Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

NFL Network = Pravda?


facook

Recommended Posts

"The job status of Bryant Gumbel, scheduled to be the play-by-play broadcaster on the eight late-season games on the NFL's in-house network, could be the subject of a discussion by NFL officials after Gumbel's suggestion that Paul Tagliabue show his successor 'where he keeps Gene Upshaw's leash.'"

Gumbel vs. Tags

I don't even get NFL Network, but I'm of the opinion that the analysts must be allowed to criticize the Mothership if the Network is to be taken seriously as a source of league news.

Gumbel may be a blow-hard, but actually stating strong opinions will only enhance NFL Network's ratings, one would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The job status of Bryant Gumbel, scheduled to be the play-by-play broadcaster on the eight late-season games on the NFL's in-house network, could be the subject of a discussion by NFL officials after Gumbel's suggestion that Paul Tagliabue show his successor 'where he keeps Gene Upshaw's leash.'"

Gumbel vs. Tags

I don't even get NFL Network, but I'm of the opinion that the analysts must be allowed to criticize the Mothership if the Network is to be taken seriously as a source of league news.

Gumbel may be a blow-hard, but actually stating strong opinions will only enhance NFL Network's ratings, one would think.

Yes, but dumb, misinformed opinions are usually not tolerated by employers paying you to communicate smart, well-founded opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to start a thread over Gumbel's comments a few days ago but you have to look at the contex.

1. It's HBO...and anything can and will happen on HBO...this isn't the NFL network or AssKissin ESPN, or Fox/NBC/CBS with pom poms on...this is real conversation and Gumbel has no leash based on his remarks the past couple of years on HBO. I have to admit that while he rubs me the wrong way i think its good for sports in general...I can say I almost hate Gumbel and think he's arrogant and pompous...yet I watch his show so what does that tell you?

2. He's not that far off. I am one of the few that thought JWalker got a raw deal last year...he had a superstar season wanted to renegotiate because of the brutality in the sport...shows up anyways and gets injured. He should have sat out and then tested the market, he would have made more money. Branch is thinking the same thing. Contracts cen be redone and what was fair 4-5 years ago when it was signed may not hold true today.

Baseball contracts are guaranteed no matter what the performance is. I don't particularly like that either but in Football you can get cut anytime and never have to honor these contracts. It's a double edged sword and one that completely favors the owners. And if they would charge less for preseason and concessions then I would say OK, to hell with the Baseball like contracts, this is working. but the owners are filthy filthy filthy rich off the TV revenue alone and keep pocketing loads and loads and loads of cash. I am a capitalist and they have worked hard to make this happen but Football games with decent seats for a family of 4-6 has become completely unaffordable and it didn't use to be that way.

Do i need to talk about the Glazer's revolutionary Stadium Lic Fee? That was the beginning of when i started to turn on the owenrs a bit and get behind the players more. many of you disagree and that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to start a thread over Greg Gumbel's comments a few days ago but you have to look at the contex.

I think you've got the wrong Gumble.Just because NFL players don't have the same weight against management than, say, MLB doesn't mean that Upshaw is a tool of ownership. Frankly, I think we should all be thrilled that Upshaw and the owners have had a good relationship over the years. I mean, unless you like going through strikes and lockouts every 5 years. Maybe that's what folks want.The idea of guaranteed contracts in the NFL is simply insane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The job status of Bryant Gumbel, scheduled to be the play-by-play broadcaster on the eight late-season games on the NFL's in-house network, could be the subject of a discussion by NFL officials after Gumbel's suggestion that Paul Tagliabue show his successor 'where he keeps Gene Upshaw's leash.'"

Gumbel vs. Tags

I don't even get NFL Network, but I'm of the opinion that the analysts must be allowed to criticize the Mothership if the Network is to be taken seriously as a source of league news.

Gumbel may be a blow-hard, but actually stating strong opinions will only enhance NFL Network's ratings, one would think.

Yes, but dumb, misinformed opinions are usually not tolerated by employers paying you to communicate smart, well-founded opinions.
Fair enough. But if you read Gumbel's entire statement, he makes a pretty solid case for the players getting the short end of the stick. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but the argument has some validity. In addition, I wonder if the NFL would be quite so fired up if Gumbel's opinions were critical of any other party.

In regards to Dr. Pepper's comment on Limbaugh: I thought he got a raw deal. Allowing him to defend his argument (even over the space of a couple of weeks, as the controversy brewed) would have made for a much more interesting product than listening to Michael Irvin's bellowing or Steve Young's monotone.

If these networks are looking for viewership (which of course they are), IMO ratings will increase when controversial opinions are stated and reasonably argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to start a thread over Greg Gumbel's comments a few days ago but you have to look at the contex.

I think you've got the wrong Gumble.

Just because NFL players don't have the same weight against management than, say, MLB doesn't mean that Upshaw is a tool of ownership. Frankly, I think we should all be thrilled that Upshaw and the owners have had a good relationship over the years. I mean, unless you like going through strikes and lockouts every 5 years. Maybe that's what folks want.

The idea of guaranteed contracts in the NFL is simply insane.

And on that I agree with you. My argument is that Gumbel ought to be allowed to state his case, even as an employee of the NFL (professional sports and entertainment, it is often said, do NOT mirror real life).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to start a thread over Greg Gumbel's comments a few days ago but you have to look at the contex.

I think you've got the wrong Gumble.Just because NFL players don't have the same weight against management than, say, MLB doesn't mean that Upshaw is a tool of ownership. Frankly, I think we should all be thrilled that Upshaw and the owners have had a good relationship over the years. I mean, unless you like going through strikes and lockouts every 5 years. Maybe that's what folks want.The idea of guaranteed contracts in the NFL is simply insane.
I fixed the post, thanks.i think the contracts should be shorter for most players...2-3 years max. NFL careers are only 8-10 seasons max almost across the board...some are longer and many are way shorter. If a guy comes into the league and signs a 5 year contract he is already 27/28 when he is ready to up again...Contracts need to be shorter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People frequently bring up baseball having guaranteed contracts when discussion of the football situation comes up.

I think the baseball contracts are the ones that don't make sense. I have never understood why anyone would hold them up as an example of how a sports league should be. Or for that matter, how any work contract should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to start a thread over Gumbel's comments a few days ago but you have to look at the contex.Baseball contracts are guaranteed no matter what the performance is. I don't particularly like that either but in Football you can get cut anytime and never have to honor these contracts. It's a double edged sword and one that completely favors the owners.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All players contracts are done with all of these parameters already in mind. The percentage of revenue that is payed out to players has been negotiated with all of this already being part of the union's negotiating stance.And It's true that any one player may get screwed, but NFL owners are going to pay out the same amount of money whether it's to the player who is not performing (as in the NBA and MLB) or the player replacing the guy who's not performing (as in the NFL). As a fan, I'll take the way the NFL does it every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...