Tag Archives: money

Here’s to Hoping For a Lockout!

I can’t say I totally understand what is going on with the NFL and NFLPA duking it out for the $9 billion pot. I know there are plenty of gripes on both sides as there are in any type of labor dispute. All the percentages and retirement funds make my head spin, and honestly I could really care less what ends up happening between the two sides when it’s all said and done. There are two things that I want to see come out of this. The first is that they get a team in Los Angeles. Not because I live here or would go to their games unless I got free tickets, but it makes sense. I’ve never been one that enjoys seeing the rich get richer, but as Charlie Sheen would say you win here you win there, WINNING! Putting a team in LA would be winning for both sides, because it’s a huge market that the players and league would all benefit from. Second, the retired players health. I couldn’t be more on the players side for this one, as the NFL really does need to have some kind of medical plan for the guys that bashed their brains in for the sport that made the owners more rich than they already were. It’s amazing to me how bad they treat their former employees. Almost all of the owners are really old, so you’d think they’d understand these types of problems that come with age. As Simmons points out in his article today, they just love money.

The real reason I wrote this was because I actually want to see this lockout happen. I know I’m in the minority with this view. Apparently today they’ve extended talks for another 7 days, but I don’t see much happening in that week. I’m not saying I would enjoy a fall without football (because I wouldn’t), but if these two sides can’t see that they are winning in nearly every phase, then I hope they lockout. My main reason is I’d love to see them lose some fans. We are the ones that fill their pockets by overspending on game tickets that you can barely even see the field from for $100 each, and while they do give us an amazing product that I thoroughly enjoy, they don’t really care about us, they just want to know how much they can make off us raising prices on everything (tickets, merchandise, parking, concessions, etc) in a national recession. Do they care that we buy licensed NFL products for hundreds of dollars when it cost them one dollar to make in China? No, and I do understand the capitalist point of view on it, but can’t fathom how there’s never enough. Every league is geared for the fans, but I feel like the NFL takes advantage of them a lot more than others, so by all means lockout and lose some of your fans!

That being said if there is a lockout the second football comes back on I’m positive I’ll be watching. I’d love to see a lockout that knocks the NFL down to the #2 or #3 sport in our country in the same way that baseball died after their strike. I’m thinking if it kills a fantasy season that will ultimately take some people away from the game. Would those fantasy players return to being fans of the league without that season? Hopefully not, and I can’t stand being at a bar listening to some guy talk about how his receiver needing 10 yards to take the lead in his matchup. That my friends is something I won’t miss. I can’t say I don’t fall into that trap from time to time, but I know I’d do just fine watching without fantasy sports around. I no longer like the casual fan that doesn’t really root for a team, and I feel like a lockout would kill some of them off. In an era where everything major going on is an open book in the media, I’d love to see them lockout. The league/owners would be crucified in public (rightfully so), and would see a decline in the sports popularity on some level. I wish we could go back to the days when most owners cared more about winning. That’s why I’ll never fault Al Davis for any of the moves he makes no matter how ridiculous they can be. He does them because he thinks it will make them win. You can’t say the same for many teams out there.

 


Gilbert is One Hell of a Prankster!

One of my favorite players in the NBA, Gilbert Arenas, has been all over the news because he pulled a gun on his teammate, Jarvis Critteron reportedly over a gambling debt. I dunno if I believe that story, but something obviously went down considering they met with police today. I find it comical that Gilbert would be THAT angry over a gambling debt when he’s in his third year of a $111 million dollar contract! BUT, a ridiculous amount of athlete’s live outside their means, and Gilbert could be no different. Who knows, maybe he lost a few pay checks to Critteron playing cards, and pulled a gun on him to get his money back. Sounds very plausible. I’m thinking he has more common sense than that. Gil hasn’t been nearly as active on his blog as he used to be in the past, and has been far less of a showman this season on the court. I’m sure being on a losing team has something to do with it, but he was more outgoing a couple of years ago to the media. I guess I buy the most recent story that he was pulling a prank on Critteron. Since he spoke to police, they allowed him to clear it up. Honestly, it’s not a big deal to me if he didn’t have them loaded, and used them as a joke. Also, a side thought on DC, I hear it’s pretty ghetto around there, so maybe guys do need some guns around to protect those Bentley’s when they leave the arena. Either way, I love some of the reactions that players around the league had!


Should the NCAA Tourney be Changed?

Today we got in a solid e-mail chain argument on this Wall Street Journal article. It basically states, that we should expand the March Madness to 96 teams instead of the normal 64, and that would be a “no brainer”. It also states that they should have a first round bye for the teams in the top 32, and have the rest duke it out to play with the top 32 adding an extra round for all the teams that MIGHT have made the Tourney…

Cali4Dre: So what happens to the NIT?  This really dilutes that tourney to barely any decent teams, do they still hold the NIT any more or just cancel it in this scenario?  I think this dilutes the talent in the NCAA Tourney and extends an already really long event…

Chappy81: I agree, it’s waay too many teams. I could care less about the teams ranked 65-96… They should’ve won more games if they wanted to guarantee themselves a spot!

Dyslexic: Fair enough…although his additional field of teams that would get on the left were all pretty decent teams….wasn’t like USF was in there

Chappy81: I think March Madness is one of the best events in sports already. I don’t think they need to change for the sake of change!

Cali4Dre: I agree about the NCAA Basketball, it’s already pretty all-encompassing and very fair, even including a 65th team.  I think the NCAA should spend WAYYY more time figuring out how to make Football more like the good thing they have set up in basketball.

Dyslexic: Of course it’s fair already….the entire idea of expanding would be to gather more money for the schools and the NCAA itself, if there wasn’t money being left on the table they wouldn’t consider this.

Cali4Dre: In the article, I was turned off from the second paragraph where the guy states that expanding the NCAA to 96 teams “is the biggest no-brainer in sports”… really????  Why not expand it to 128 teams and add a full round???  Why not 196 and add a round and a half if there’s so much left on the table?  Why? Because it dilutes the tourney and brings in the rifr-raff instead of making it a tournament for the ELITE teams in College Basketball… Conference Champions, Top Ranked teams, and those teams that scheduled tough non-conference schedules and one some of those games.

This guy is crazy to think this is more pressing than changing the BCS system to a playoff.

Dylsexic: what money would they be leaving on the table?

I mean, I just work at LoopNet, so I can’t give you a detailed breakdown….But one example I can think of is the contract the NCAA signs with ESPN or CBS coming up will be highly leveraged on the additional games and higher advertising prices either company could charge for advertising during those games. Ticket sales will bring in more money because the NIT are home games for teams and they pocket more money… Heck, many of the first games of the regional NIT games aren’t even televised, if those games are wrapped into the NCAA tourney and they are all on TV, and national TV at that, it would certainly bring in a boat load more money.

Cali4Dre: But like I mentioned, they earned the right to play with the nation’s very best schools by winning their conference, as humble as it may be.  They didn’t finish in the middle of the pack in their conference and happen to schedule a bunch of non-conference powder-puffs because they could afford to buy the games and bring in slaughter house meat to roll over on their floor.  That’s all, I’ve exhausted my argument.

Dyslecix: Exactly…so they can add to the field, let those smaller teams who’ve earned their way in, and still be a part of it…still make as much money…and at the same time roll in more of those major conference schools that were middle of the pack (and have big names), all the while the NCAA still rakes in the dough, and more of it.

I think this will be highlighted even more this year after the Pac-10 only get’s in two schools….I’m sure the NCAA would love it if they could still find ways to bring a UCLA, Arizona, Oregon, despite the fact the programs are down for a year or two.

I’m just playing the other side of the coin. Either way it goes I wouldn’t objective…I’d like to say this isn’t the biggest “no brainer” in sports to the average sports fan. He must have been catering to the rich WSJ readers!

Cali4Dre: One last comment… it seems as though you might be describing the Major Conference Championship Tourneys.  That’s where, on National TV, the major conference teams that were middle of the road, and didn’t play the best non-conference schedules can either add to their win total to get back in the argument for a bid or win the auto-bid themselves.  If they don’t do either, why invite them to the Big Dance at all??  Just cause they are in a Major Conference?  Major Conferences already get like half their teams (for instance the Big East usually has like 10 of their 14 teams), you want teams from the bottom half as well?

Dylsexic: I played college basketball I get what the Major Conference Championships are all about 🙂

Again, I don’t know how to boil my point down any more. The NCAA would love to bring in as many Major Conference Schools as they can (I assume with at least a winning records) and leverage the hell out of them in every aspect to make more money. Florida, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, LSU, Indiana, Michigan: You guys had a down year, worry not! They want excuses to bring schools like the ones I used as examples and there big names into the fold each and every year they might be down, and leverage the hell out of expanded fields for money,  ticket sales and what not.

Harvard, Alcon St, Weber St, San Diego, USF, Rider, Fordham you guys one your super small conference tourney? Awesome, that’s great, you can still come and join the big dance…were just going to make sure we can make as much money from all of the bigger schools that would have missed out.

Cali4Dre: Making the tourney 128 teams would be better numbers-wise than 96, or seeding teams from 1-24 makes sense as well… it’s just lame to have half a round imho.  And absorbing the entire NIT pool isn’t a bad idea, but that’s the whole point, to have a champion of the riff-raff, the “other guys”.  I think the mid-majors and smaller basketball schools in big conferences (football schools per se) like the idea of still being able to win a championship against their equals.  Why scale back the hardware to just one trophy nationally?

I don’t know man, it’s just messing with tradition jacks everything up.  Look what the BCS did, JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS MONEY ON THE TABLE.  The ordinary fan, and student, is the first to lose out when money enters the conversation.


Tiger the First Billionaire Athlete!

Double Tiger fist pump!

Double Tiger fist pump!

Well, this shouldn’t really come as a shock to anyone, but by Forbes calculations when Tiger won his $10.5 million bonus at the FedEx Cup last weekend he surpassed the $1 billion mark in career earnings. This marks the first time any athlete has reached a billion in overall earnings. Tiger started the year at $895 million, and Sunday’s payout coupled with all the event winnings, sponsors, and his golf course design company Forbes projected he has made over $100 million this season and is now past a billion dollars. He continues to be the highest paid athlete of all time on an annual basis, and it’s not out of reach for him to hit the $3 billion mark before it’s all said and done. He’s has exceeded every expectation by far over his 14 year career, and looks to have a lot left in the tank.

$100K a hole is like me betting $1 a hole

$1 million a hole eh? How many strokes are you giving me Tiger?

I always knew that he was rolling in dough, but until I saw this reported, I didn’t realize how much more he made than all other athletes!

Even Michael Jordan hasn’t achieved this feat, and for some reason I figured he had. I guess his deals in the 90’s weren’t quite as lucrative as Woods’s are now.  Jordan should reach that mark in the next four or five years with his current paychecks still rolling in mainly from Nike. I’m sure when Tiger finally calls it quits he’ll have plenty of crazy money games with MJ!


What Else Could You Ask for From the PGA Playoffs?

Paired in the final group tomorrow, Tiger and Kenny both wouldn't mind sinking the $11 million putt!

Paired in the final group tomorrow, Tiger and Kenny both wouldn't mind sinking the $11 million putt!

The Tour Championship certainly heated up today, as old man Kenny Perry took the lead shooting six under! The ageless Perry now has a two shot lead on Tiger, and a four shot lead on the surprise of the day, Phil Mickelson. The FedEx Cup wraps up tomorrow, and the possible $10 million bonus coupled with the $1.35 million first prize in the Tour Championship could make there be an $11.35 million dollar putt on the par 3, 18th green of East Lake Golf Club. I’m not going out on a limb to say that this could be the most expensive putt of all time. Tough to really foresee anyone but Tiger winning this even if he is two strokes out, but both Perry and Woods have a very good shot at making this amazingly pricey putt. Also there is the possibility for Stricker, O’Hair, and Harrington could make the pay day putt, but they will need an amazing day to make that happen. If you had to pick someone, it’s impossible to pick against Tiger when the pressure is on.

Phil Mickelson sand shotThe fun part of today was seeing Phil get into a good groove as he shot four under! It’s been a few months since he was close to the top of the leaderboard, so hopefully he can take something positive going into next season. I can’t think of one person that roots against the guy, and it’s pretty remarkable to be liked across the board the way he is. He’s had about as tough of a year as anyone could have with family health problems. Hopefully he’ll come out of the gates on fire tomorrow, and give us a show! It’s always fun when he’s in the hunt! Here’s a good interview with Phil, after today’s round today.

Q. You’re going to be in contention here for the first time in a while.

PHIL MICKELSON: It feels great. I haven’t been in contention since the Open. It’s been a few months, mainly because of my putting, and again, I look back on Thursday where I threw six shots away from three holes, otherwise I’d be leading. But to come back the way I have and play the way I have, I feel like I’m playing some really good golf, that no matter how many shots back I am, I think I’ll still be a factor.