchise: Farmers Field -- 30 years, $700 million


How do you know what was expected by Randy when it comes to payments?  How do you know how hard or how much it taxed him personally to pay what he did?  Big difference between what you are worth and what you have to spend on other ventures.  You better believe this will be run like a business.  This means he wants to MAKE money and not use his own personal money.  That's a given in buisness.  Can you tell me a team that’s not? 

My mother never breast-fed me. She told me she liked me as a friend - Rodney Dangerfield
 

Last edited 1/22/2013 1:21 AM by hamster

Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2273 posts this site

Posted: 1/22/2013 2:22 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Doberman wrote:


mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

---------------------------------------------
Would you rather Haslam run the organization like a fan? The naming rights was one of a few ways to increase revenues that had not been tapped. Haslam knows business, and he knows to compete in the NFL you have to try and capitalize on every available opportunity. Sure he has money, but now an additional 107 million are available to use as he sees fit to upgrade the organization. Better than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 9:03 AM

Re: Thermonuclear 


MES:

However, the hiring of de facto owner, Holmgren, sheds so much light to the mindset of Randy and it's a stark contrast to Haslam's actions.

AA:

Actually it speaks more to your mindset with your characterization of Holmgren as the "de facto owner."  He wasn't. 

Holmgren was the HMFIC of all things on the FOOTBALL side, and this after so many bellowed for Lerner to leave that portion of the operation to actual football people.  There was a reasonable expectation that Holmgren could then determine the chicken/egg dilemma that is gm/hc, and make good hires.  Lerner provided the financial support. 

Certainly Lerner could see that despite his own efforts, the results were wanting.  He could have gone the Art Rooney route and tried the same thing over and over, for a couple of decades hoping for a different outcome... then look like a genius when he actually produced one with Chuck Noll.

Instead, Lerner left the football side to the football people... as so many for years wanted him to do.  And once he did that, then the criticism came from the other side of the aisle:  he's ceded control of everything.  He's disengaged, he's the negligent slumlord.
 
MES:

Randy sold his role in ownership 2 years before he could legally sell the franchise.

AA:

To whom and for how much?

MES:

That move is made for 1 or 2 reasons - you're admitting to complete incompetency and throwing in the towel OR you have no determination, heart, desire to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. IMO, it's maybe a little of both, but I don't think Randy is truly incompetent. Either way, it's a sure fire indicator, and I don't need any sources to feed me that.

AA:

So if he bought the best equipment and took lessons and went to golf academies to work on his game... and still shot 112...

... did that make him incompetent?  How about...nonathletic?

Ted Stepien was incompetent.  His every move was greeted with a slackjawed "wtf?" public that could see a train wreck waiting to happen from the outset. 

Lerner's moves were more along the line of mixed to encouraging... even if the results were the same.  Based on results alone, Lerner's tenure was incompetent. 

But those results came when he both ceded football control (Butch early on when Randy was quickly trying to learn the ropes of this franchise handed to him, and later with Holmgren), and when he rolled up his sleeves and did it himself (Crennel, Savage, Mangini).

And when the results sucked, then people complained about the process that went into the hires that produced those results.

MES:

Given the revealing of the final pieces to the puzzle, the final picture is in full view. Randy's handling of the team is similar to an absentee, workaholic parent who got roped into having kids. They both cared about their obligation, but not enough to be fully involved in their development. Whether it was from a lack of desire, heart, or determination or some other reason they were unwilling or unable to deliver on their fated obligation. From afar, they threw money at the problems hoping that someone else could step up and handle their responsibility.

AA:

And that would be different from other NFL owners... how?

Those owners whose team is their sole source of revenue are in a minority. 

And for every Rooney family, there's a Bidwell family. 

MES:

Now in terms of Haslam's mindset, He has become the leader of the organization - watching him dominate a press conference shows this is pretty evident.

AA:

For years, I wrote about how fans like coaches to be the opposite of the incumbent loser.  It applies to owners as well.  Lerner did not want to be a face of the franchise.  Haslam does.  I've no problem with either image an owner wants to project.  I don't care if he's Percy Dovetonsils or Torquemada, as long as he happens to own a contender.

But people invariably equate style with substance.  The hc on the sideline who is a stone faced Buddha is not any better or worse than the animated wrestling manager whose theatrics can be clearly seen in section 503.  Yea, one would prefer a Jim Harbaugh over a Pat Shurmur, but not a Wayne Fontes over Tom Landry.

Haslam has a look and background that appeals to many fans.  Terrific.  He has that going for him. 

Does that make Banner and Lombardi more appealing as hires? 

If they were hired anyplace else, would fans be cursing "Damn, why couldn't the Browns land THOSE guys?!" 

Why is it that Banner is viewed as being hired "to provide his expertise in building a winner," but Holmgren was viewed as serving as a de facto owner?




Reply | Quote
  • Doberman
  • Fluffy Puppy
  • 272 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 11:40 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Doberman wrote:


mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

---------------------------------------------
Would you rather Haslam run the organization like a fan? The naming rights was one of a few ways to increase revenues that had not been tapped. Haslam knows business, and he knows to compete in the NFL you have to try and capitalize on every available opportunity. Sure he has money, but now an additional 107 million are available to use as he sees fit to upgrade the organization. Better than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.

mes and ham,

Look, what I'm saying is not that I don't want Haslam to run the team like a business.  This is an emotional take, I'll grant, but the bottom line to me is wins.  Win, and all is forgiven.

But after watching 20 years of crap, and seeing most of the few things we had to brag about slowly and painfully stripped away from us, the stadium name was one of the few things that I had to hang my hat on - that was OURS.

So.  If Haslam is gonna spit in my face, bring in a liar for a HMFIC, and a pariah for a GM, I'm done paying money for this yearly depression-inducing humiliating "entertainment".

Seems like everything else I spend my money on, I feel good about afterwards.  This has to be the only "entertainment" I've ever paid for, only to be pissed off after being "entertained".

I'm gonna go all Al Davis on his azz. 

Just win, baby.

P.S.  Apologies for what's likely a take that has no, or little, basis in fact.  I'm just severely pissed off, and fighting apathy very, very hard.  Because apathy is the next step.

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate." - Vince Lombardi

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 1:58 PM

Trickle Down Effect 


This past season, 23 NFL teams played in stadiums with sponsored names.

Since this article, New Orleans climbed on board with the Mercedez Benz Superdome (and really, what better captures Nawlins diversity... than a Teutonic car?). 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium, don't know how or if they split Met Life's $16m per.

9 NFL teams played in stadiums without sponsored names:

Atlanta-      Georgia Dome
Buffalo-       Ralph Wilson Stadium
Chicago-    Soldier Field
Cincinnati-   Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland-  Cleveland Browns Stadium
Dallas-       Cowboys Stadium
Green Bay-  Lambeau Field
Kansas City-  Arrowhead Stadium
San Francisco-  Candlestick Park

Their combined winning percentage this past year was .527.
Four of nine (44%) made the playoffs.

The other teams (those playing in stadiums with sponsored names) had a combined winning percentage of .467.  Eight of 23 (35%) made the playoffs. 

The competitive advantage must surely have a trickle down effect.  But after it goes through so many wallets, it may show up as morning dew on the field.
 
Finally, a sports bar could put this on its paper place mats to occupy customers waiting on those hot wings: 

Match the NFL team with its stadium! 

Column A is NFL teams.  Column B is stadium names.

I'm guessing the average fan gets 8-9 of the teams with their long time stadium names.

They'll be guessing at over half of the sponsored names. 




Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 5:13 PM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 



Aardvark wrote:

This past season, 23 NFL teams played in stadiums with sponsored names.

Since this article, New Orleans climbed on board with the Mercedez Benz Superdome (and really, what better captures Nawlins diversity... than a Teutonic car?). 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium, don't know how or if they split Met Life's $16m per.

9 NFL teams played in stadiums without sponsored names:

Atlanta-      Georgia Dome
Buffalo-       Ralph Wilson Stadium
Chicago-    Soldier Field
Cincinnati-   Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland-  Cleveland Browns Stadium
Dallas-       Cowboys Stadium
Green Bay-  Lambeau Field
Kansas City-  Arrowhead Stadium
San Francisco-  Candlestick Park

Their combined winning percentage this past year was .527.
Four of nine (44%) made the playoffs.

The other teams (those playing in stadiums with sponsored names) had a combined winning percentage of .467.  Eight of 23 (35%) made the playoffs. 

The competitive advantage must surely have a trickle down effect.  But after it goes through so many wallets, it may show up as morning dew on the field.
 
Finally, a sports bar could put this on its paper place mats to occupy customers waiting on those hot wings: 

Match the NFL team with its stadium! 

Column A is NFL teams.  Column B is stadium names.

I'm guessing the average fan gets 8-9 of the teams with their long time stadium names.

They'll be guessing at over half of the sponsored names. 




I'm waiting for Apple to buy the naming rights to more than one Stadium. Ipod Stadium. IPad Stadium. Nano Stadium. IPhone Stadium.  In each of these stadia all Android phones will be blocked. Only Apple phones will work.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >