I am a moderate but definitely a free market guy. I think a big part of the problem is that the NFL operates outside of the laws and principles that punish bad behavior and incompetence. Until this year the Bengals have been run terribly. And the Dolphins have been run terribly for 10-20 years. The Browns too. And they have been very profitable because market principles don’t apply to them. Which is the problem imo
My point about corporate behavior is just the belief that “they would not do something so obviously dumb” is naïve. I also believe that Hue Jackson’s agent / lawyer reminded him about some kind of confidentiality clause, maybe with a liquidated damages provision, in his contract, so he is changing his tune a little bit. Either way, I’m dying to see this unfold…
The schedule thing is a bit overblown. When they had 16 game schedules I could have told you 14 of the 16 games for every team for eternity. 2 games isn't that big of deal. Shoot, Tampa Bay I think had the easiest schedule this year. The bigger thing in the NFL, and the NBA, is the salary cap and salary floor. It's pretty tough for any one team to be dominant for a long time with those constraints in place.
Ah, a post filled with complete leftist nonsense, baseless accusations, and blatant race-baiting. You're the best Baseball Hall of Fame writer on the planet, Joe, and I love reading your words about that specific topic. But everything else you write is pure drivel.
How are the NFL's hiring processes "racist" ? That seems like a completely baseless claim. Teams want to hire the best coach, period. And why? Because the best coach will lead them to the ONLY color owners care about: green. Want to know why sports leagues keep expanding the playoffs to more and more teams? Because getting to the post-season is, you know, profitable. If winning - even if you're losing one season in order to win the next season (losing a battle to win the war) - equals profit then why would any team ever want to hire a bad coach? It just makes no sense.
The last 6 years in politics has given us a window into rich corporate bigwigs’ thinking and behavior. They think they can do whatever they want, and nobody can do anything about it. And they are mostly right. And then, they keep going further and further and further until it comes to light. I 100% believe there will be a paper trail. You can’t hide that much money. It will be easy to compare the coaches contracts with their compensation.
As a Dolphins fan, I am definitely hopeful that Ross has to sell the franchise over this. They have been an utter disaster since he bought it. And as a person who believes in justice and fairness, I certainly think there should be some anti-trust investigations into pro football. But I’m not holding my breath.
And Flores seems to be universally regarded as a no nonsense honest guy. Rough around the edges, maybe hard to get along with, but not a liar.
At any rate, I am dying to see how this turns out.
In 2017, when the Browns went winless, the second worst team was 3-13. Even if your goal is losing for a better pick, you probably don’t want to make history like that in the process when you can win even just one game to avoid it.
It feels like Brian Flores is going to be this early century’s Curt Flood. And I mean that in every inspirational, disappointing, gut-wrenching, maddening way possible. Of course, it’s dawning on me as I’m typing this the same could be said for Colin Kaepernick.
Colin Kaepernick did nothing for anyone other than himself. Curt Flood helped tens of thousands of players from all races and backgrounds get richer by willingly becoming a pariah in order to better his fellow players. Kaepernick had already made his millions; Flood had not. Kaepernick had very, very little to lose. Flood had everything to lose. Do not confuse the two in any way.
As a casual fan the unbalanced scheduling has interested me. Each new year at the beginning of the season some team or another is suggested as a breakthrough team since they performed better than expectations the previous year when they had been terrible 2 years before. Then, this team will often not have a breakthrough season, and the prognosticators will lament the bad luck or steps back taken by players expected to be better based on the previous year. What I have never heard is someone saying, oh, this okay team was the best of the okay teams when playing an easier schedule a year ago, but now that they have a tougher schedule based on the success a year ago, this still okay team can no longer compete, i.e. it's the same team, the same coaches, the key difference being the tougher schedule rather than bad luck or players not meeting their potential. As I say, just a casual fan, so maybe I miss these more inside football discussions, has there been any analysis of the schedules impact. (on the other hand what does it say of a team like New England or the Manning Colts that they could perform extraordinarily each year when faced with what I think is a tougher than average schedule if I understand the schedule skewing. Enjoy the column as always.
Steve, the Lions were that team. When Barry Sanders was there they had one exceptionally emotional season - Stu Utley was paralyzed, Barry ran for 2000 yards and Reggie Lewis almost died. They had a great season, made the playoffs and were rewarded with a 1st place schedule. Then they went 5-11, had a last place schedule the next year and won again. Bottom line is they were a .500 team the whole time, but one good season made the next several years a yo-yo
The infamous scene of Eagles fans throwing snowballs at Santa is because the Eagles were playing too well against the Vikings and tied at halftime, ruining their chances of drafting OJ. The story is that everyone was hammered and it was a bad Santa picked from the crowd, etc. etc., but ultimately it's because they wanted the future 2000-yard runner.
My lived experience is as an American, but one thing that jumps out at me about the US/Europe comparison is that there seems to be so much more competition here in the States for a supporter's attention.
If the Dolphins can't offer hope, maybe Miami sports fans turn their attention more to the Heat, Panthers, Marlins (ha!), Inter Miami CF, or the University of Miami (or one of the other Florida universities).
If you're a Burnley supporter who grows bored with the club's losing ways, you would ... I don't know what?
For as big as the NFL is in the American sports consciousness, it doesn't compare to the hold soccer has overseas. I don't mean to spit on cricket, rugby, F1, or anything else but they're not in the same stadium there.
It doesn't feel like pure coincidence, especially given how rare they are league-wide, that the 2 coaches here who may have been encouraged to lose, only to be fired, were 2 of the very few Black coaches in the NFL.
As bad as this is, it's not as bad as Pete Rose. Rose was BETTING on games HE was managing while nobody else knew that's what's going on. That's different than teams trying to lose (who are not placing bets on the result), which is not exactly a new thing in any US league. Gamblers have to factor in whether a team is purposely tanking, as do the betting organizations. Even for the most clueless gambler, as the season goes on, becomes pretty aware of tanking.... or, at least, that the team isn't likely to win. Bad analogy.
I don't know, just because it is widely know to be happening doesnt really mean it isnt as bad. I actually think this is worse than what Pete Rose did because 1) I don't think we know he bet against the Reds, only that he bet for them to win, and 2) even if he did bet against the Reds, we don't know if he actually did took a specific action to make it more likely that they lost. I think losing on purpose to get a benefit compromises the integrity of any game.
I don't care enough to look it up but I seem to remember the big complaint was that he burned up his bullpen through overuse in meaningless games. Pretty ironic given the way the game is played now.
Not necessarily. I can think of cases like the fire-sale Marlins after their two World Series wins when they traded or sold off all of their good players. They weren't doing this because they wanted a high draft pick; they weren't *trying* to lose. They were doing it because their owner was a cheapskate. I'm sure he'd rather see his team win than see it lose, but he wasn't *really* trying to win in any meaningful sense.
I am a moderate but definitely a free market guy. I think a big part of the problem is that the NFL operates outside of the laws and principles that punish bad behavior and incompetence. Until this year the Bengals have been run terribly. And the Dolphins have been run terribly for 10-20 years. The Browns too. And they have been very profitable because market principles don’t apply to them. Which is the problem imo
My point about corporate behavior is just the belief that “they would not do something so obviously dumb” is naïve. I also believe that Hue Jackson’s agent / lawyer reminded him about some kind of confidentiality clause, maybe with a liquidated damages provision, in his contract, so he is changing his tune a little bit. Either way, I’m dying to see this unfold…
The schedule thing is a bit overblown. When they had 16 game schedules I could have told you 14 of the 16 games for every team for eternity. 2 games isn't that big of deal. Shoot, Tampa Bay I think had the easiest schedule this year. The bigger thing in the NFL, and the NBA, is the salary cap and salary floor. It's pretty tough for any one team to be dominant for a long time with those constraints in place.
Ah, a post filled with complete leftist nonsense, baseless accusations, and blatant race-baiting. You're the best Baseball Hall of Fame writer on the planet, Joe, and I love reading your words about that specific topic. But everything else you write is pure drivel.
How are the NFL's hiring processes "racist" ? That seems like a completely baseless claim. Teams want to hire the best coach, period. And why? Because the best coach will lead them to the ONLY color owners care about: green. Want to know why sports leagues keep expanding the playoffs to more and more teams? Because getting to the post-season is, you know, profitable. If winning - even if you're losing one season in order to win the next season (losing a battle to win the war) - equals profit then why would any team ever want to hire a bad coach? It just makes no sense.
The question is, how can they implement hiring quotas? Cuz unless % coaches = % players it's obviously racist as we all know.
The last 6 years in politics has given us a window into rich corporate bigwigs’ thinking and behavior. They think they can do whatever they want, and nobody can do anything about it. And they are mostly right. And then, they keep going further and further and further until it comes to light. I 100% believe there will be a paper trail. You can’t hide that much money. It will be easy to compare the coaches contracts with their compensation.
As a Dolphins fan, I am definitely hopeful that Ross has to sell the franchise over this. They have been an utter disaster since he bought it. And as a person who believes in justice and fairness, I certainly think there should be some anti-trust investigations into pro football. But I’m not holding my breath.
And Flores seems to be universally regarded as a no nonsense honest guy. Rough around the edges, maybe hard to get along with, but not a liar.
At any rate, I am dying to see how this turns out.
In 2017, when the Browns went winless, the second worst team was 3-13. Even if your goal is losing for a better pick, you probably don’t want to make history like that in the process when you can win even just one game to avoid it.
What I'm reading is that the Browns are so bad, they can't even lose without screwing it up.
It feels like Brian Flores is going to be this early century’s Curt Flood. And I mean that in every inspirational, disappointing, gut-wrenching, maddening way possible. Of course, it’s dawning on me as I’m typing this the same could be said for Colin Kaepernick.
You do know Kaepernick was benched long before he became a martyr, don't you? There's no comparison to Curt Flood and the sacrifice he made.
As for Brian Flores, it may be forthcoming but let's wait for some factual evidence.
Colin Kaepernick did nothing for anyone other than himself. Curt Flood helped tens of thousands of players from all races and backgrounds get richer by willingly becoming a pariah in order to better his fellow players. Kaepernick had already made his millions; Flood had not. Kaepernick had very, very little to lose. Flood had everything to lose. Do not confuse the two in any way.
I think the owners are absolutely arrogant enough to put it in writing. They think they're bulletproof and that laws don't apply to them.
As a casual fan the unbalanced scheduling has interested me. Each new year at the beginning of the season some team or another is suggested as a breakthrough team since they performed better than expectations the previous year when they had been terrible 2 years before. Then, this team will often not have a breakthrough season, and the prognosticators will lament the bad luck or steps back taken by players expected to be better based on the previous year. What I have never heard is someone saying, oh, this okay team was the best of the okay teams when playing an easier schedule a year ago, but now that they have a tougher schedule based on the success a year ago, this still okay team can no longer compete, i.e. it's the same team, the same coaches, the key difference being the tougher schedule rather than bad luck or players not meeting their potential. As I say, just a casual fan, so maybe I miss these more inside football discussions, has there been any analysis of the schedules impact. (on the other hand what does it say of a team like New England or the Manning Colts that they could perform extraordinarily each year when faced with what I think is a tougher than average schedule if I understand the schedule skewing. Enjoy the column as always.
Steve, the Lions were that team. When Barry Sanders was there they had one exceptionally emotional season - Stu Utley was paralyzed, Barry ran for 2000 yards and Reggie Lewis almost died. They had a great season, made the playoffs and were rewarded with a 1st place schedule. Then they went 5-11, had a last place schedule the next year and won again. Bottom line is they were a .500 team the whole time, but one good season made the next several years a yo-yo
Oh, and their other OG was run over by a truck, and killed, in the off-season. And they brought Fralic in, who couldn’t play anymore.
The infamous scene of Eagles fans throwing snowballs at Santa is because the Eagles were playing too well against the Vikings and tied at halftime, ruining their chances of drafting OJ. The story is that everyone was hammered and it was a bad Santa picked from the crowd, etc. etc., but ultimately it's because they wanted the future 2000-yard runner.
My lived experience is as an American, but one thing that jumps out at me about the US/Europe comparison is that there seems to be so much more competition here in the States for a supporter's attention.
If the Dolphins can't offer hope, maybe Miami sports fans turn their attention more to the Heat, Panthers, Marlins (ha!), Inter Miami CF, or the University of Miami (or one of the other Florida universities).
If you're a Burnley supporter who grows bored with the club's losing ways, you would ... I don't know what?
For as big as the NFL is in the American sports consciousness, it doesn't compare to the hold soccer has overseas. I don't mean to spit on cricket, rugby, F1, or anything else but they're not in the same stadium there.
It doesn't feel like pure coincidence, especially given how rare they are league-wide, that the 2 coaches here who may have been encouraged to lose, only to be fired, were 2 of the very few Black coaches in the NFL.
As bad as this is, it's not as bad as Pete Rose. Rose was BETTING on games HE was managing while nobody else knew that's what's going on. That's different than teams trying to lose (who are not placing bets on the result), which is not exactly a new thing in any US league. Gamblers have to factor in whether a team is purposely tanking, as do the betting organizations. Even for the most clueless gambler, as the season goes on, becomes pretty aware of tanking.... or, at least, that the team isn't likely to win. Bad analogy.
Even if Rose didn't bet on the Reds to lose, there were games where he didn't bet on them to win. That had to affect his managing.
I don't know, just because it is widely know to be happening doesnt really mean it isnt as bad. I actually think this is worse than what Pete Rose did because 1) I don't think we know he bet against the Reds, only that he bet for them to win, and 2) even if he did bet against the Reds, we don't know if he actually did took a specific action to make it more likely that they lost. I think losing on purpose to get a benefit compromises the integrity of any game.
I don't care enough to look it up but I seem to remember the big complaint was that he burned up his bullpen through overuse in meaningless games. Pretty ironic given the way the game is played now.
Question: Is not trying to win the same as trying to lose?
Not necessarily. I can think of cases like the fire-sale Marlins after their two World Series wins when they traded or sold off all of their good players. They weren't doing this because they wanted a high draft pick; they weren't *trying* to lose. They were doing it because their owner was a cheapskate. I'm sure he'd rather see his team win than see it lose, but he wasn't *really* trying to win in any meaningful sense.
Hubris and the NFL? Shocked, I tell you. Shocked!