Did I really hear the announcer say this?

[Patler]

I listened to a lot of things, but I think it was the TV broadcast. It went something like this. (I paraphrase: "It's good for each pro sport if certain franchises in the sport are good. It's good for the NFL when the Bears are good.")

Did I really hear that?
Is it better for the NFL if the Bears are good than if the Lions are good? or the Packers? or the Vikings?, or the Browns? Steelers? Eagles? Cowboys? Rams? etc.

Or, was the announcer showing his own favoritism?
Do league officials feel that way?
Do game officials feel that way?

[hoosier]

For the last three decades the Bears have sucked far more than they have been good. I am guessing that the NFL has never been more profitable than it was in the 1990s and first half of the 2000s.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I listened to a lot of things, but I think it was the TV broadcast. It went something like this. (I paraphrase: "It's good for each pro sport if certain franchises in the sport are good. It's good for the NFL when the Bears are good.")

Did I really hear that?
Is it better for the NFL if the Bears are good than if the Lions are good? or the Packers? or the Vikings?, or the Browns? Steelers? Eagles? Cowboys? Rams? etc.

Or, was the announcer showing his own favoritism?
Do league officials feel that way?
Do game officials feel that way?

Yes, I heard that also. I thought the same thing as you.

Ratings are way up this year for NFL football and now we have a reason. The Chicago Bears are winning.

[LEWCWA]

That shit is just sports speak. Nobody outside of IL gives a rats ass about the bears. They aint the damn Cubs! Anyhow, those announcers suck...Gruden is the worst...How the hell did he coach? I sounds like he doesn't know shit about football! Once late in the game he was talking about CMIII stringing a run out, which he did, but then said he forced him to cut it up, but he actually strung it out until Forte ran oob for about a 2 yard loss. The guy is an idiot!

[HowardRoark]

For the last three decades the Bears have sucked far more than they have been good. I am guessing that the NFL has never been more profitable than it was in the 1990s and first half of the 2000s.

I would say that is outpacing inflation by a wide margin.....have you no shame?

The Tape On Tagliabue
Kurt Badenhausen, Michael K. Ozanian and Maya Roney 09.01.06, 8:00 AM ET


Paul Tagliabue has received much deserved praise for his accomplishments after announcing in March that he would step down after more than 16 years as commissioner of the National Football League.

Tagliabue, 65, brought labor peace to the league in 1992 when he and union leader Gene Upshaw negotiated what was then thought to be a highly controversial labor agreement that brought free agency and the salary cap to football. But the agreement worked marvelously because it prevented a strike, showed the players that the owners valued them as partners and left enough incentives on the table for new owners to behave like entrepreneurs--witness the huge success of Daniel Snyder of the Washington Redskins and Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots. In a new collective bargaining agreement signed this March, Tagliabue convinced the owners to increase the amount of money they are going to share with the players and got the league's richer teams to agree to fork over close to $1 billion to their low-revenue rivals over the next six seasons.

Tagliabue also oversaw a successful league expansion (Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Cleveland Browns and Houston Texans) and handled the extremely sensitive issue of relocating teams (Cleveland to Baltimore, Los Angeles to St. Louis) with a brutal combination of diplomacy and capitalistic penance (excluding the move of the Raiders from Los Angeles to Oakland in 1995) that both satisfied football fans and gave team owners much better stadium deals.

Click here to see how much your favorite NFL team is worth.
But Tagliabue's greatest achievement has been the creation of a tremendous amount of wealth for his bosses. During Tagliabue's tenure, annual national broadcasting fees climbed to $87.5 million from $17 million per team. The current broadcasting deals with General Electric, News Corp., the Walt Disney Co. and Viacom will pay the league an average of more than $3 billion annually over the next six years--more than Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association will earn combined. Tagliabue even started the NFL Network--the first cable and satellite network fully dedicated to the NFL and the sport of football 24 hours a day, seven days a week--two years ago. It doesn't make a lot of money for the owners yet, but you can bet it will keep the major networks upping the ante for broadcasting rights.

Besides being the main source of cash for paying players, the league's broadcasting deals also helped secure a billion-dollar credit line that the owners can borrow from at a dirt-cheap interest rate.

The gravy has come from the 17 new stadiums that were built during Tagliabue's tenure. Add to that the new stadium the Arizona Cardinals moved into this season, the stadium the Indianapolis Colts will have for the 2008 season and the stadium the New York's Giants and Jets are expected to share by 2010 and more than two-thirds of the NFL will have gotten new digs--along with all the extra cash they bring in from corporate sponsors and premium seating--during the Tagliabue era.

The upshot: soaring franchise values. For example, the price paid for expansion teams rose from $206 million in 1993 to $700 million in 1999--an annualized increase of 22.6%. This year the average NFL team is worth $898 million, 212% more than when Forbes began calculating team values eight years ago. Look at it this way: Football team values have increased 11 times more than the S&P 500 since 1998. Profitability? In 2005, the average NFL team posted $30.8 million in operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), versus $5.3 million in 1997.

Incredibly, Tagliabue ushered in this era of growth while reducing the disparity in team wealth. He has accomplished this by cleverly leaving the Los Angeles market devoid of a franchise since 1995, which has given small and mid-market teams with shoddy ownership, such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals, the leverage they needed to coax taxpayers into building them new stadiums. Nine years ago, the difference in value between the richest half of the league and the bottom half was 37%. This year the gap in value is just 27%. The increase in football team values under Tagliabue is a benchmark his successor, Roger Goodell, will find extremely difficult to match.

[sheepshead]

I heard that too. Too many Red Bulls in the booth I think. On a side note, the sports radio down here is 'un bear able'. So much so, Im waiting for them to suggest resting their starters any time now.

[Smidgeon]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I listened to a lot of things, but I think it was the TV broadcast. It went something like this. (I paraphrase: "It's good for each pro sport if certain franchises in the sport are good. It's good for the NFL when the Bears are good.")

Did I really hear that?
Is it better for the NFL if the Bears are good than if the Lions are good? or the Packers? or the Vikings?, or the Browns? Steelers? Eagles? Cowboys? Rams? etc.

Or, was the announcer showing his own favoritism?
Do league officials feel that way?
Do game officials feel that way?

I heard that too, but I interpreted it more along the lines of "It's good for the NFL when the oldest teams in the sport are doing well." I just took that to mean that for those fans of NFL history, it means more when the Packers and Bears (among others) are good teams than it does for expansion teams.

Teams that have been around for ninety years have seventy years more tradition and historic fans than teams that have only been around for fifteen. In other words, it's nice when the venerable teams are rolling.

It's pure speculation, but maybe it attracts more general fans (not the rabid kinds) than when the Jaguars or Texans are winning. For example, one of my friends does not follow football at all. She just learned what the line of scrimmage is not too long ago. She wouldn't be able to tell the Panthers from the Jaguars. But even she knows about the Bears and Packers and knew who won last night. That's where I think it's good for the NFL when those teams are winning.

But it's good for the NFL every year because even when the venerable teams are ailing, someone's team is winning and more fans are being gained for that franchise. So it's six of one and half dozen of the other.

[Cheesehead Craig]

On PTI, Tony K said that it's bad for football if certain franchises do poorly and he gave the Cowboys that label. I thought he was out of his mind also.

[Patler]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I heard that too, but I interpreted it more along the lines of "It's good for the NFL when the oldest teams in the sport are doing well." I just took that to mean that for those fans of NFL history, it means more when the Packers and Bears (among others) are good teams than it does for expansion teams.

Teams that have been around for ninety years have seventy years more tradition and historic fans than teams that have only been around for fifteen. In other words, it's nice when the venerable teams are rolling.

It's pure speculation, but maybe it attracts more general fans (not the rabid kinds) than when the Jaguars or Texans are winning. For example, one of my friends does not follow football at all. She just learned what the line of scrimmage is not too long ago. She wouldn't be able to tell the Panthers from the Jaguars. But even she knows about the Bears and Packers and knew who won last night. That's where I think it's good for the NFL when those teams are winning.

But it's good for the NFL every year because even when the venerable teams are ailing, someone's team is winning and more fans are being gained for that franchise. So it's six of one and half dozen of the other.

I suppose he could have meant it that way, but the only franchise he mentioned was the Bears. He didn't say the Bears and the Packers. He didn't mention history, the oldest teams, or any of that. He only mentioned the Bears. Since he is paid to convey what he is thinking, I took it to mean the Bears specifically, as if the Bears are more synonymous with the NFL than other teams.

That whole booth talks way too much, or at least too dramatically and too emphatically. They tend to wear me out by the end of the game.

[denverYooper]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I heard that too, but I interpreted it more along the lines of "It's good for the NFL when the oldest teams in the sport are doing well." I just took that to mean that for those fans of NFL history, it means more when the Packers and Bears (among others) are good teams than it does for expansion teams.

Teams that have been around for ninety years have seventy years more tradition and historic fans than teams that have only been around for fifteen. In other words, it's nice when the venerable teams are rolling.

It's pure speculation, but maybe it attracts more general fans (not the rabid kinds) than when the Jaguars or Texans are winning. For example, one of my friends does not follow football at all. She just learned what the line of scrimmage is not too long ago. She wouldn't be able to tell the Panthers from the Jaguars. But even she knows about the Bears and Packers and knew who won last night. That's where I think it's good for the NFL when those teams are winning.

But it's good for the NFL every year because even when the venerable teams are ailing, someone's team is winning and more fans are being gained for that franchise. So it's six of one and half dozen of the other.

I suppose he could have meant it that way, but the only franchise he mentioned was the Bears. He didn't say the Bears and the Packers. He didn't mention history, the oldest teams, or any of that. He only mentioned the Bears. Since he is paid to convey what he is thinking, I took it to mean the Bears specifically, as if the Bears are more synonymous with the NFL than other teams.

That whole booth talks way too much, or at least too dramatically and too emphatically. They tend to wear me out by the end of the game.

I thought he meant that Bears fans are fair weather fans .

[denverYooper]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

That whole booth talks way too much, or at least too dramatically and too emphatically. They tend to wear me out by the end of the game.

And they show the wrong replay angles. It was hilarious when they were talking about Colledge's holding penalty and how obvious it was while the replay showed Sitton.

[Smidgeon]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I heard that too, but I interpreted it more along the lines of "It's good for the NFL when the oldest teams in the sport are doing well." I just took that to mean that for those fans of NFL history, it means more when the Packers and Bears (among others) are good teams than it does for expansion teams.

Teams that have been around for ninety years have seventy years more tradition and historic fans than teams that have only been around for fifteen. In other words, it's nice when the venerable teams are rolling.

It's pure speculation, but maybe it attracts more general fans (not the rabid kinds) than when the Jaguars or Texans are winning. For example, one of my friends does not follow football at all. She just learned what the line of scrimmage is not too long ago. She wouldn't be able to tell the Panthers from the Jaguars. But even she knows about the Bears and Packers and knew who won last night. That's where I think it's good for the NFL when those teams are winning.

But it's good for the NFL every year because even when the venerable teams are ailing, someone's team is winning and more fans are being gained for that franchise. So it's six of one and half dozen of the other.

I suppose he could have meant it that way, but the only franchise he mentioned was the Bears. He didn't say the Bears and the Packers. He didn't mention history, the oldest teams, or any of that. He only mentioned the Bears. Since he is paid to convey what he is thinking, I took it to mean the Bears specifically, as if the Bears are more synonymous with the NFL than other teams.

That whole booth talks way too much, or at least too dramatically and too emphatically. They tend to wear me out by the end of the game.

Usually, I agree. But I was so caught up in the game that I barely remember them even talking. On top of that, the only time they showed the trio in the booth on TV was either before the game or at halftime. No panning to the booth between games. I liked that. Of course, that was dictated by the tense game.

[mraynrand]

Re: Did I really hear the announcer say this?

I listened to a lot of things, but I think it was the TV broadcast. It went something like this. (I paraphrase: "It's good for each pro sport if certain franchises in the sport are good. It's good for the NFL when the Bears are good.")

Did I really hear that?
Is it better for the NFL if the Bears are good than if the Lions are good? or the Packers? or the Vikings?, or the Browns? Steelers? Eagles? Cowboys? Rams? etc.

Or, was the announcer showing his own favoritism?
Do league officials feel that way?
Do game officials feel that way?

It was Mike Treacle. I just about threw my shoe through the TV. I think I said enough swear words that my kid was scolding me. That really was the final straw.

[Fritz]

But the quality of football announcing has gone down the poop-stained toilet the last several years. They mistake bluster for conviction and hyperbole for fact.

I also though tend to like announcers and analysts most people don't care for. I think Chris Collingsworth is good, and I also like Verne Lundquist and Steve Young.

[pbmax]

Yes he said it and yes he meant it. Pundits have been saying this about certain baseball franchises (Yankees, Red Sox, Chicago clubs and LA clubs) for years.

He is giving you a glance behind the curtain of TV executives, at ratings and ad revenues. While the announcer was trying to pass off his comment representative of how fans feel, what he really meant is that is how TV execs and owners think.

From a strictly TV revenue standpoint, he is probably right by virtue of the audience that follows those teams. And it is probably easier for announcers to reference the league's history and culture when they are able to broadcast the marquee franchises (Bears, Giants, Packers, Cowboys, Steelers, etc.) rather than the Texans or Jaguars.