Jump to content

Mac the Knife

Members
  • Posts

    12,776
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mac the Knife

  1. Well, the chronology may be off, but yeah, the story's pretty straight. And FWIW, I'd never have blamed Max Winter for what he did (though had I been Winter, I'd surely have been more "straight up" about it). There are a few things regarding the story I hadn't been aware of - for example, that Hunt and Murchison were actually pretty close friends, and looked at the Texans-Cowboys rivalry as little more than friendly competition with no truly significant consequence (at least, as far as their wallets were concerned). They were both loaded as all get out, and any losses they sustained were mere drops in their buckets. I've heard another permutation of this that Hunt and Bud Adams were offered expansion teams, but by the time the NFL had realized Hunt & Co. were serious, Lamar had felt a need to keep his word to the others in "The Foolish Club." An admirable trait in a man I always viewed as admirable. He also, like Art Rooney Sr., was really soft-spoken, humble, and genuinely nice. I had the privilege of meeting both of them (Mr. Rooney on several different occasions, Mr. Hunt but once) in my late teens/early 20's, and they impressed me with their mere demeanor. That's not something most people do for me. As for the book recommendation, I appreciate it, but it's gonna hafta taka place at the bottom of a pile that's currently five deep (and one of which, oddly, is a bio of Lamar Hunt)... which at the rate I'm going, means I'll get around to reading it sometime in, oh, mid-2019...
  2. See, I wouldn't term that as 'blackmail.' I'd term that as a combination of (i) being extremely intelligent, coupled with (ii) applying leverage. "Blackmail" is a more sinister term than I think applies here; Murchison, truth be told, wasn't hell-bent on getting the Cowboys up and running. The NFL approached him, he wasn't their first choice, and he was a good friend of a guy he'd be competing head-to-head with in the market in Lamar Hunt. But it became known he had been the one approached, and he wasn't about to let things fall through and cause him embarrassment - particularly at the hands of one man. So he gained an advantage over that man, and leveraged it, persuading him to vote for approval. If anything, it gives me a new level of respect for Clint Murchison.
  3. This doesn't fall under the relocation category, but it's a paraphrasing of a fun story told in the latest episode of my favorite podcast, "Good Seats Still Available..." As is well known by football fans, when Lamar Hunt's efforts to buy either the Chicago Cardinals or an expansion franchise for the Dallas market was rebuffed by the NFL, he gathered together a group of other would-be team owners and formed the American Football League. The NFL, meanwhile, suddenly got interested in Dallas itself, with most owners wanting to put a team in the market to try and bury Hunt. One owner who didn't want a team in Dallas? George Preston Marshall, who as Washington's owner operated the most southern team in the NFL and thus essentially had the entire southern United States as "his" market. A Dallas franchise would threaten his stranglehold as he saw it, and consequently he opposed it. Failing to convince Hunt to abandon his plans and award him a Dallas franchise in the NFL, the league instead picked a friend of Lamar's, Clint Murchison, as a prospective Dallas franchise owner. Back in those days an expansion of the league had to be by unanimous vote however, and as such Marshall said he'd veto any Dallas expansion. So how did Murchison's proposed team, now known as the Dallas Cowboys, come to be? Murchison bought the publishing rights to "Hail To The Redskins," the theme song which had for decades been used by (but not owned by) Marshall and his team. Murchison simply told Marshall, "You can veto my franchise, but when you do? I'll terminate the licensing agreement you had with the previous owner for the song and you won't be able to use it anymore." POOF! The Dallas Cowboys were born
  4. I just came across this answer, and read Item 18. I own or control several corporations. If you ever want your username changed here, PM me. I'll lodge a formal complaint on behalf of one of them. Item 18 doesn't specify what objection my corporation may have to a name or that I have to have a trademark associated with your user name; only that a corporation lodge a complaint. I like loopholes, damnit...
  5. Two thoughts... the first being that their mayor at least recognizes that the Alamodome will never be a permanent home to a potential NFL team, and that a new facility would be required. The second is that he isn't simply blowing sunshine out his *** on this. Over the next decade there are a lot of NFL teams whose stadium deals either end or at least allow them an option to bail. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see any one of a number of teams - at this point most likely among them, the Cincinnati Bengals - from making that move. And no, I'm not knocking Cincinnati as a market at all; it's just that within the next decade the circumstances will be ripest for them to move (more than likely an ownership change, a stadium deal with an opt-out or expiration, etc.) The Rams don't have to be romanticized. Part of what the team's current draw is based on nostalgia. But when they move into that new stadium? The revenue streams from it are going to propel the Rams financially ahead of everyone else in the league, and do so for at least a quarter century. From a revenue perspective anyway, it won't be a Lakers > Clippers environment. It'll be a Rams > Lakers one.
  6. True, but it's even more parochial than that - the NFL isn't a corporation. It's legal structure is that of an unincorporated association, which makes it even more pliable to such circumstances. In fact none of the "big four" sports leagues are organized as corporations, LLC's or partnerships (though they have side business entitles which are). The NBA's setup is so vague that depending on the jurisdiction, they're legally classified as a partnership (California and several other states in which teams operate), an unincorporated association (New York), or a joint venture entity (Canada, and several states). But you're right - the NFL's going to get its money, and Spanos and his family come out ahead, pretty much no matter what.
  7. Actually Goth, this situation is already addressed thanks to past precedent. In the 1980's, the NFL adopted a resolution requiring the league to withhold revenue distributions to teams in the event of any delinquencies in payments owed to the league (a result of some stink between the league and Hugh Culverhouse). A few years later, they adopted another resolution tacking interest onto the delinquent amount. So no matter what? The NFL's going to get their money; they'll just deduct it from the Chargers share of TV revenues if they have to.
  8. Any team relocation in the NFL is going to be a multi-year process, if not due to logistics than for sake of public relations optics. The Chargers are stuck in Los Angeles unless they find some other NFL franchise to relocate their and assume its obligations. But presuming they even could, where would they go? If Oakland's letting the Raiders go, again, they sure as hell aren't. Going back to San Diego would be a disaster unless Spanos sold the team. St. Louis would be ironic as all get out, but no NFL team's going there without a spankin' brand new stadium (which, obviously, wouldn't be forthcoming). San Antonio? Maybe, but a decade down the road or less and the Alamodome will be outmoded as well.
  9. My source for that is the L.A. Times, so I'm guessing... it's pretty much set.
  10. He rephased the project, rebudgeted key elements of it, and then executed contracts with a bunch of corporate partners with language specifying that the site would host 20 NFL games per year. He can't to do it now even if he wanted to.
  11. They are... but then again, they aren't. There is one scenario where the Chargers could get out... they could find a team that wants to take their place and is willing to assume its obligations, then do a franchise swap, a la the Philadelphia Eagles/Pittsburgh Pirates swap in 1940 or the Baltimore Colts/Los Angeles Rams swap in 1973. Perhaps a Jacksonville Jaguars, Cincinnati Bengals or Buffalo Bills decide to leave. They make an overture to Spanos (or whomever owns them at that point) and cut a deal: the Jags/Bengals/Bills assume the L.A. obligations, freeing up the Chargers to go back to San Diego, or to go to some other market. It wouldn't necessarily be a smart play, but it's one that's at least technically possible.
  12. I'll kill Orlando for those of you thinking of it - per the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, part of the City of Orlando is within the boundaries of the home territory of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Home territories extend 75 miles in every direction from the exterior corporate limits of the home city - which, in Tampa's case, takes out about 1/5th of Orlando. Exceptions can be made to this of course (Baltimore/Washington; Oakland/San Francisco; New York and Los Angeles), but usually they involve an indemnification payment to whoever's territory is being encroached upon. Actually, San Diego and Los Angeles were in territorial conflict technically speaking as well. San Antonio, meanwhile, might get quashed by a Jerry Jones, but if enough owners saw fit to put a team there, there's nothing he'd be able to do about it - San Antonio infringes on neither Houston nor Dallas' home territories.
  13. I'm of the opinion that every one of these situations should be handled thusly... Team: "We're opting out of our lease." City:
  14. So to recap... The Mariners are squawking about their corporately whored stadium. The Diamondbacks want out of their corporately whored stadium. The Rays want out of their corporately whored stadium, and now The Angels want out of their stadium that's so old they can't whore it. So let's move 'em around... Los Angeles gets the Rays. Tampa gets the Mariners. Arizona gets the Angels. Seattle gets the Diamondbacks. Just for the lulz.
  15. "My Hurricanes?" I grew up a Penguins fan. I've not gone to a game in years, and I've paid to attend precisely one in the 20+ years they've been here. I'd trade the Carolina Hurricanes for the Oakland A's, or a rebranded Tampa Bay Devil Rays, in a heartbeat and never shed a single tear over it. Go to eight divisions of four teams each, with the division champs guaranteed a playoff berth. Make the next eight, regardless of division, qualify - even if it blows out the Eastern/Western Conference concepts. Or give a playoff berth to the top two in every division. Or break it out by conference so there are four division champs and four wild card qualifiers. Or hell, go to a 24-team playoff in which the 8 division champions get a bye and the other 16 teams play a single game, "one and done" qualifier to advance against them. If you want Seattle in the same division as Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary? Fine. If you want one with Las Vegas, Arizona, Anaheim an Los Angeles? Fine. If you want one with Boston, the Islanders, the Rangers and New Jersey? Fine. If you want one with Florida, Houston, Winnipeg and Montreal together? Fine. Whatever. Do any format you like provided you have 8 divisions of 4 teams, and those division champs are guaranteed playoff berths.
  16. I'm saying do it any way you want; just make it so that any team is only competing over the course of the regular season with 3 other teams for a playoff spot, rather than in a division with 7 others in a format where the deck is stacked against certain markets. My case against what they do now is best exemplified by the Metropolitan Division. Of that division's eight teams, five are in not major markets, but super markets (as opposed to supermarkets) which, while they can't offer players too much in direct compensation thanks to a salary cap, can offer them options to seek millions in other ways (endorsements, etc.) The sixth (Pittsburgh) has developed a winning tradition that is attractive to players along with the ability to be a big fish in a small pond, which can be equally attractive to players. By contrast, Columbus and Raleigh, each of which are great cities in their own right, stand no chance of developing into consistent playoff participants. Those markets' fans have zero incentive to see games unless their teams for some reason get hot and contend for one of the two coveted 'wild card' slots, because three of those other six teams in their division are guaranteed to have locked up those the division is guaranteed. So when Seattle's added? Keep the Metropolitan Division. Put the three New York area teams in there along with, say, a Boston. Go to an 8 division format of 4 teams each. Each division champ is guaranteed a playoff spot. From there? I don't care. If you want to make it so the top two in a division qualify to make your field of 16? Fine. If you want to allow all four teams from the same division to qualify? Fine. I just think the 4 division alignment and playoff format was a bad idea from the beginning, and I'd really like to see it end. If expansion to Seattle gets it done? I say, welcome, Seattle!
  17. I was thinking about this last night... I want an NFL-style divisional alignment of 8 divisions of 4 teams when Seattle's admitted. Have the top two in a division qualify, have the 8 division titlists plus the next top 8 no matter what division they come from, I don't care. But this 'finish in the top three of your division and your in, and if not you might have a chance at one of two wild card slot' system doesn't work. There are NHL franchises that might as well not even play the 2018-19 season because they have no chance of making the playoffs based solely on this dumb-ass playoff format.
  18. Meanwhile, the guys from Quebec City who applied before Las Vegas are saying, "So... when's our turn coming?"
  19. Well, I'll thank you both. Though I noticed I've been 'demoted' from Generalissimo to Member as a result; that must've been the hitch - but I'll gladly lose my title for the functionality.
  20. I didn't get it figured out, but somehow managed to reverse it. Don't ask me how, because I couldn't tell you. But I'm both now straight on that issue and able to post here (something I couldn't do until, well, just now). Thanks to @officeglenn for his assistance on this. I'm not sure what he did as to the latter issue, but I appreciate it.
  21. I have no idea how I managed to do it, but somehow I went from desktop display mode to mobile phone display mode on my computer. Could someone walk me through the proper way to restore desktop settings? These three sentences are consuming the bulk of a 32" monitor's screen size, and while I'll admit I'm losing my vision, I'm not quite that blind yet...
  22. I'll counter that with all baseball jerseys should have no names on the back, but 10" numerals, like the Phillies used to do. Between in-stadium introductions of every player, television graphic improvements and the traditional old game program? Names on jerseys aren't needed on jerseys anymore.
  23. I honestly think it depends on the sport, but more on the person as an individual. First, the sport... I would reckon that baseball players would be far more inclined to wear their AL/NL championship rings than would conference champions in other leagues. The reason is a perception that the AL or NL title is a league championship in its own right, with a World Series title merely adding to its luster. In basketball, football or hockey meanwhile, the only prize that's cherished is the ultimate, overall championship - evidenced by some hockey teams refusing to even touch the conference championship trophies they're awarded after a successful season (yeah, I know, they did this year). Baseball players view the league championship as something special, regardless of the World Series outcome; perhaps not right away, but eventually. Conference championship seasons are rarely if ever afforded such attribution. Second, the person... if I had played for the Los Angeles Lakers from 1959 to 1970, I'd have eight rings to show for it - every one of them a conference championship ring, what some in sports term "a symbol of failure." Would I wear them? Under those conditions, I reckon I would. But if I'd played two more years and won the NBA title on the 9th try? I'd likely be more apt to wear solely my 1972 ring, because it would mean more to me - especially after it having taken 9 tries to earn one. On the other hand, does a Bill Russell, Bill Belichick, Reggie Jackson or Derek Jeter value one championship ring over another? Does he potentially value a league/conference title ring more than a championship one based on the struggle the team had to earn it in comparison? I've won a boatload of trophies and awards in various facets of my life; to be honest, the baubles themselves are meaningless. There is work for which I received no recognition at all that, in retrospect, I'm more proud of. It's just an individual thing.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.