Pages
1 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 9:02:59am

Gambling.

2 Slap  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 9:42:10am

What a concept.

A business that generates millions and millions of dollars, employs thousands and pays its peak performers on a merit basis....succeeding (in a massive way) using something similar to the cooperative business model because it makes sense for the long-term survival of the entire enterprise.

No lessons to be learned here, nope./

3 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 10:22:10am

Seriously, Bill Maher is not a football historian, or much of a sports fan, judging by the article.

The NFL began it's growth in 1958. It was a game made for television. Also, there were only 14 games in a season, leaving a week to hype the next game, and--attract a gambling cult. It's easier to bet on football than it is to bet on baseball. This is also the reason college football is so lucrative. In the sixties, an advertising man took the reigns of football, Pete Rozelle became commissioner, and used his skills wisely.

Maher mentions the Pittsburgh teams. The Pirates were very successful in the 60s and 70s, the Steelers were miserable in the 60s. Then the Steelers found people who could evaluate talent, while the Pirates could not find such people. As we entered the 21st century, also rans such as the Red Sox found people who could evaluate talent, as did the Patriots.

Baseball is a marvelous and difficult game, and it is nearly impossible to bet on a game--you can put down the money, but it is a risky bet. The sport was initially the national pastime because it fit with the dominant media, newspapers and radio, perfectly suited for the more poetic prose of early baseball writers, and perfect for the immediate poetry of a Vin Scully or Jack Buck. Even though the teams are successful, and the league does make money, the World Series is not the focus of the nation as it once was. The Super Bowl is that focus. And that is because of gambling.

Football is a game that was suited for Howard Cosell, not a poet. Baseball now has a luxury tax, the same as football's revenue sharing, but success of teams gets down to the ability to see young people and know if they have the skills for playing professionally. The Cowboys were the first team to perfect the art of scouting, and went from expansion team to a dominant team in almost no time at all. I don't think this has ever been done in professional sports.

In baseball, it is very difficult to evaluate talent. Albert Pujols was drafted 13th by the Cardinals. This means that all other teams passed on him for at least 12 rounds.

Every professional sports league is successful, with the exception of hockey. Not all teams are successful.

4 Slap  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 10:50:55am

re: #3 Bob Levin

Agenda much?

Do you mean that gambling wasn't a factor before 1958? That television began the gambling success of the league? That the league receives specific revenue from gambling? That baseball has never been influenced by gambling because it's not a "poet's" game? (If so, I suspect Pete Rose, Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson might want a word with you....) That people who grew up playing and watching the game are only following it because of gambling?

Couldn't have been the sudden increase in interest as live television broadcasts began reaching more and more homes, or the competition that the AFL created, or that the AFL's existence played a major role in the desegregation of professional football, or that the competition from the AFL caused the entrenched NFL to reach out and pursue a merger, or that its growing television popularity resulted in an avalanche of advertising dollars, or that their decision to license league gear and control the royalty stream resulted in unprecedented revenue....

I'm puzzled as to why you'd believe that gambling is an influence, rather than a consequence. I've known many gamblers over several decades, and they'll bet on any f-ing thing when they're in the zone -- I've watched several making all manner of side bets during women's basketball games, such as number of free-throw attenpts over x number of minutes.

Why the special ire toward the NFL?

5 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 11:04:13am

re: #4 Slap

Check out the history of the NFL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football

The league is popular because of gambling and television. It is financially successful because gambling attracts viewers to television, which has very lucrative contracts with both college and pro football.

Baseball's gambling problems stemmed from players throwing games, fixing the outcomes. That is a point that supports what I'm saying, that it is harder to bet on baseball. Listen to people analyze football, saying that teams are favored by--a point spread. That is a gambling term. There aren't any point spreads in baseball.

Yes, gambling has propelled the popularity of football into the stratosphere.

Sorry, the but the history of the modern NFL began in 1958 with the Colts/Giants championship game. That's not disputable.

There's no ire towards the NFL, it's just that attributing it's success to socialism is silly.

6 Slap  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 11:40:24am

First -- if I somehow gave the impression that I was minimizing the importance of the '58 Championship, then that's on me for being inadequate in my language. All of my points on the growth in viewership and ad income (hell, even the creation of a second viable league could be said to have been the result of the impact of that game on public consciousness) stem from that date as an assumed beginning. A fact that I do not in any way dispute.

And I still read your position as being more anti-gambling than on point.

Perhaps the terminology of Maher's point is the issue here. He used the term socialism. The league calls it revenue sharing. When a group of participants in an economic activity choose to pool their resources (licensing revenues) together toward a collective goal (making more money than God) and equally share the benefits and costs, that can accurately be described using the word "socialism" correctly (small-s socialism, as opposed to capital-s Socialism as a political philosophy). Such things also go by names such as Credit Unions, Food Co-Ops and growers' cooperatives in other non-football contexts.

The big revenues come from an increased interest in the game. You attribute it to gambling (which, again, seems like a personal agenda based on your emphasis on it in this thread -- no issue with that, we merely disagree). I don't dispute that gambling on sports is huge, and that it has a tremendous negative aspect to it. I have a hard time connecting that gambling has an influence on the many non-gamblers who love the game -- and who lay out frightfully-large amounts of coin for clothing items with League-licensed logos. I mean, if I see a guy wearing an entire 49ers ensemble -- logo pants, logo shoes, logo hats in various colors and designs, a team jersey, a team logo jacket and sweater, team ring, team watch, team socks, team logo undergarments, and team logo earrings, my first thought isn't going to be "gee, that guy must be a gambler or a bookie" -- it's going to be "gee, that dude just paid Goodell's salary for the next year".

Granted, Maher has all the subtlety of a neon-glazed, nuclear-glow-green, 1000-ft-tall flying mallet, and I wouldn't blame anybody for reacting against his statements, just on GP.

(And I'm hoping my tone is nothing more than spirited -- I'm enjoying the conversation....)

7 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 1:32:50pm

re: #6 Slap

As I said, football fit very nicely into the newest medium of communication, television. Baseball fit very nicely into the older mediums of radio and newspaper.

Maher was asking why the NFL is more successful than baseball--and there are better reasons than socialism, or revenue sharing, or--a luxury tax.

There is no equality in sharing when it comes to the NFL. The players on average are the lowest paid players in the big 3 professional sports. Baseball players makes so much more than football players, because baseball has a stronger player's union. The reason that football was the first to begin revenue sharing was not because of any ideals regarding equality. It was to keep teams in their cities. So, again, socialism might be a word to describe a food co-op (and there's nothing wrong with that), but no way no how is this a description of the NFL.

Regarding your point about fans--this is reasonable. Why are there so many over the top non-gambling fans? Outside of the fact that football is literally combat, I will again go with television--specifically the invention of slow motion instant reply and NFL films. I don't think you can underestimate the impact of NFL films and their technology. With the backdrop of a military soundtrack, here are guys performing ballet in slow motion. It was beautiful to watch and inspiring listening. Add in the narrative voice of John Facenda, and brother--you got a product.

After Facenda retired, football was a weekly weekend event that connected people, before Facebook. It was a way for folks to look beyond their social differences, fill that need of being part of something bigger than themselves, and loosen their inhibitions at the same time. But no one meets at a Super Bowl party and thinks--hey, this is the beauty of socialism.

And yes, it's an enjoyable conversation. So there are two kinds of fans, and one kind are the gamblers--there is no getting around this. I'm not convinced that the effect of gambling on the sport is negative. But it's as prominent as shoulder pads.

8 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 2:57:31pm

Sorry, I should have added a semi /sarc tag.

But I think the point holds, at least trying to spread the opportunities around makes the league stronger and more competitive.

9 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 1, 2011 5:03:09pm

re: #8 Romantic Heretic

But does it? The leagues can only do two things--1) Spread some money around and 2)make sure the worst teams get the top draft picks.

What wins every year: Teams that have the best fundamentals will win. In baseball, good pitching and defense. In football, the best blocking and tackling. In basketball, defense and ball movement. Which teams will have those, which teams will perform these tasks when it matters--that's what folks bet on.

There are other fundamentals, and that's why no matter how hard leagues try for parity, a few franchises, not the richest, are consistently on top.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh