CSNbbs
Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Big12bbs (/forum-260.html)
+---- Forum: Big 12 Team Talk (/forum-783.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight (/thread-810171.html)



RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - djtothemoney - 06-08-2017 09:08 AM

(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

If they played mostly in the same season, I would see this being a valid point, but it is not.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - CRex43 - 06-08-2017 12:07 PM

(06-08-2017 09:08 AM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

If they played mostly in the same season, I would see this being a valid point, but it is not.

Can you help me understand your point and why it is more valid than my point? Economic impact is economic impact regardless of what part of the year it occurs. How often will the Bengals play on the same day that FC Cincinnati does? And how many MLS games will FC Cincinnati play in the Cincinnati area if they don't secure a soccer-specific venue to secure an MLS bid? The potential exists for a 20+ game MLS slate to replace an 8 game NFL schedule, but probably not if we're replacing it with USL games.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - djtothemoney - 06-08-2017 03:42 PM

(06-08-2017 12:07 PM)CRex43 Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 09:08 AM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

If they played mostly in the same season, I would see this being a valid point, but it is not.

Can you help me understand your point and why it is more valid than my point? Economic impact is economic impact regardless of what part of the year it occurs. How often will the Bengals play on the same day that FC Cincinnati does? And how many MLS games will FC Cincinnati play in the Cincinnati area if they don't secure a soccer-specific venue to secure an MLS bid? The potential exists for a 20+ game MLS slate to replace an 8 game NFL schedule, but probably not if we're replacing it with USL games.

FCC is drawing away crowds that would be going to Reds games during the same season.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-08-2017 03:44 PM

(06-08-2017 03:42 PM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 12:07 PM)CRex43 Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 09:08 AM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

If they played mostly in the same season, I would see this being a valid point, but it is not.

Can you help me understand your point and why it is more valid than my point? Economic impact is economic impact regardless of what part of the year it occurs. How often will the Bengals play on the same day that FC Cincinnati does? And how many MLS games will FC Cincinnati play in the Cincinnati area if they don't secure a soccer-specific venue to secure an MLS bid? The potential exists for a 20+ game MLS slate to replace an 8 game NFL schedule, but probably not if we're replacing it with USL games.

FCC is drawing away crowds that would be going to Reds games during the same season.

Ehhh...that's a stretch. There is probably a small impact, but baseball viewership and attendance is declining considerably in the younger demos, which is where a majority of the FCC attendance is coming from.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - CRex43 - 06-08-2017 04:13 PM

(06-08-2017 03:42 PM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 12:07 PM)CRex43 Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 09:08 AM)djtothemoney Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

If they played mostly in the same season, I would see this being a valid point, but it is not.

Can you help me understand your point and why it is more valid than my point? Economic impact is economic impact regardless of what part of the year it occurs. How often will the Bengals play on the same day that FC Cincinnati does? And how many MLS games will FC Cincinnati play in the Cincinnati area if they don't secure a soccer-specific venue to secure an MLS bid? The potential exists for a 20+ game MLS slate to replace an 8 game NFL schedule, but probably not if we're replacing it with USL games.

FCC is drawing away crowds that would be going to Reds games during the same season.

That would only explain when both have games on the same day. I think the Reds have done enough in the last two years to drive people away on their own. FCC may be having a small impact, but not that much.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Not Duane - 06-09-2017 07:04 AM

(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - 'nati streets - 06-09-2017 07:09 AM

(06-09-2017 07:04 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.

But the evidence is not there that a NFL franchise makes downtown viable. The NFL is not required for a flourishing Cincinnati.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - OKIcat - 06-09-2017 07:58 AM

(06-09-2017 07:09 AM)nati streets Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 07:04 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.

But the evidence is not there that a NFL franchise makes downtown viable. The NFL is not required for a flourishing Cincinnati.

Maybe not, for L.A. or Oakland. But for a smaller market such as Cincy, the loss of an NFL franchise would be a big blow to our civic self-esteem. And I don't say that as a Bengals fan. The decades of their drip, drip, drip water torture performance on the field have made me totally apathetic about their product. But they are an economic engine for this area and losing the stature of having two big league professional franchises diminishes our national profile as a city.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - #41 - 06-09-2017 10:27 AM

(06-09-2017 07:04 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.

The NFL is the #1 spectator sport in the US right now, but there are a ton of red flags about it's long-term viability. Nothing that's a smoking gun, mind you, but a lot of points to consider -- including:

* - The utter lack of international participation in the sport (especially compared to soccer & basketball).

* - Declining youth participation in the sport in the United States.

* - Continuing research into the healthy / safety risks of playing the sport.

* - Increasingly age-skewed viewing habits for the sport (your average NFL TV viewer is roughly 10-15 years older than your average soccer viewer, for example).

Plus, you have to consider the next generation of sports fan and if/how the NFL and the sport of football will cater to them. That's an open question for the league, like it is for every sport/league -- not to say that the NFL won't solve the issue, but it isn't a given that the league will position itself correctly to capture the decidedly different methods of content consumption and content tastes of the next gen.

TL;DR: It's naive to assume the NFL will maintain it's position at the top of the sports world. If there's one constant in the American sports marketplace, it's that the public moves on (see: Baseball, Boxing, Horse Racing, etc.) quickly


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - OKIcat - 06-09-2017 10:34 AM

(06-09-2017 10:27 AM)#41 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 07:04 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.

The NFL is the #1 spectator sport in the US right now, but there are a ton of red flags about it's long-term viability. Nothing that's a smoking gun, mind you, but a lot of points to consider -- including:

* - The utter lack of international participation in the sport (especially compared to soccer & basketball).

* - Declining youth participation in the sport in the United States.

* - Continuing research into the healthy / safety risks of playing the sport.

* - Increasingly age-skewed viewing habits for the sport (your average NFL TV viewer is roughly 10-15 years older than your average soccer viewer, for example).

Plus, you have to consider the next generation of sports fan and if/how the NFL and the sport of football will cater to them. That's an open question for the league, like it is for every sport/league -- not to say that the NFL won't solve the issue, but it isn't a given that the league will position itself correctly to capture the decidedly different methods of content consumption and content tastes of the next gen.

TL;DR: It's naive to assume the NFL will maintain it's position at the top of the sports world. If there's one constant in the American sports marketplace, it's that the public moves on (see: Baseball, Boxing, Horse Racing, etc.) quickly

These are all valid points and the future may look quite different. But in the present, the strength of the NFL has been their revenue sharing. Every franchise, regardless of market size, shares enough revenue from TV to compete on player salaries. A friend who was more familiar with the financials of the league suggested each team is profitable--before they sell a single ticket each year.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - #41 - 06-09-2017 10:41 AM

(06-09-2017 10:34 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 10:27 AM)#41 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 07:04 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 06:08 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.

NFL is still the #1 spectator sport in the US. It will not be replaced by MLS in the forseeable future.

And in a side note, the city will do everything they can to keep the Bengals in an effort to keep downtown viable. The evidence is vast that if you lose an NFL franchise, you rarely get one back in a small market town.

The NFL is the #1 spectator sport in the US right now, but there are a ton of red flags about it's long-term viability. Nothing that's a smoking gun, mind you, but a lot of points to consider -- including:

* - The utter lack of international participation in the sport (especially compared to soccer & basketball).

* - Declining youth participation in the sport in the United States.

* - Continuing research into the healthy / safety risks of playing the sport.

* - Increasingly age-skewed viewing habits for the sport (your average NFL TV viewer is roughly 10-15 years older than your average soccer viewer, for example).

Plus, you have to consider the next generation of sports fan and if/how the NFL and the sport of football will cater to them. That's an open question for the league, like it is for every sport/league -- not to say that the NFL won't solve the issue, but it isn't a given that the league will position itself correctly to capture the decidedly different methods of content consumption and content tastes of the next gen.

TL;DR: It's naive to assume the NFL will maintain it's position at the top of the sports world. If there's one constant in the American sports marketplace, it's that the public moves on (see: Baseball, Boxing, Horse Racing, etc.) quickly

These are all valid points and the future may look quite different. But in the present, the strength of the NFL has been their revenue sharing. Every franchise, regardless of market size, shares enough revenue from TV to compete on player salaries. A friend who was more familiar with the financials of the league suggested each team is profitable--before they sell a single ticket each year.

The NFL's financial dominance is built on a business model -- charging astronomical rights fees to television networks, who in turn, use football to promote other network content and drive viewers to other network programming -- that isn't guaranteed to work in the future. For FOX, CBS and NBC, all indications are that the NFL TV deals are mostly revenue neutral. For ESPN/ABC, it's a huge money-loser that has to be made up in subscriber fees (which are in freefall as more and more younger viewers eschew paid TV service).

It's an extremely uncertain time for professional sports with so much of their financial health tied to an industry (TV) that is in flux.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BeerCat - 06-09-2017 08:42 PM

Just for arguments sake let's say the bengals left in gen years. What the hell do they do with PBS demolish it?


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - JackieTreehorn - 06-09-2017 08:54 PM

(06-09-2017 08:42 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Just for arguments sake let's say the bengals left in gen years. What the hell do they do with PBS demolish it?

We'll still need it for our next Olympics bid.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Ragpicker - 06-09-2017 08:55 PM

(06-09-2017 08:54 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:42 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Just for arguments sake let's say the bengals left in gen years. What the hell do they do with PBS demolish it?

We'll still need it for our next Olympics bid.

Or World Cup bid since we are such a crazed soccer town.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - bearcatfan - 06-09-2017 09:21 PM

Mike Brown will probably want a new stadium within 10 years. And I'm not kidding.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - RealDeal - 06-09-2017 10:12 PM

(06-09-2017 09:21 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Mike Brown will probably want a new stadium within 10 years. And I'm not kidding.
It'll be before then. The recent precedent is to replace buildings built in the 90s. I'd imagine he'll at least start the conversation within 5 years


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Cataclysmo - 06-09-2017 10:14 PM

(06-09-2017 09:21 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Mike Brown will probably want a new stadium within 10 years. And I'm not kidding.
Not to be grim, but Mike Brown is 81 and has been ceding control of the organisation for years. I'm not sure how much longer he'll be around to make such demands.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - levydl - 06-09-2017 10:57 PM

(06-09-2017 07:58 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Maybe not, for L.A. or Oakland. But for a smaller market such as Cincy, the loss of an NFL franchise would be a big blow to our civic self-esteem. And I don't say that as a Bengals fan. The decades of their drip, drip, drip water torture performance on the field have made me totally apathetic about their product. But they are an economic engine for this area and losing the stature of having two big league professional franchises diminishes our national profile as a city.

The "civic self-esteem" argument is what the crony capitalist billionaire welfare queens have turned to now that the "economic engine" argument has been completely discredited. It would be weird if Cincinnati lost the Bengals, but we'd adjust.

I would rather the county randomly hand out money to people than give a penny of taxpayer funds to the Brown or Lindner families.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - doss2 - 06-10-2017 06:09 PM

Move one NFL Franchise to Cowbus and play at Ohio Stadium. Call them The Ohio Brown Bengals. That way Cowbus has 2 pro football teams.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Not Duane - 06-12-2017 06:00 AM

(06-09-2017 10:57 PM)levydl Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 07:58 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Maybe not, for L.A. or Oakland. But for a smaller market such as Cincy, the loss of an NFL franchise would be a big blow to our civic self-esteem. And I don't say that as a Bengals fan. The decades of their drip, drip, drip water torture performance on the field have made me totally apathetic about their product. But they are an economic engine for this area and losing the stature of having two big league professional franchises diminishes our national profile as a city.

The "civic self-esteem" argument is what the crony capitalist billionaire welfare queens have turned to now that the "economic engine" argument has been completely discredited. It would be weird if Cincinnati lost the Bengals, but we'd adjust.

I would rather the county randomly hand out money to people than give a penny of taxpayer funds to the Brown or Lindner families.

Would you feel differently if the County bought the franchise from the Brown family instead of paying for a new stadium?--thus having the season-ticket holders vote on personnel such as GM to run the franchise?

This would be a set-up similar to what Green Bay has....