I’m not saying that the NFL isn’t concerned about money. They are a business and clearly want to make as much money as they can. In my opinion (yes only my opinion that’s based on a discussion with one NFL front office guy, my own common sense and working with American big business) is that the NFL owners aren’t driven to keep balls out of the stands that they could make up though the sale of one additional ticket.
What they are concerned with is this: Why potentially risk our TV image, which is solely what has made our game the juggernaut that it is, that has made us all worth billions, so that 6 fans a game can go home with a football? That fear of the fan violence on TV is what keeps the screens up and the balls out. Is the few grand an added bonus? Sure, I suppose.
I am honestly surprised that some believe that huge corporations make decisions based on a $2 - $3 thousand dollar annual issue. I understand that dollars add up. But for corporations that spend billions on payroll, marketing, operations, losing a few grand a year isn’t on their radar. Not trying to be snide, but the NFL teams have HUGE issues. Not sure $2,000 is all that important.
Let me ask this. If there was zero concern of violence and injury, with no additional security costs, so there would be absolutely no image problems, do you think the NFL would still keep the balls, or would they let the fans have them? To me if that were the case, they be thrilled to let the fans have them.
All this football talk and Sunday is still three days away. #%%!@)(%@!&$ :mad:
Forbes is determining the value of each franchise if it was sold today. Seeing how few owners are actively looking to sell (and only the bottom revenue generators at that) isn’t Forbes valuation closer to an ego stroke than an actual price tag? I’m simply saying there’s room to disagree with Forbes’ evaluation.
A few hundred grand, but who’s counting?
I think the NFL would still keep them.
Why is that so irrational to you? The NFL sells out virtually every game. The NFL generates more revenue than MLB & the NBA combined. They are by far the most popular sports league in the country. What incentive do they have to give something away that they could sell?
I guess my overall point is that NFL fans aren’t as barbaric as you seem to make them out to be. The NFL implements plenty of actions regarding fan behavior, but I don’t think keeping the footballs is one of them. A glance at the numbers bear out the potential for thousands of dollars they stand to gain (why you press the point that $200,000 is nothing is beyond me…if I make $50,000 grand a year, I’m still happy to get a $2 rebate on a water bill, and I’ll still pick up a dime off the floor, or I won’t give away my ramen noodles because cost-wise they are ‘nothing’ to me.)
I only ask you, again & again, to cite someone–anyone–in the industry who agrees with you. You haven’t. You keep preaching the gospel of Hun-like savagery of the average NFL fan as the reason they couldn’t possibly let them have the balls. I disagree with your assessment.
Here, I’m with you. This week, the Raiders get knocked down another peg.
Back in the 80’s, before the nets, I was in Cleveland for a Browns/Oilers game. I caught a ball in the endzone and was almost crushed to death by the people that piled on top of me, then I spent all day protecting it. I was a pretty tough kid and was with a gang of friends but I can honestly say I didn’t think I was going to get out of there. In fact, I almost surrendered the ball a couple of times.
Anyway, the NFL doesn’t care about the value of the balls, it is strictly a liability issue. For the safety of the fans, security, and police it makes legal sense not to intentionally kick footballs into the crowd. Even if you were to take the rabid fans, fights, and alcohol out of the equation, a large mass of people sitting/standing on tiered bleachers or in a SRO situation can be an extremely dangerous situation when the crowd suddenly shifts in the direction of the ball.
The NFL would be negligent, if they did not take precautions to avoid these situations.
They save $350/game in ball costs. Each stadium (other than Met Life) hosts 10 games per year, so that’s $3,500 per team per season.
How much money do you think it costs to purchase, maintain, setup and deploy the field goal nets?
Note that these nets have to be put up for each game, since the stadiums are used for other things like concerts throughout the week, you can’t just leave all the football gear out there 24x7. You have to hire someone, or multiple someones, to setup the rigging before each game. and you have to have 2 people on call throughout the game to make sure the net goes up when a kick is attempted.
Purchase is a one time fee. Setup, maintenance and deployment can be done by the grounds crew that stadiums already have on staff. It’s just one more chore they do. No need to hire additional staff. Grounds crew should already be on stand-by (getting paid) during games, so putting them to work raising and lowering the net is no problem.
I’m willing to concede that the use of a net may not be primarily for economic reasons, but not because of the above argument.
Why do people think a couple instances of fan violence would be enough to affect the league? As people have mentioned, fans have died and fought for the ball at baseball games, balls that are worth less and hit into the stands more numerously than footballs. Would anyone here care to stand up and say that fan violence has any significant impact on baseball’s image?
