NFL News & Notes

[Bcv]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

That you think the Billionaires don't play a part in providing you entertainment is ridiculous. There is more to the NFL than what happens on the field. I know logistics and infrastructure is boring, but it's what allows the league to function. 

As far as not seeing the majority of the profits . . . yes, technically, by 1.2%. Players get 48.8% of all revenue earned. 

Don’t worry, I know all about logistics and infrastructure as those areas are my area of expertise professionally. 
 

What I find ridiculous is cheering for a team that proves that your statement about billionaires being necessary is false. If a majority of team owners weren’t just interested in profits, maybe safety would really be a priority and maybe we, as fans, would be able to see our favorite players on the field more.

What’s 1.2% of the revenues last year? Upwards of 140M that’s not shared between the players who, on top of what I previously listed, put their bodies on the line for us to enjoy our sundays. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Bcv said:

Don’t worry, I know all about logistics and infrastructure as those areas are my area of expertise professionally. 
 

What I find ridiculous is cheering for a team that proves that your statement about billionaires being necessary is false. If a majority of team owners weren’t just interested in profits, maybe safety would really be a priority and maybe we, as fans, would be able to see our favorite players on the field more.

What’s 1.2% of the revenues last year? Upwards of 140M that’s not shared between the players who, on top of what I previously listed, put their bodies on the line for us to enjoy our sundays. 

Bizarre that you don't seem to value it. 

Do you think if every team was a "publicly traded corporation", as opposed to a privately held corporation, that all the logistics work would be different? The team is still run by a massive infrastructure of people headed up by a board that performs the same duties. 

Is this a communist thing that you just resent rich people??? Obviously the teams are interested in profit. Jesus Christ the Packers make so much ******* profit they quite literally don't know what to do with it. 

This entire thing is so ******* stupid. There are 1000 ways we could increase safety more effectively than changing field surfaces. The most obvious one is we could make all the players wear the stupid Guardian Caps. We don't do that for a much less sensical reason than the expenditure of millions of dollars, it's because they look stupid. 

Ponder that for a minute. We could lower concussions and CTE by 8-17% in NFL players, and we don't do it . . . because it looks stupid. But nobody complains about that. Because Safety isn't actually what anybody cares about. It's not about that.

If safety is your main concern stop watching and financially supporting an inherently unsafe activity.  

This entire thing is about virtue signaling. It always has been. 

 

[Leader]

Never realized he was being this effective.................

 

[Bcv]

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Bizarre that you don't seem to value it. 

Do you think if every team was a "publicly traded corporation", as opposed to a privately held corporation, that all the logistics work would be different? The team is still run by a massive infrastructure of people headed up by a board that performs the same duties. 

Is this a communist thing that you just resent rich people??? Obviously the teams are interested in profit. Jesus Christ the Packers make so much ******* profit they quite literally don't know what to do with it. 

This entire thing is so ******* stupid. There are 1000 ways we could increase safety more effectively than changing field surfaces. The most obvious one is we could make all the players wear the stupid Guardian Caps. We don't do that for a much less sensical reason than the expenditure of millions of dollars, it's because they look stupid. 

Ponder that for a minute. We could lower concussions and CTE by 8-17% in NFL players, and we don't do it . . . because it looks stupid. But nobody complains about that. Because Safety isn't actually what anybody cares about. It's not about that.

If safety is your main concern stop watching and financially supporting an inherently unsafe activity.  

This entire thing is about virtue signaling. It always has been. 

 

Half of this post is just you regurgitating everything to try and make your point. In the same post you say that things wouldn’t change if teams were all operated like the packers and in the next sentence you say they make so much money they don’t know what to do with it. Maybe owners wouldn’t be so opposed to grass on every field if the owners couldn’t just pocket the money, don’t you think?
 

Comparing the surface on which the sport is played to how the game is played and which equipment is used is asinine, but on par with the rest of your arguments on this subject. I enjoy your takes on football, you’re clearly more knowledgeable about it than I am, but for off the field (pun intended) stuff, I’m not so sure. 
 

Just so you don’t waste your time, I won’t bother going on and on about this. Let’s get on to some other news. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Bcv

[Norm]

48 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Science proves its own previously accepted "truths" to be incorrect quite regularly.

 

 

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The above is what "Trust the Science" ended up being. 

Science seems to have come to the conclusion that the solution to gay austistic kids is to chop their **** off and tell them they're a girl. Spare me the rhetoric about how great modern science is. 

As far as the owners changing to grass, either now, OR AT THE NEXT CBA

THANK YOU!!!

That's the ******* point. 

The players will need to negotiate the change to the rules. 

It's bull**** that they're trying to force this change through now. 

So your solution is the players say "we want grass fields so we're safer", and the owners say, "OK, we're giving you 48.0% now instead of 48.8."

That's bull****, sorry. Financial compromise shouldn't be made over player safety. Those compromises are for financial reasons, like getting rid of the franchise tag, a rookie wage scale, adding a 17th game, etc... Decreasing injuries should not be a CBA bargaining tool.

Your stance on this is insanely bizarre. There are no players stanning for turf fields out there, quite the opposite actually, it's just you. I can count the times on the grass practice field that someone hit my leg with their helmet and the ground gave way and I got up thanking my lucky stars it wasn't a game on the turf field.

Unfortunately for high schools and lower level colleges, it is what it is for them. They get boosters to pay for the field and once it's in there's little cost to them. None of them can afford a maintained grass field like NFL or D1 college teams should.

[skibrett15]

There are players who prefer turf fields to grass because it helps them get open more, juke more people, and get around OL easier.

[squire12]

38 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

There are players who prefer turf fields to grass because it helps them get open more, juke more people, and get around OL easier.

...and that leads to better stats and a better future contract.  

 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

So your solution is the players say "we want grass fields so we're safer", and the owners say, "OK, we're giving you 48.0% now instead of 48.8."

That's bull****, sorry. Financial compromise shouldn't be made over player safety. Those compromises are for financial reasons, like getting rid of the franchise tag, a rookie wage scale, adding a 17th game, etc... Decreasing injuries should not be a CBA bargaining tool.

Your stance on this is insanely bizarre. There are no players stanning for turf fields out there, quite the opposite actually, it's just you. I can count the times on the grass practice field that someone hit my leg with their helmet and the ground gave way and I got up thanking my lucky stars it wasn't a game on the turf field.

Unfortunately for high schools and lower level colleges, it is what it is for them. They get boosters to pay for the field and once it's in there's little cost to them. None of them can afford a maintained grass field like NFL or D1 college teams should.

Yes!!!

What do you mean no compromise should be made for safety??? What the **** are we doing out here? We're smashing massive dudes into each other as hard as we can. We are, by the nature of what we're doing, creating injuries.

If we could reduce knee injuries by .01% for 999,999,999,999 dollars per player, should the NFL do it? Of course not. 

Plenty of players prefer turf. Even the most adamant pro grass dudes will admit that. Bakhtiari in his response admits Aaron Jones and other guys on the team prefer turf. 

[Leader]

 

[HokieHigh]

4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Bizarre that you don't seem to value it. 

Do you think if every team was a "publicly traded corporation", as opposed to a privately held corporation, that all the logistics work would be different? The team is still run by a massive infrastructure of people headed up by a board that performs the same duties. 

Is this a communist thing that you just resent rich people??? Obviously the teams are interested in profit. Jesus Christ the Packers make so much ******* profit they quite literally don't know what to do with it. 

This entire thing is so ******* stupid. There are 1000 ways we could increase safety more effectively than changing field surfaces. The most obvious one is we could make all the players wear the stupid Guardian Caps. We don't do that for a much less sensical reason than the expenditure of millions of dollars, it's because they look stupid. 

Ponder that for a minute. We could lower concussions and CTE by 8-17% in NFL players, and we don't do it . . . because it looks stupid. But nobody complains about that. Because Safety isn't actually what anybody cares about. It's not about that.

If safety is your main concern stop watching and financially supporting an inherently unsafe activity.  

This entire thing is about virtue signaling. It always has been. 

 

Part of this is that Cte happens after careers. Time off from concussion is frequently short relative to broken bones or tendon/muscle/ligament damage.

When people talk about safety, it is still in the conrext of profitability.

Not really concern for healthspan. 

[incognito_man]

5 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

5 hours ago, turf toe said:

99'9% of the time science is right

Science proves its own previously accepted "truths" to be incorrect quite regularly

Let's just all agree that the science isnt the ultimate truth, it's the questions that are then answered in robust ways. Certainly more robust than the alternatives and superior to them. But also certainly not infallible.

[turf toe]

5 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The above is what "Trust the Science" ended up being. 

Science seems to have come to the conclusion that the solution to gay austistic kids is to chop their **** off and tell them they're a girl. Spare me the rhetoric about how great modern science is. 

As far as the owners changing to grass, either now, OR AT THE NEXT CBA

THANK YOU!!!

That's the ******* point. 

The players will need to negotiate the change to the rules. 

It's bull**** that they're trying to force this change through now. 

for christ sakes, your buying this womens laughter and joking around in a talk show as fact, you know damn well she made those decisions based on more then just talking to friends, if you consider that talk show interview to be scientific evaluation, it's not

and there has been a ton of info gathering about turf, again the only reason for it's use is cheap to zero maintenance 

[turf toe]

5 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Science proves its own previously accepted "truths" to be incorrect quite regularly.

 

 

sure they do, no argument there, thats that .001% I mentioned, formulated opinion from people trained in the fields of interest can be wrong, however the consensus of more then just a few tend to bring the correct opinion to the for front.

people love science when it agrees with there pre determined opinion, and don't when it doesn't😀

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Yes!!!

What do you mean no compromise should be made for safety??? What the **** are we doing out here? We're smashing massive dudes into each other as hard as we can. We are, by the nature of what we're doing, creating injuries.

If we could reduce knee injuries by .01% for 999,999,999,999 dollars per player, should the NFL do it? Of course not. 

Plenty of players prefer turf. Even the most adamant pro grass dudes will admit that. Bakhtiari in his response admits Aaron Jones and other guys on the team prefer turf. 

CBAs run 10 years my man, you're saying when we have an idea for player safety that will cost money, we should say, "good idea, let's table that for 10 years from now." Lol come on.

I can't believe we're arguing anti-grass for the game of football. The game is aesthetically better on grass.