NFL 2014 Thread

[dsheinem]

Sure, winning does make a team money, but over the long run, it's the brand that makes money, not championships.

Other than the Cubs, which many people "root for" by purposefully picking an underdog or "support" with merchandise purchases (few people actually watch the Cubs compared to other teams and their TV ratings are shit), other very profitable teams have a rep for winning.

Luke can you just admit you were wrong? Building the brand, 99% of the time in sports, is about producing competitive and winning teams.

[Jmustang1968]

See what you guys did? Now we're talking about soccer in the football thread.

The Cubs have steadily held the #3 highest value in the MLB.

Sure, winning does make a team money, but over the long run, it's the brand that makes money, not championships.

Winning helps to make the brand. Cubs are more of anomaly, but it is folly to make sweeping generalizations based on an exception.

The top revenue generating teams have had a legacy of success.

[dsheinem]

I've long held that the Cubs are like the Pabst Blue Ribbon of pro sports: Even though they have long been shitty by almost any objective contemporary standard (despite having won some awards eons ago), they are still somehow the go to choice for people who, ironically or not, know little or nothing about the thing of which they are partaking (beer or baseball).

That's not to say that there aren't "true blue" Cubs and PBR fans out there, but those small numbers don't account for either brand's success.

[stickem]

See what you guys did? Now we're talking about soccer in the football thread.

The Cubs have steadily held the #3 highest value in the MLB.

Sure, winning does make a team money, but over the long run, it's the brand that makes money, not championships.

that true for a handful of nba, mlb teams as some franchises are like icon status. they'll make money win or lose. but since the nfl is king ,and has been for so long, i think most franchises are making money win or lose. except maybe jacksonville.

[Luke]

Luke can you just admit you were wrong?

I totally would if I thought I was wrong. I'm serious when I say I honestly believe winning is secondary if not tertiary in an owner's eyes to making money. I also don't believe winning brings success over the long run. In spurts, yes. Sports, like most things are cyclical. Over time, and maybe over a long amount of time, things even out. Batting over .400 is an incredible feat, and winning over 60% of games is gargantuan for the life of a team.

I won't refute the fact that winning "The Big One" gives a monetary boost, but not for long. It's establishing the brand, winners or losers, that makes coin. Cubs are an anomaly? Nonsense.

Out of hundreds of teams I could pick, let's look at the Philly Flyers. Haven't won a cup since '75. Yet they pack every seat and have some of the most die hard hockey fans on God's great Earth. Their brand, their image is what makes them successful, not winning. The people of not only Philadelphia, but people all over the globe love the "blue collar" team. They have built a loyal fan base.

And at the beginning, middle, and end of the day, that's what the owners want. The more fans the better. That's the focus, making money. Championships help, but aren't the main concern. If the team stinks, who cares if you're making money and your fans still consider your team "their team"?

Championships are icing on the already HUGE cake. People stuck with the Red Socks, people (millions of them) will stick with the Cubs, people will go to Browns games, and there is still a team named the San Jose Sharks.


It's a mindset that is hard to break. Most owners are like "Dollar Bill" Wirtz are obsessed with money. Much like the owner of the fictitious "Chiefs" owner, he didn't care about winning. It was all about putting butts in seat and turning profit. Like most owners he ran a business. A ring or two would only be extra income. When Bill's son Rocky stepped in, he had no worry of money (because he inherited a shit ton of it) so he focused less on business and more on winning.

The majority of owners don't care about anything but the bottom line. And yeah, I'll go there: You think the WWE hires the best Wrestlers? Nah. They hire people who sell tickets. That's the owners main priority, to sell tickets and make money.

First you get the money, then you get the khakis, then you get the girls.

[dsheinem]

Out of hundreds of teams I could pick, let's look at the Philly Flyers. Haven't won a cup since '75. Yet they pack every seat and have some of the most die hard hockey fans on God's great Earth. Their brand, their image is what makes them successful, not winning. The people of not only Philadelphia, but people all over the globe love the "blue collar" team. They have built a loyal fan base.

I'm a Flyers fan. And a Phillies fan. Their profitability rises and falls with the team's success, but them and teams like them have a baseline high value because of their market (where they are located) and their past competitive successes (often from pre-cap eras).

I mean, this list of most valuable MLB teams may as well be a rough ranking of most-populated US cities: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45mkm ... ble-teams/

[Luke]

I'm a Flyers fan. And a Phillies fan. Their profitability rises and falls with the team's success, but them and teams like them have a baseline high value because of their market (where they are located) and their past competitive successes (often from pre-cap eras).

Few things:

I like the Flyers as although they don't win many playoff games, they leave their opponents so broken that the team they faced never advances. "We didn't beat you, but we beat you". If they played smarter hockey they would have won a few cups by now. But not during the Eric Years. But hell if he didn't disappoint but a ton of butts in seats.

You bring up an interesting point. Would the Cubs still be so valuable if the team was located in Oklahoma? Well, yeah. They're the Cubs. Would the original six be any more popular if they changed cities? Nope. They're the original six.

I'm not sure why I have to say this again, but an owner's job is to make money, not win championships. You can make millions without winning. Look at the Washington Generals. Ain't won a game yet. And please do take a look at luxury taxes.

[dsheinem]

I'm not sure why I have to say this again, but an owner's job is to make money, not win championships. You can make millions without winning.

And you can make millions more by winning. If they don't actively try to win, they aren't doing their job well.

---

And now we know exactly how big of a piece of shit Ray Lewis Rice is. The joke is that a team with a statue honoring assholes like this:



shouldn't be surprised when its players do shit like this:

[Jmustang1968]

Big markets + legacy success. Teams who play well get more nationally televised games which is money.

The Colts have one of the smaller markets yet are the 12th most valuable team and Green Bay is 13th. Teams like Dallas, New England, Washington, NYG, SF etc are in top 10 and all had success in 80s and 90s, and the Patriots and Giants in the 2000s.

Then you have teams like the Browns, Bengals, and Lions who are at the bottom and are not successful on the field. A great example is the fall of the Raiders. One time rabid fan base for a team with past success. They have been bad for over a decade and have a bad stadium situation which has lowered value.

[Luke]

A great example is the fall of the Raiders. One time rabid fan base for a team with past success. They have been bad for over a decade and have a bad stadium situation which has lowered value.

Yet the Gruden Bowl rebuilt the brand, even when they lost. The Raiders are a great example of a team with an owner who didn't care about winning.

The answer to the question of "When will the raiders win?" was always "When Al Davis dies".

Al Davis gave two shits about winning. Broken record again here, but he sold tickets and made the money to make his pals happy. And yet, Raider Nation stayed faithful. Lose win or draw, he won.

Feel like I'm trying to place a round peg through a square space with my ideology. Owners don't care if they win. They care if they make money. If you are happy or not they don't care. If their teams wins or loses, the owner only cares if they are in the black. Most pro sports teams are cash cows, and there are plenty of Fortune 500 companies that barely break even, which is fine as all overhead is covered.


Perhaps my education is a step backwards for me. Perhaps it has even skewed my perception to think that the bottom line is the only measure of success. But that is what it is. I believe you either make money or lose it, and "winning" is miniscule. I'd rather retire at forty than have forty "best employee of the year" awards.

Winning money means a lot more to me than winning a cheap trophy. I think owners agree with me on that.