Browns closing in on 0-16

[Guiness]

It's looking more and more like the Brown are going to repeat the Lion's 0-16 season. They had a couple of chances to avoid it, but after losing to a terrible Jets team in week 4, it was an uphill battle - this is their first game against a team with a losing record since then. Unbelievable how epicly bad this team is. Maybe this thread belongs in the Garbage Can.

Of course, the Lions still hold the dubious distinction of being the only team to do it twice:roll:

[Fritz]

I wonder if Lions' players from that team gather together to watch the Brownies, and root for them to win so the Lions can have at least one NFL record.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I wonder if Lions' players from that team gather together to watch the Brownies, and root for them to win so the Lions can have at least one NFL record.

Ha! Repped

[Fritz]

Given modern-day ownership, which is often about simply generating as much revenue/profit as possible, could it be that Cleveland's possibly going 0-16 will put more butts in seats at the end of the season and thus be seen as a "good" thing by ownership?

Given the new realities of the NFL ("Just profit, baby!"), if I were an NFL owner I might just put together the most dysfunctional team possible, and attract fans with the drama - the possible sideline conflagrations, the ranting coach's post-game presser, the tweeted promises by players to punch out teammates on the sidelines during a game. Maybe even deliberate, obvious tanking by a disgruntled player. Think of the intrigue! Think of the drama! You'd have incredible spikes in TV ratings!

And much easier than trying to assemble a winning team.

[Guiness]

I wonder if Lions' players from that team gather together to watch the Brownies, and root for them to win so the Lions can have at least one NFL record.

Well, they won't be able to do it much longer, their numbers are dwindling. 5 accidental overdoses, 3 suicides, 1 got hit by a car and another died in a horrible farting accident.

[hoosier]

Well, they won't be able to do it much longer, their numbers are dwindling. 5 accidental overdoses, 3 suicides, 1 got hit by a car and another died in a horrible farting accident.

What happened? The manly art of fart burning?

[pbmax]

Given modern-day ownership, which is often about simply generating as much revenue/profit as possible, could it be that Cleveland's possibly going 0-16 will put more butts in seats at the end of the season and thus be seen as a "good" thing by ownership?

Given the new realities of the NFL ("Just profit, baby!"), if I were an NFL owner I might just put together the most dysfunctional team possible, and attract fans with the drama - the possible sideline conflagrations, the ranting coach's post-game presser, the tweeted promises by players to punch out teammates on the sidelines during a game. Maybe even deliberate, obvious tanking by a disgruntled player. Think of the intrigue! Think of the drama! You'd have incredible spikes in TV ratings!

And much easier than trying to assemble a winning team.

I think this was the plot of Major League. You just need a desire to relocate to a location you like better.

Steve Young, in a radio interview, had a very interesting take on sports team's ownership priorities. He made a decent case that for most, even in basketball and baseball, equity is concern #1. I would add debt service is concern #1a. Now that live sports are one of the few bankable TV properties, even the Leagues that used to struggle with TV revenue (making exciting teams and winning important), are well positioned to be successful without much attention to the on the field product.

The rest of his analysis is mostly concern trolling over leadership and the impact of the CBA. He doesn't think Dilfer is right about San Fran and its GM (I am with Young on this), but his reasoning is all about second order stuff and the failure to find a QB. Oddly, he doesn't present a coherent plan about how to find one.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2016/12/15/13966370/steve-young-interview-trent-dilfer-trent-baalke-49ers-ownership

He later backtracks, says he didn't mean it specifically about 49er ownership, but just in general: http://www.knbr.com/2016/12/15/steve-young-clarifies-comments-on-49ers-ownership/

[KYPack]

Young makes a helluva lot more sense in that article than he does on TV. I saw him a couple weeks ago and he looked strange. He looked like an old guy trying to be young (Ha, he is Young), but acted positively manic. He was acting so goofy, it was hard to pay attention to what he was saying.

I wonder if Young would like to see himself in some exec office w/ the 9ers. His run on the tube is about done.

[MadScientist]

Given modern-day ownership, which is often about simply generating as much revenue/profit as possible, could it be that Cleveland's possibly going 0-16 will put more butts in seats at the end of the season and thus be seen as a "good" thing by ownership?

Given the new realities of the NFL ("Just profit, baby!"), if I were an NFL owner I might just put together the most dysfunctional team possible, and attract fans with the drama - the possible sideline conflagrations, the ranting coach's post-game presser, the tweeted promises by players to punch out teammates on the sidelines during a game. Maybe even deliberate, obvious tanking by a disgruntled player. Think of the intrigue! Think of the drama! You'd have incredible spikes in TV ratings!

And much easier than trying to assemble a winning team.


It worked for the Mets in the early 60's. But really, with TV revenue constant and minimums require for player expenses, butts in seats and merchandise sales are going to make a difference to the bottom line.