Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFL 2019-20: The Patriots Are A Terrible 11-3 Team!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SonofSouthie
    replied
    Sale voided.

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...touchdown-ball

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    For me, it's not so much will they fail- the odds are quite high that they will. But if they manage to lose $1B, that would either mean someone embezzled a lot of money or they were around for a lot longer than anyone projected they would be. And to complain that this is some kind of colossal waste of money- this is going to pay a few hundred people a decent salary in a country were burning $1B to put back into the economy would be a great thing.

    Essentially, why are people so upset about this?

    We really NEED billionaires to put money back into the economy, and in this method, at least people are going to be entertained.
    I can think of a lot better ways to inject $1B into the economy than trying to start another professional football league. I'm also not upset about it - more like amused.

    Leave a comment:


  • state of hockey
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Median American wealth is the height of the ridge of a Toblerone bar.

    Jeff Bezos' wealth is the height of Mount Everest. Five times.

    Eat the rich.
    Yeah but one of those airport toblerones, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
    The arguments that this time they surely won't fail come off a lot like wishful thinking.
    For me, it's not so much will they fail- the odds are quite high that they will. But if they manage to lose $1B, that would either mean someone embezzled a lot of money or they were around for a lot longer than anyone projected they would be. And to complain that this is some kind of colossal waste of money- this is going to pay a few hundred people a decent salary in a country were burning $1B to put back into the economy would be a great thing.

    Essentially, why are people so upset about this?

    We really NEED billionaires to put money back into the economy, and in this method, at least people are going to be entertained.

    Leave a comment:


  • SonofSouthie
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
    The arguments that this time they surely won't fail come off a lot like wishful thinking.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc4IFIXcDcs

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    The arguments that this time they surely won't fail come off a lot like wishful thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    A $billion? Shiiiiit - Musk wastes more than that on tweets before breakfast.

    A million seconds is 11.5 days. A billion seconds is 31.7 years. A trillion seconds is 317 *centuries*. US billionaires are hoarding $3T. A new football league is exactly like an expansion NCAA team - just takes the right sponsor.
    Median American wealth is the height of the ridge of a Toblerone bar.

    Jeff Bezos' wealth is the height of Mount Everest. Five times.

    Eat the rich.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    A $billion? Shiiiiit - Musk wastes more than that on tweets before breakfast.

    A million seconds is 11.5 days. A billion seconds is 31.7 years. A trillion seconds is 317 *centuries*. US billionaires are hoarding $3T. A new football league is exactly like an expansion NCAA team - just takes the right sponsor.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    One thing that was nice- none of the players were primadonnas. The pay wasn't high enough. Which also meant that some even knew this was their only chance. So it was kinda like college football vs. NFL. And it didn't take itself so serious to not have any fun. Unlike the NoFunLeague.
    THis too, but can't fix that in the NFL :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by French Rage View Post

    Like, how? No one ever really made use of the new rules. It was just mediocre spring football.
    Receivers only needed one foot in bounds
    College football OT rules
    There were others I can't remember. I thought the coinflip rules were fun back then but whatever.

    There were also the experience changes
    They pioneered the over-the-field cam
    I liked that they had nicknames on the back

    **** was way more fun in that respect

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    The NFL isn't going to merge with anyone. Adding teams just takes away their ability to extort cities for stadium funding. They might add teams in Europe one day but even that's a stretch. So if the whole point of starting a spring football league is to force a merger, well the idea is even dumber than I thought. And the NFL already had the most successful spring league ever in NFL Europe and even that folded after losing $30 million a year for ten years.
    Uh, never said they were going to merge. You bring up a long term "problem" and I contend that if they get to $1B in expenses, the league will be winning. 5 years would be winning. 10 years would be exceptional. 10 years is how long the AFL lasted until it became the AFC, 3 years is how long the original USFL lasted- and it had astronomical salaries, none of the most recent spring leagues ever got close to that. So just getting to $1B in expenses would mean that the league would be on a path that is probably more sustainable than the original USFL, and maybe as staying (and interesting) as the AFL was.

    Heck the freaking Arena Football League has been mostly on and (now) off since the 80s. And I'd bet that outdoor spring football will be more popular than that.

    Your making a bar that if they can even chin up to, it would be pretty epic.

    The USFL and XFL have to be focused on very short term survival. If they get past that, it will be a win.
    Last edited by MichVandal; 04-13-2022, 03:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    If they get to year 10, they win. The AFL ran that long then it merged with the NFL. So by then, the cost/expense/profit thing will be worked out pretty darned well.

    And for the purposes of survival of the league, the costs will be relatively static- we are talking 3 years max- the original USFL closed after 3 seasons when it was proposed to move to the fall.

    The only way that salaries expand before closing is if everything is working out.

    Given all of the failures of spring football, it will never get to the point of $1B in losses.

    So, yes, expenses/salaries will be pretty static until they have some success. There won't be additional teams until there's success.

    This isn't that complicated.
    The NFL isn't going to merge with anyone. Adding teams just takes away their ability to extort cities for stadium funding. They might add teams in Europe one day but even that's a stretch. So if the whole point of starting a spring football league is to force a merger, well the idea is even dumber than I thought. And the NFL already had the most successful spring league ever in NFL Europe and even that folded after losing $30 million a year for ten years.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    You’re the one bringing this up, not me. Spring football has zero bearing on MLS.
    someone pee-ed into your cheerios. Just thinking it was about your sport.

    Given the number of billionaires in the US alone, there it plenty of money out there to run up billions of expenses these days for the sake of saying you have a pro-football team. Which is what drove dumpy into the USFL.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    Because you’re assuming my “$1 billion” number was only the upfront cost. My one billion number is a long term number, like the total at year 10. That’s the thing where most people balk at. If people want to make money in this venture, that’s how much time and money it’s going to take.

    Also, you assume costs are going to be static the entire. Player salaries aren’t going to stay at $4500 a week the entire time, the season isn’t going to stay at 10 games the entire time, and the league can’t stay at 8 teams the entire time.
    If they get to year 10, they win. The AFL ran that long then it merged with the NFL. So by then, the cost/expense/profit thing will be worked out pretty darned well.

    And for the purposes of survival of the league, the costs will be relatively static- we are talking 3 years max- the original USFL closed after 3 seasons when it was proposed to move to the fall.

    The only way that salaries expand before closing is if everything is working out.

    Given all of the failures of spring football, it will never get to the point of $1B in losses.

    So, yes, expenses/salaries will be pretty static until they have some success. There won't be additional teams until there's success.

    This isn't that complicated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    Clearly, to dominate the MLS.... That's the plan.
    You’re the one bringing this up, not me. Spring football has zero bearing on MLS.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X