NFL Breaking Point: What would it take for you to lose interest?

[Sport]

Pro Sports teams are seen as assets to a community by those who, in reality, shouldn't. Normal businesses like IBM don't usually based in communities have the name of a city as part of their brand.

There. FTFY. You're falling for the illusion. Your post demonstrated that.

Most community assets don't demand hundreds of millions of free dollars from their communities / customers. Obviously some major employers do get tax breaks or incentives to relocate or stay in a city (Comcast in Phila comes to mind), however they generally employee 10s of 000s with well-paying jobs and legitimately contribute to the local economy. The same cannot necessarily be said for pro sports. At the end of the day, they may lure you in and get you to become emotionally attached by having the city name as part of their brand (I'll admit - I fall in to the trap too), but at the end of the day, thinking that they're anything more than a private company is naive at best.

The misguided civic sensibility associated with having any professional sports franchise best manifests itself in these types of situations. A team owner begins crying the blues that he/she can't afford to put their team in a new stadium that maximizes potential revenue unless they have a 'public-private partnership' with the municipality. The city, fearing it will lose some level of prestige in the national zeitgeist if the team moves, knuckles under and concedes to helping finance the infrastructural development underlying a very private business.

Nowadays it's so engrained into the modus operandi of pro sports that its most lucrative league has kept open the second largest television market in the country for two decades, because it's more valuable league-wide as a bargaining chip threat than it would be to have a franchise there. Cincinnati, Miami, San Diego, Buffalo, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Carolina, and who knows how many others have at least hinted/levied veiled threats about going to Los Angeles. But none have actually moved, despite what would be enormous revenue advantages for doing so to the franchise. Why do you suppose that is? Because to the other 31 owners, having the threat as an option to existing franchise locations and their municipalities is, collectively, more valuable than actually having the team there.

Major League Baseball had this idea in the late 1980s-early 1990s with Tampa Bay, while the NBA and NHL have such bargaining precedence today involving Seattle and Quebec City, respectively. But the idea of the most popular sports entity in America not having a team in the second-biggest city in all of America is a damn shame. Being screwed as often as it has, being the subject of late-night punch line jokes and being the vile disgust of other cities and their fans when questioning Los Angeles' football passion have alienated young people here from trying to organize grassroots efforts to bring a team to call home. The only sort of effort asserted to get a team back here are Baby Boomer Rams fans, and even those had to be salvaged after all the carnage Georgia Frontierre did to the team.

A full generation of NFL fans in this city have been permanently lost due to a lack of a team, only to go by the stories older fans provide for us. The majority of young NFL fans here are either (1) transplant fans from other teams without a Los Angeles connection, including Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers and Patriots fans or (2) fantasy football fans who go in forces to bars and taverns to root for their favorite players, not necessarily teams. I do worry what would happen if the current crop of young, displaced fans here (under-25 years old) have their own kids, and the NFL would continue to screw this market over and the next generation of NFL nomad fans.

I'd understand this argument with the NHL, but this is the NFL and you're Los Angeles. A team could move to LA tomorrow and sell out season tickets by the end of the week.

[OnWis97]

I'm actually very close to my breaking point with shows about football and/or the NFL. Ever notice how much they say "football" in those shows? Trent Dilfer, Mark Schlereth, and Da Coach (forgive me) are the worst.... "This football team is very good at protecting the football when they are on the offensive side of the football." Drives me nuts.

This was pointed out to me a while ago and now it's almost all I notice. "They need to win a football game." "Great football player." "A football move." "Move/throw/run the football."

They do this in other sports, but not at nearly the same rate. I don't know why it is like this in football. But it is annoying. Football!

[OnWis97]

Pro Sports teams are seen as assets to a community by those who, in reality, shouldn't. Normal businesses like IBM don't usually based in communities have the name of a city as part of their brand.

There. FTFY. You're falling for the illusion. Your post demonstrated that.

Most community assets don't demand hundreds of millions of free dollars from their communities / customers. Obviously some major employers do get tax breaks or incentives to relocate or stay in a city (Comcast in Phila comes to mind), however they generally employee 10s of 000s with well-paying jobs and legitimately contribute to the local economy. The same cannot necessarily be said for pro sports. At the end of the day, they may lure you in and get you to become emotionally attached by having the city name as part of their brand (I'll admit - I fall in to the trap too), but at the end of the day, thinking that they're anything more than a private company is naive at best.

The misguided civic sensibility associated with having any professional sports franchise best manifests itself in these types of situations. A team owner begins crying the blues that he/she can't afford to put their team in a new stadium that maximizes potential revenue unless they have a 'public-private partnership' with the municipality. The city, fearing it will lose some level of prestige in the national zeitgeist if the team moves, knuckles under and concedes to helping finance the infrastructural development underlying a very private business.

Nowadays it's so engrained into the modus operandi of pro sports that its most lucrative league has kept open the second largest television market in the country for two decades, because it's more valuable league-wide as a bargaining chip threat than it would be to have a franchise there. Cincinnati, Miami, San Diego, Buffalo, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Carolina, and who knows how many others have at least hinted/levied veiled threats about going to Los Angeles. But none have actually moved, despite what would be enormous revenue advantages for doing so to the franchise. Why do you suppose that is? Because to the other 31 owners, having the threat as an option to existing franchise locations and their municipalities is, collectively, more valuable than actually having the team there.

In Minnesota we even had a catch phrase for this when the Metrodome was getting outdated and the Twins and Vikings were making threats: We were going to be a "cold Omaha" if we did not pony up. So we did. We are still cold (and roughly as likely as Omaha to ever bring a big-time championship here) but we are now "on the map." There is some truth to it but it does not make it right.

[themightyspitz]

Pro Sports teams are seen as assets to a community by those who, in reality, shouldn't. Normal businesses like IBM don't usually based in communities have the name of a city as part of their brand.

There. FTFY. You're falling for the illusion. Your post demonstrated that.

Most community assets don't demand hundreds of millions of free dollars from their communities / customers. Obviously some major employers do get tax breaks or incentives to relocate or stay in a city (Comcast in Phila comes to mind), however they generally employee 10s of 000s with well-paying jobs and legitimately contribute to the local economy. The same cannot necessarily be said for pro sports. At the end of the day, they may lure you in and get you to become emotionally attached by having the city name as part of their brand (I'll admit - I fall in to the trap too), but at the end of the day, thinking that they're anything more than a private company is naive at best.

The misguided civic sensibility associated with having any professional sports franchise best manifests itself in these types of situations. A team owner begins crying the blues that he/she can't afford to put their team in a new stadium that maximizes potential revenue unless they have a 'public-private partnership' with the municipality. The city, fearing it will lose some level of prestige in the national zeitgeist if the team moves, knuckles under and concedes to helping finance the infrastructural development underlying a very private business.

Nowadays it's so engrained into the modus operandi of pro sports that its most lucrative league has kept open the second largest television market in the country for two decades, because it's more valuable league-wide as a bargaining chip threat than it would be to have a franchise there. Cincinnati, Miami, San Diego, Buffalo, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Carolina, and who knows how many others have at least hinted/levied veiled threats about going to Los Angeles. But none have actually moved, despite what would be enormous revenue advantages for doing so to the franchise. Why do you suppose that is? Because to the other 31 owners, having the threat as an option to existing franchise locations and their municipalities is, collectively, more valuable than actually having the team there.

In Minnesota we even had a catch phrase for this when the Metrodome was getting outdated and the Twins and Vikings were making threats: We were going to be a "cold Omaha" if we did not pony up. So we did. We are still cold (and roughly as likely as Omaha to ever bring a big-time championship here) but we are now "on the map." There is some truth to it but it does not make it right.

Plus it would've been the second time Los Angeles pilfered a professional sports team from you. That would've sucked.

[Lights Out]

Bayless isn't an idiot. He was a pretty respected writer for the Dallas Morning News at one time.

Wasn't he still working for the Dallas Morning News when he got caught blatantly fabricating gay rumors about Troy Aikman to sell a book? The guy's always been a troll - it's just that he somehow made the leap from being the resident troll sports columnist that every city has to annoying the entire nation with his hideous takes.

[BigBubba]

Started getting into the NFL in 2012 and my interest has already begun to decline. I didn't watch a single game all the way through this year and I'm on the verge of giving up on your game.

So...not much.

[illwauk]

I did homework during the Super Bowl... didn't even bother to watch a single snap; and I'm not sure I'll ever watch another one that the Packers aren't playing.

[Needschat]

I might be close to my point. Commissioner Goodell said Washington's nickname "is used in a way to honor" Native Americans. So, if it honors my ancestors, why not use the name and not Native American?

Bayless isn't an idiot. He was a pretty respected writer for the Dallas Morning News at one time.

Wasn't he still working for the Dallas Morning News when he got caught blatantly fabricating gay rumors about Troy Aikman to sell a book? The guy's always been a troll - it's just that he somehow made the leap from being the resident troll sports columnist that every city has to annoying the entire nation with his hideous takes.

I believe his trollish attitude on ESPN is just an act. No one can be that mean and stubborn.

[Xist2inspire]

First Take annoys me, because I know that both Skip & Steven A. are more than capable of having good, compelling debates, but instead of doing just that, they're content to scream, yell, toss petty insults at each other, and generally just make fools of themselves. It's really sad, watching two guys turn into pseudo-Jerry Springers to keep themselves in the public eye.

[JayMac]

Sorry to bump this thread but I feel like I'm very close to my breaking point. There is complete overkill on the coverage of the scouting combine. It's like covering the fitness tests that I did in high school. Also, media talking about the draft that is in May this year. Whatever happened to letting the NFL die down a little? It's the only major sport that is not in season right now and yet it's still shoved down our throats. I know free agency is soon so they can all talk about it until they're blue in the face when it happens. But for now, just let the sport go away for a little! It's a shame but I feel that the league I used to love is too much of a spectacle now. Ok thanks for letting me rant.

[NJTank]

Well its the NFL Network and you dont have to watch, I do agree the combines are tedious but I hear the ratings are good so somebody is watching.

[FiddySicks]

I think the only thing that would make me stop watching the NFL would be if my favorite team were to change their uniforms from modern classics to clown suits or something.

[Raysfan12]

Not sure if legit or not but this is might finally lose all of my interest in the NFL.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24466479/report-nfl-exploring-43-yard-extra-point-for-2014-preseason

[ElwoodCuse]

Already did, years ago. The 24/7/365 media overkill of it is annoying as hell and the long games with a million commercial breaks have no flow. The stop-and-start nature of the game is bad enough as it is.