Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
NFL Protest Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Just how I feel even going forward
I don't care about the settlement0 -
I remember you coming ng into a draft thread one time when I picked a player and suggesting that I read some bodies stuff or listened to a podcast when it was from watching college football that I formed the opinion that the guy would work out in the NFL. Just as I told everybody on here that the best QB on a draft class a couple of years ago was Derek Carr when everyone was raving about Teddy Bridgewater and some about Manziel.
good call on Carr. You were also far higher on Tim Tebow not only in the draft but long term and werent for turning there either.^^^^That is pretty much the way I look at Tebow. The intangibles are just so important and he has them. As I said the guy is a born winner, everybody around him thinks he is amazing, he has such great leadership skills. Everybody plays their best when they are around him. You just can't make somebody like that and along with his ability its why I believe that he is certain to be a star in the NFL.
He reminds me in ways of a young Tiger Woods. Everybody said he would not last because he hit the ball too hard and you lose control over time with that, but he went and destroyed all around him and then changed his swing and won four majors in a row, and then goes off and changes his swing again. The belief in his own ability, clutch play and work ethic is what made Tiger what he is today, still the top man after 12 or 13 years in the pro golf game. I know its very high praise to compare a young college QB to him but I really think they have that same will, belief and air about them.
Just that not everyones opinion on a certain player or how they look is factual.
as for Kap, he is certainly worthy of at least a second or backup spot on a roster. Problem being, is being a backup worth the hassle that comes with him, even if it is unjustified attention. He isnt going out of his way to seek attention, he started it and it followed him and has blown into something far bigger than intended.
His agent mentioned the Patriots as a potential landing spot (even though I dont believe that, I think it is just attention seeking, conflicting my earlier point!) but some of the pats social media platforms has many, many fans saying they wouldnt support the team anymore if he joined. You have that sort of **** to listen to and put up with over a player who was making a stand for what he believed to be right.
Football is huge in deep south areas and Kaps perceived actions of disrespect to his nationality has not been taken well. His actual point is long lost and when the likes of Trump jumped in two footed with his comments, it just made it even more divisive.0 -
The NFL failed to get the case thrown out and ended up settling so clearly this wasn't as easily proven as you tend to feel about it.
Teams can both collude and decide to avoid him due to his activism and also deem him not good enough. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
NFL didn't have to prove he wasn't good enough, but rather that collusion hadn't occured, which would cause a big problem with the NFLPA. End of the day settlement is to cover them.
However I do believe Kap is good enough certainly to be a back up in the league, but I don't believe he is valueing himself accurately at all, and to point the sole reason he can't get a job down to his politic views I don't buy. Eric Reid didn't struggle like this and has been playing great with Panthers, just signing a 3 year extension recently too. He too was part of the settlement.
Kaepernick while talented relied a lot on his run game, nothing wrong with that but he's now a player in his 30s who hasn't taken a snap since 2016.
He had the chance to try play some football with the AAF but asked for 20million, I don't see how anyone can argue that was a plausible demand and it was clearly showing he had no interest in the league. He wanted $20million from a new league paying on average 75k a year. I know salaries are increasing in the NFL but Tom Brady for example is on something like $20.5million a year.
Also when he lost his starting job from all reports he didn't exactly fire himself up to try win it back, which doesn't exactly reflect well. Now that he's been paid in the settlement maybe he'll adjust his demands to just try play football. If he accepts a back-up role with a chance to win the starting position, on a back-up salary he will no doubt attract attention.0 -
Adamocovic wrote: »NFL didn't have to prove he wasn't good enough, but rather that collusion hadn't occured, which would cause a big problem with the NFLPA. End of the day settlement is to cover them.
The NFL didn't have to prove anything, Kaep had to prove there was collusion. Settling implies they thought he had a chance of success.
Has anyone who actually played with him had anything bad to say about the guy?0 -
The NFL didn't have to prove anything, Kaep had to prove there was collusion. Settling implies they thought he had a chance of success.
Has anyone who actually played with him had anything bad to say about the guy?
Well I wasn't debating the settling but the point that it's not solely due to his protests which has prevented him from signing for a team, at least in my opinion.
Whether or not Kap could prove collusion or not is debatable, NFL took a safe option with the settlement but doesn't imply either was right or wrong, above article goes into it more.
Said before I believe the political views played an impact on him being overlooked, not sure if a total of 14 teams colluded though, still believe his high opinion of what he should reportedly be earning and starting played a role0 -
Advertisement
-
Adamocovic wrote: »However I do believe Kap is good enough certainly to be a back up in the league, but I don't believe he is valueing himself accurately at all, and to point the sole reason he can't get a job down to his politic views I don't buy. Eric Reid didn't struggle like this and has been playing great with Panthers, just signing a 3 year extension recently too. He too was part of the settlement.
Reid very much struggled far more than he should have in getting a job last year, which is why he filed a complaint.He had the chance to try play some football with the AAF but asked for 20million, I don't see how anyone can argue that was a plausible demand and it was clearly showing he had no interest in the league. He wanted $20million from a new league paying on average 75k a year. I know salaries are increasing in the NFL but Tom Brady for example is on something like $20.5million a year.
Firstly, that is an unverified report that coincidentally came out right before this settlement was announced so I wouldn't be putting my faith in it. Even if true I don't think starting a negotiation at NFL starter money is outrageous. He'd be by far the biggest star and best player in the league.Also when he lost his starting job from all reports he didn't exactly fire himself up to try win it back, which doesn't exactly reflect well.
What reports are these? The 49ers during were an absolute garbage fire during his last 2 years there, with an absolutely toxic front office culture, yet Kaepernick was extremely well regarded by his peers.0 -
-
munstermagic11 wrote: »Settling implies both parties felt they could lose, or wasn’t worth being dragged out.
Another option is that the offer from the NFL could include things that wouldn't be in any final judgement, for example NFL agreeing to help him end up with a team this off season or NFL agreeing to not try to limit the rights of players to protest (like not bringing in the rules they were talking about last year).0 -
munstermagic11 wrote: »Settling implies both parties felt they could lose, or wasn’t worth being dragged out.
Which, given the burden of proof placed on Kaepernick, does not reflect well on the NFL. It was not an even playing field.0 -
What reports are these? The 49ers during were an absolute garbage fire during his last 2 years there, with an absolutely toxic front office culture, yet Kaepernick was extremely well regarded by his peers.
People seem to collate the "attention" Kaep received with the performance of the 9ers. It completely ignores the timeline of the events in question and completely ignores every comment from his team-mates. Last I checked, teams actually seemed to thrive on the "everybody is against us" vibe.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don’t think it reflects well on Kaep, he’s the one that initiated it and had a “cause”. Then he settled for the money. The payout doesn’t matter as much to the NFL; much like the concussion case, both have gone away.Which, given the burden of proof placed on Kaepernick, does not reflect well on the NFL.0 -
People seem to collate the "attention" Kaep received with the performance of the 9ers. It completely ignores the timeline of the events in question and completely ignores every comment from his team-mates. Last I checked, teams actually seemed to thrive on the "everybody is against us" vibe.
The Kaep protests are a drop in the ocean of the wider issues the 49ers were dealing with at the time. It would have been so easy for the players to try to shift the blame to the protests for how they were doing and it is striking that no one attempted this and they actually rallied around him.
People also leave out all context and put blinders on when they’re talking about him as a player, pointing to performances over his last 2 years where the team had practically no talent and one HC was chased back to college football and the other back to a DL coach.0 -
munstermagic11 wrote: »I don’t think it reflects well on Kaep, he’s the one that initiated it and had a “cause”. Then he settled for the money. The payout doesn’t matter as much to the NFL; much like the concussion case, both have gone away.
Once again, the cause he protested for is completely separate to this claim. Outside of people being disingenuous I'm not sure why posters are continuing to try to conflate the two.
This isn't a settlement to stop protesting the cause, it is a settlement regarding money he felt he would have earned if the league didn't collude to keep him out.
Any payout doesn't stop from people protesting or speaking about the cause, the only thing that goes away is the collusion case.0 -
raze_them_all_ wrote: »Eagle eye reads like a redneck respect the fleg type a lot over the last few days which is a shame as he usually has intelligent things to add
A little over the top don't you think? I read the thread and don't see anything objectionable EE has said. A different point of view is all, and the ad hominem attack doesn't bolster your argument0 -
Isn't it likely that league ownership never cared one way or another about Kaepernick's protest, just their bottom line.
Most QB-needy teams would have loved to have given him a shot (we are all familiar with the QB rethreads in this league), but their hands were tied by their own fans.
Perhaps the NFL recognised that the treatment of Kaepernick was unfair (i.e him losing his job/career prospects as a result of the protest), and wanted to do right by him without riling up the fan base?
I can't imagine the NFL actively "blackballed" him any more than they did to Ray Rice....i.e. he was not worth the hassle, at that price point at that point in his career. i would have taken Kaepernick @ Denver over Siemian or Keenum. btw.0 -
Reid very much struggled far more than he should have in getting a job last year, which is why he filed a complaint.
Well my point was Reid didn't struggle nearly as much as Kaepernick has to find a team, didn't say he didn't struggle at all.
Reid missed 3 games was it, compared to Kaepernick's 2 seasons now. Both of course struggled due to the media attention and divisive opinions within the fans and players of the protest.
But Reid, coming off one of his best seasons was worth the money/role he was asking for and the controversy that surrounded him, Kaepernick I don't believe so.Firstly, that is an unverified report that coincidentally came out right before this settlement was announced so I wouldn't be putting my faith in it. Even if true I don't think starting a negotiation at NFL starter money is outrageous. He'd be by far the biggest star and best player in the league.
That claim or report that Kaepernick asked for $20 million from the AAF originated from the Associated Press. Can argue it hasn't been confirmed from Kaepernick's side or the AAF but they are generally well regarded, and the author who wrote the initial story has been an NFL journalist for over 40 years, hence the reason most if not all big name sporting news outlets ran with it.
I suppose we will both believe different versions until a firm confirmation is made but since Bill Polian when asked to comment on the report didn't deny it, kept his opinion to himself, while confirming they had been in contact with Kap, I'm tending to think the reports are true.
And regarding whether it would be outrageous negotiation point if true? Seriously?
One is a new league in it's first season, another is the highest generating revenue sports league in the world. Just because they are both American Football does not mean the finances are the same.
Yes Kaepernick would be the biggest name in the league and should have been looking for more money, but $20 million is outrageous in comparison. Let's say the $20million was for 3 years, with an average of around 300k for a 3 year contract he would be looking for over 6000% more than the average. I don't see how if the reports are true anyone can argue they were fair demands and not outrageous.What reports are these? The 49ers during were an absolute garbage fire during his last 2 years there, with an absolutely toxic front office culture, yet Kaepernick was extremely well regarded by his peers.
Well these stories I heard were coming from 49ers fans rather than the team itself, who defended his work-rate, so of course this could be open to bias and false. I'll put my hand up there.
I still firmly believe that he needs to re-evaulate his demands. It didn't end brilliantly for him on the field and the protest has influenced teams. Like I said, he's been out of the league for 2 seasons, in his 30s while being a run reliant QB. Already that line above would put a lot of teams off guaranteeing him a big salary or starting role.
He will need to lower his demands, go for a back-up, 2nd spot with the oppurtunity to prove himself if he has ambitions to play in the league again. I do believe the AAF would have been a good platform to show he's still got it and generate the talk around his ability rather than protests before the NFL season.0 -
Adamocovic wrote: »That claim or report that Kaepernick asked for $20 million from the AAF originated from the Associated Press. Can argue it hasn't been confirmed from Kaepernick's side or the AAF but they are generally well regarded, and the author who wrote the initial story has been an NFL journalist for over 40 years, hence the reason most if not all big name sporting news outlets ran with it.
I suppose we will both believe different versions until a firm confirmation is made but since Bill Polian when asked to comment on the report didn't deny it, kept his opinion to himself, while confirming they had been in contact with Kap, I'm tending to think the reports are true.
I’m not saying it isn’t correct but the timing of the report and the lack of context right before the announcement of the settlement looks like someone taking their last chance to have a stab at him. Looks like it worked too when it being dragged into the discussion about him.And regarding whether it would be outrageous negotiation point if true? Seriously?
One is a new league in it's first season, another is the highest generating revenue sports league in the world. Just because they are both American Football does not mean the finances are the same.
Yes Kaepernick would be the biggest name in the league and should have been looking for more money, but $20 million is outrageous in comparison. Let's say the $20million was for 3 years, with an average of around 300k for a 3 year contract he would be looking for over 6000% more than the average. I don't see how if the reports are true anyone can argue they were fair demands and not outrageous.
He likely had zero interest in playing in the AAF unless they paid him a premium and I’m not sure how that is outrageous. We see it every year in NFL FA, where crap teams must overpay players to join them while the Patriots get players on a discount. It also occurs regularly in other sports, look at how much above average European and South American soccer players get paid in China or the premium Southern Hemisphere rugby players get paid in Japan.
Whether the league was willing or able to pay it is not the point, Kaep has proved himself as a capable starter in the NFL in the highest paid position, taking his team incredibly close to a Super Bowl, so if anything it is more ‘outrageous’ to expect him to accept close to an average salary in a league full of guys who either flamed out of the NFL or never even made it in. The other option was for Kaep to just say no to the AAF but with billionaires and their money you never know when they might decide to throw it around and overpay him. He really had little to lose from starting a negotiation.0 -
Some interesting stuff on the possible payout: https://www.nbcsports.com/video/nfl-colin-kaepernick-eric-reid-settle-collusion-case?ls=pftvod
We may never know the true figure, but the $80m mark is probably total BS.0 -
I’m not saying it isn’t correct but the timing of the report and the lack of context right before the announcement of the settlement looks like someone taking their last chance to have a stab at him. Looks like it worked too when it being dragged into the discussion about him.
I agree the timing was not good but that happens when the league starts just after the NFL, there was talk about who had been contacted about playing in the league and Kap was one, Tebow too. Pretty much most NFL players without a team.
Maybe the timing was on purpose, maybe it was just the fact that the league has started now. Maybe the reports are false, maybe they are true. Those questions for now depend on the persons opinion.
I tend to believe them myself like I said.He likely had zero interest in playing in the AAF unless they paid him a premium and I’m not sure how that is outrageous. We see it every year in NFL FA, where crap teams must overpay players to join them while the Patriots get players on a discount. It also occurs regularly in other sports, look at how much above average European and South American soccer players get paid in China or the premium Southern Hemisphere rugby players get paid in Japan.
Whether the league was willing or able to pay it is not the point, Kaep has proved himself as a capable starter in the NFL in the highest paid position, taking his team incredibly close to a Super Bowl, so if anything it is more ‘outrageous’ to expect him to accept close to an average salary in a league full of guys who either flamed out of the NFL or never even made it in. The other option was for Kaep to just say no to the AAF but with billionaires and their money you never know when they might decide to throw it around and overpay him. He really had little to lose from starting a negotiation.
I have stated as much that I don't believe he was interested at all and asked for ridiculous money due to this, but he should have just declined saying his focus was on the NFL or sought a one-year contract at more realistic money just for the opening season (though I'm unsure if the 20million was for 1 or 3 year contract). I suppose some would have criticised him for straight up declining too however.
But on the demands, 6000% of what the average is. Overpaying is normal but not near that level, it was completely an unrealistic demand if true, so even if it was due to a lack of interest it was outrageous, and I don't see how you can argue that.
I wouldn't call the examples above as similar due to the fact the above listed leagues such as the CSL are established leagues with signficant funding and revenue, while the AAF is an unknown quantity in it's first year just trying to survive. CSL wasn't offering big salaries in it's first year, it been with time and investment.
I don't really want to use any as examples due to this fact, and we have no idea how much revenue and investment the AAF has, but why not I suppose. Over the space of 3 years the average salary in the league is $3 million. Oscar their highest paid player will make roughly $60 million. Completely crazy over the top. However if he was to ask for the same ratio of what Kap supposedly demanded it would be $180 million. Pretty big difference, especially when you don't consider the major differences between the leagues.
The total salaries for the entire AAF coaching staff (all coaches, head, offensive, defensive, etc) is $16 million to put it into more context. Many believe the AAF won't last long, and that the XFL will with more investment, but that's another story. Rumours the AAF needed an emergency investment to stay alive despite being new.
I apologise that we've strayed off the topic. We've fallen down the rabbit hole but just said I'd address the comments. Yes he more than likely had no interest, but obviously critics will use this report against him due to the fact he's talked about how much he wants to get back on the field and the fact it hasn't anything to do with money. Think whoever advised him could have handled it better.
I like Kap, despite the fact I was an Alex Smith fan, but still believe that in order to get his career back on track he needs to re-evaluate his own expectations. The Super Bowl he played in was 6 years ago now, and 2 of those years he hasn't played any football at all. The longer it continues like this the harder it will be for him to come back.0 -
Yes yes you're bitter about how the whole thing went down, we get that.The NFL lost the social media battle, the stupid went with Kaepernick, as I've already said and decided to pay up and shut everything down.
You don't like him as a person. There is a difference between that and being a 'garbage' QB, which just doesn't seem to be getting through to you. He is by no means an all pro, but he is a hell of a lot better than some of the dreck that was playing in 2017 and you know that.He is garbage as a QB, it made no sense for any team to hire him imo.
It is all to do with PR. It was always to do with PR. The only reason the NFL wanted players to stop kneeling is because of bad PR from Trump squealing about players exercising their first amendment rights. That is literally how this became such a big issue - PR.It's all about social media, nothing to do with the real story.
The NFL lost that PR battle, and lost it badly. If you think it's solely down to some Twitter accounts, I've got a highly successful global Nike advertising campaign that says otherwise. The public had spoken, the NFL had lost... they were just pragmatic enough to put the brakes on ASAP and settle, to end the nightmare they made for themselves.
Hopefully, but who knows when Donald is going to need to distract from the latest dodgy headline. It tends to be him that stokes the flames on this.If they did blacklist him they paid the price anyways. Who really cares. Hopefully the kneeling is over with and we can get back to talking about football.
Weird how politics gets involved in an argument that the highest profile politician in the entire world insists on frequently putting himself in the middle of, eh!?More of your political bs again too I see.
The fact that you cannot see how the NFL screwed themselves on the PR front by siding with someone calling white supremacists "very fine people" over black people complaining about what they perceive to be racism, shows that you really do not understand what any of this this was about. Which makes it quite amusing how to keep referring to other people as 'dumb' simply because they use social media.
Where were Nike defensive about the ads?Yeah ten days later, no chance that had anything to do with the Kaepernick ads.
As I've said already even Nike were defensive about the ads saying it didn't hurt them when many said it did.
And my god, if you think something happening in a company (like a highly publicised ad campaign that gained global recognition well beyond that of the sport) isn't felt in their stocks, I don't even know what to tell you. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you should reevaluate how often you throw around the word 'dumb' in relation to other people.
Except for the fact they are posting record profits and stock prices. Weird how that would happen, and industry professionals would largely agree it was in no small part down to this campaign, but I guess that is all wrong because eagle eye said so. :pac:They have never claimed it benefitted them
You're embarrassing yourself on this point by now. You were claiming it was a bad move at the time, and that Nike would lost customers... in the end, Nike have gained customers. That is all there is to this.
What is it with you and the sheer consistency of playing this dishonest game? At no point ever did I say Nike went to make a public announcement that the campaign was a resounding success - but their numbers did all the talking for them there.Show me where Nike claimed it was a resounding success.
You were claiming a few months ago that it was a stupid business decision, would cost them lots of customers, have people never buying Nike again. Instead, their sales have gone up and their stocks are at an all time high. By your own metrics, it was a success. Because by just about any metric, the campaign was indeed a success.
Yes, people do have voices... not sure how that is insane though?The NFL will do whatever they deem best for their profit margin, in this instance it was to make a deal with a confidentiality clause.
They got beat up because of every dumbo on social media. They have a powerful voice now as insane as that is.
The fact is, the market spoke, and the NFL knew they had to tuck their tail between their legs and back up. They screwed themselves, simple as, by siding with Trump over the players as Trump was only ever going to do what he did anyway - spit in the NFL's face for their troubles, and continue to paint them as the bad guy to his fans. Meanwhile, the other fans were already alienated... thanks to the NFL's actions. Simple as, Goodell made a massive balls of this on the PR front as you are all too aware he is prone to doing.
So I used stats in a player versus player argument and it was just a backup to my eye test. What about it?
I can discuss football without stats perfectly fine thank you, and very often do. That is not why you used the Belichick quote though - you used it because you felt it backed up your argument at that exact point in time, because statistics were not in your favour.I responded to you with a quote from Belichick because you really come across as not to being able to discuss talent without stats. I can talk stats but I form my opinions by watching football games.
However, the very moment statistics do work in your favour you'll whip them out and claim them to be authoritative immediately. In fact, this is exactly what the case was in the Bortles/Manning bit I pointed to, where I was talking about the circumstances they had to work in etc... and your reaction was to act as if none of that was relevant compared to your use of stats, and to also claim Bortles had poor pass protection to work with (despite the Jags line ranking 5th in the entire league for pass protection).
This is a somewhat regular feature of your posts, speaking out both sides of your mouth and directly contradicting yourself as and when it suits.
I'm not even sure what the point of this is supposed to be, especially since I don't even watch college football and never claim to have much knowledge about the players in it?I remember you coming ng into a draft thread one time when I picked a player and suggesting that I read some bodies stuff or listened to a podcast when it was from watching college football that I formed the opinion that the guy would work out in the NFL. Just as I told everybody on here that the best QB on a draft class a couple of years ago was Derek Carr when everyone was raving about Teddy Bridgewater and some about Manziel.
Here's a better example - I remember you outright scoffing and mocking me, asking if I was drunk for saying Terrell Owens, would be more likely to go to the HOF before Hines Ward. Here was your exact quote: Lmfao, that is just ridiculous. Please tell me you were drunk or on drugs when you posted this.
Fast forward two years aaaand... how's that working out for you? :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
You don't like him as a person. There is a difference between that and being a 'garbage' QB, which just doesn't seem to be getting through to you. He is by no means an all pro, but he is a hell of a lot better than some of the dreck that was playing in 2017 and you know that.
It is all to do with PR. It was always to do with PR. The only reason the NFL wanted players to stop kneeling is because of bad PR from Trump squealing about players exercising their first amendment rights. That is literally how this became such a big issue - PR.
The NFL lost that PR battle, and lost it badly. If you think it's solely down to some Twitter accounts, I've got a highly successful global Nike advertising campaign that says otherwise. The public had spoken, the NFL had lost... they were just pragmatic enough to put the brakes on ASAP and settle, to end the nightmare they made for themselves.
Hopefully, but who knows when Donald is going to need to distract from the latest dodgy headline. It tends to be him that stokes the flames on this.
Weird how politics gets involved in an argument that the highest profile politician in the entire world insists on frequently putting himself in the middle of, eh!?
The fact that you cannot see how the NFL screwed themselves on the PR front by siding with someone calling white supremacists "very fine people" over black people complaining about what they perceive to be racism, shows that you really do not understand what any of this this was about. Which makes it quite amusing how to keep referring to other people as 'dumb' simply because they use social media.
What is it with you and the sheer consistency of playing this dishonest game? At no point ever did I say Nike went to make a public announcement that the campaign was a resounding success - but their numbers did all the talking for them there.
The fact is, the market spoke, and the NFL knew they had to tuck their tail between their legs and back up. They screwed themselves, simple as, by siding with Trump over the players as Trump was only ever going to do what he did anyway - spit in the NFL's face for their troubles, and continue to paint them as the bad guy to his fans. Meanwhile, the other fans were already alienated... thanks to the NFL's actions. Simple as, Goodell made a massive balls of this on the PR front as you are all too aware he is prone to doing.
Sorry about chopping some of the post, just leaving out parts that aren't to do with my reply for space sake.
I agree that Kaepernick is by no means a "garbage QB", can't understand that opinion, have made it clear I don't rate him nearly as high as some do (including himself), and think his demands/expectations are unrealistic, even when you take out the media circus that comes with him.
On the PR front it was a mess for the NFL, but I think it was a bit of a mess all around. Settlement as well won't feel like a victory for either sides but is more an attempt at both trying to move forward or away from the wreck.
I'm always reluctant to bring Trump into this, obviously he has a big influence into stoking it but the people for and against the protests needed little stoking. At the beginning he was vocal on a huge platform but your post is all about the NFL "siding" with Trump, when in all honesty the fans and american citizens were the biggest driving factor.
Of course it's known the protest divided player opinions, but they're professional and go to work, but it created a terrible atmosphere between opposing views of fans/people and a clear divide. This I feel had little to do with Trump and rather the ingrained patriotism of Americans to do with their country, they are in a large part defensive of it and don't take kind to any notion that it isn't the best in the world.
I know you can argue a YahooSports Survey/Poll isn't conclusive or thorough enough but their results last year came back with:(Support=Support the NFL stance, Oppose= Support the kneeling)
White: 52% support; 32% oppose
Black: 29% support; 48% oppose
Hispanic: 49% support; 19% oppose
If it makes people feel better to think Trump was the driving force of the PR mess then fair enough, but I think any stance taken was mainly due to the fan/public opinion to try please the masses and avoid any losses of earnings, and the media then ran with it.0 -
Adamocovic wrote: »I know you can argue a YahooSports Survey/Poll isn't conclusive or thorough enough but their results last year came back with:
If it makes people feel better to think Trump was the driving force of the PR mess then fair enough, but I think any stance taken was mainly due to the fan/public opinion to try please the masses and avoid any losses of earnings, and the media then ran with it.
The way you’ve framed that poll makes no sense. What does support the NFL stance mean and how does opposing that mean you support kneeling? If the question is about the NFL’s failed policy that players had to stand for the anthem or else be fined, while providing them an option to stay in the locker-room, then the opposite isn’t supporting taking a knee.
Quinnipiac ran a poll that found that a majority of American voters (58 percent to 35 percent) didn’t see the players as unpatriotic, which is one of the main talking points against them. They also said that professional athletes have the right to protest on the playing field or court (53 percent to 43 percent), another talking point about ‘stick to sports’.
Public opinion is definitely split or even leaning against protesting during the anthem. However, even if people disagree with the protests, despite what Trump claims they don’t feel strongly enough to move the needle with some form of ‘boycott’. On the other side, supporting those who protest has much more sway with the key demographics of the younger, more affluent market. It isn’t surprising that in the last week a guy ‘who took a stand’ against Nike supporting Kaepernick, by boycotting selling their clothing, went out of business while Nike just sold out of their Kaepernick (widely overpriced) custom jerseys. It was always likely that a league run and in pandering to nearly completely old, white, billionaire men completely miscalculated this while Nike got it spot on.0 -
The way you’ve framed that poll makes no sense. What does support the NFL stance mean and how does opposing that mean you support kneeling? If the question is about the NFL’s failed policy that players had to stand for the anthem or else be fined, while providing them an option to stay in the locker-room, then the opposite isn’t supporting taking a knee.
Sorry if I explained or framed it poorly, made sense in my head at least but that was an early morning most.
So to try clarify.
They were asked if they supported or opposed the NFL policy of fining players who "do not stand and show respect for the flag and the national anthem".
Support= Support the NFL stance of fining players for kneeling.
Oppose= Oppose the NFL stance of fining players for kneeling.
So I don't think it's a stretch to say the people who voted against the above policy were supportive of the kneeling protest, or at least the right to protest by taking a knee.Quinnipiac ran a poll that found that a majority of American voters (58 percent to 35 percent) didn’t see the players as unpatriotic, which is one of the main talking points against them. They also said that professional athletes have the right to protest on the playing field or court (53 percent to 43 percent), another talking point about ‘stick to sports’.
The only question I would have regarding the poll is whether it was aimed at Americans as a whole or targeted NFL fans. Every poll seems to sway from one side or another but (correct me if I'm wrong) it appears that the American public as a whole are more understanding or accepting of the protest than the fans who actually watch the sport. Of course you will have some who don't watch and get riled up by it too.Public opinion is definitely split or even leaning against protesting during the anthem. However, even if people disagree with the protests, despite what Trump claims they don’t feel strongly enough to move the needle with some form of ‘boycott’. On the other side, supporting those who protest has much more sway with the key demographics of the younger, more affluent market. It isn’t surprising that in the last week a guy ‘who took a stand’ against Nike supporting Kaepernick, by boycotting selling their clothing, went out of business while Nike just sold out of their Kaepernick (widely overpriced) custom jerseys. It was always likely that a league run and in pandering to nearly completely old, white, billionaire men completely miscalculated this while Nike got it spot on.
Oh I agree regarding the public opinion, but my point is that the NFL decisions were based off trying to please the majority of the fans, which makes sense. I think Nike's success isn't as comparable.
If they believe that the majority of the fans are against the protesting (which is quite likely) then they will aim to please the masses. There's an oppurtunity for other companies such as Nike to profit from supporting the cause but I'm not sure if it translates well for the NFL unless it's proven the overall fan opinion differs from what is expected.
So Nike can sell out a Kaepernick jersey, with a large percentage of sales from people supporting his cause. This doesn't mean those people are actually contributing to the NFL with tickets, merchandise, or media coverage, so a large amount fall outside the market of the NFL.
If the majority of fans were not supportive of protesting, I imagine the NFL felt it would be a bad business decision to go against their customers and side with a group that contribute less to their revenue. Now if it's proven fan opinion has changed then I have little doubt that the NFL will try to flip their stance.
I believe either stance the NFL could have taken would have caused a mess. I don't believe the decision was to do with the race or age of the people running the NFL. I still believe it was solely a financial driven decision, I think they would support whatever they feel will bring them the most money, or stop them from losing the most. I think they didn't want to risk their patriotism angle they cash in, links with American Military, or a large if not majority of their regular fan base.0 -
Jesus H Christ why is still being talked about ? The Nfl settled the case and I don't care whether the league of Kaep won or lost but his Kaeps part is over. He can take the money he's gotten and use it as bogroll in his house for all I care. The NFL can also pretend they won or the they can paper the outside of the league office with the settlement document for all I care. All I want is to have an off season with as little controversy as possible and players and coaches enjoy the bit of time off and do stupid stuff that lands them in trouble.0
-
Jesus H Christ why is still being talked about ? The Nfl settled the case and I don't care whether the league of Kaep won or lost but his Kaeps part is over. He can take the money he's gotten and use it as bogroll in his house for all I care. The NFL can also pretend they won or the they can paper the outside of the league office with the settlement document for all I care. All I want is to have an off season with as little controversy as possible and players and coaches enjoy the bit of time off and do stupid stuff that lands them in trouble.
Itssoeasy to avoid NFL protest talk with the mods confining it to one thread :pac:0 -
This is one of the hallmarks of a good protest. It gets people talking about and debating the issue.
Even a fool can see the level of social injustice and police violence against ethnic minorities in the US. But it's human nature to ignore it. I think Kaep is a hero for bringing this issue to the fore. Good on him.
The NFL have wanted this issue to go away for years. With stupid rules, through owners, through the media, with statements and of course by teams individually ignoring his claims as an NFL player in favour of inferior QB's.0 -
Adamocovic wrote: »Sorry if I explained or framed it poorly, made sense in my head at least but that was an early morning most.
So to try clarify.
They were asked if they supported or opposed the NFL policy of fining players who "do not stand and show respect for the flag and the national anthem".
Support= Support the NFL stance of fining players for kneeling.
Oppose= Oppose the NFL stance of fining players for kneeling.
So I don't think it's a stretch to say the people who voted against the above policy were supportive of the kneeling protest, or at least the right to protest by taking a knee.
The only question I would have regarding the poll is whether it was aimed at Americans as a whole or targeted NFL fans. Every poll seems to sway from one side or another but (correct me if I'm wrong) it appears that the American public as a whole are more understanding or accepting of the protest than the fans who actually watch the sport. Of course you will have some who don't watch and get riled up by it too.
When I did a quick search this morning, I saw a poll that showed higher support for the protests amongst those who deemed themselves to be NFL fans, but those against the protest were still in the majority.
There is a fundamental issue with trying to get that information from self-categorization from a poll, like classifying yourself as an NFL fan. I know people who would call themselves fans and would just watch the Super Bowl.
If you look back in history the Civil Rights protests didn’t poll well with the American public but it doesn’t mean they weren’t on the right side of history.Oh I agree regarding the public opinion, but my point is that the NFL decisions were based off trying to please the majority of the fans, which makes sense. I think Nike's success isn't as comparable.
If they believe that the majority of the fans are against the protesting (which is quite likely) then they will aim to please the masses. There's an oppurtunity for other companies such as Nike to profit from supporting the cause but I'm not sure if it translates well for the NFL unless it's proven the overall fan opinion differs from what is expected.
So Nike can sell out a Kaepernick jersey, with a large percentage of sales from people supporting his cause. This doesn't mean those people are actually contributing to the NFL with tickets, merchandise, or media coverage, so a large amount fall outside the market of the NFL.
If the majority of fans were not supportive of protesting, I imagine the NFL felt it would be a bad business decision to go against their customers and side with a group that contribute less to their revenue. Now if it's proven fan opinion has changed then I have little doubt that the NFL will try to flip their stance.
I believe either stance the NFL could have taken would have caused a mess. I don't believe the decision was to do with the race or age of the people running the NFL. I still believe it was solely a financial driven decision, I think they would support whatever they feel will bring them the most money, or stop them from losing the most. I think they didn't want to risk their patriotism angle they cash in, links with American Military, or a large if not majority of their regular fan base.
It wasn’t an A or B choice for the NFL to pick a side. They had the clear option to stay out of it, but the owners were clear that they didn’t want ‘the inmates running the prison’. Doing what a small majority of the public/fanbase believes doesn’t mean that decision automatically makes financial sense. If you polled the public about many things about the NFL you’d find plenty of things they agree on far more than the protests yet it doesn’t mean it makes financial sense for the league to change their rules. They clearly made a poor judgement by giving into Trump and they quickly backed away from their decision to implement the new policy and now have even settled with Kaepernick.0 -
It wasn’t an A or B choice for the NFL to pick a side. They had the clear option to stay out of it, but the owners were clear that they didn’t want ‘the inmates running the prison’. Doing what a small majority of the public/fanbase believes doesn’t mean that decision automatically makes financial sense. If you polled the public about many things about the NFL you’d find plenty of things they agree on far more than the protests yet it doesn’t mean it makes financial sense for the league to change their rules. They clearly made a poor judgement by giving into Trump and they quickly backed away from their decision to implement the new policy and now have even settled with Kaepernick.
The poll stuff is interesting but just really addressing this part.
In my opinion staying out of it would have possibly been worse than choosing either side. You would end up not pleasing either, causing a greater divide and then a grounds for both sides to find a common agreement in the fact that they would both be annoyed/angry with the lack of action or help by the league in regards to it's own activities. I don't think staying out of it was every a viable option with the media attention and fans reaction.
I would say I find it funny when people use the phrase "small majority", I understand what you're saying but it's a funny thing to read, still a majority. And again, I don't agree that this is down to the league just "giving into Trump". If nobody shared the same opinions as him in America regarding this situation then his words would have had no influence.
Like I said, if a majority of the fans were angered by the actions and threathening to boycott, that's financial losses to the league. Tie in their link with American Military and the sponsorships and support that comes with that they would have feared siding with Kap would have been seen as "un-patriotic" by the fans and media representives who were calling it so, and result in further losses.
Also why use the phrase "even settled"? Could all this have been handled better? Definitely but a settlement is not a win or lose for either side. I posted an interesting article about this early in the week. Although the settlement is to do accusations of collusion stopping Kaepernick from being signed, I don't believe you can use the fact they settled as a justification of how poorly you believe they handled it. Both sides settled. Would you say Kaepernick made poor judgement calls and even settled?
I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the motiviation or reasoning behind the NFL's stance/decision. While I agree it was handled poorly, I do not believe it was simply old white owners of the NFL "giving into Trump". It was a business decision based on fear of losses to earnings.
Don't think either of us will be swaying but it's always interesting hearing other side.0 -
Then unfortunately it failed as a protest. The discussion and debate was about about kneeling/flags/Kaep/NFL..... and in the end the NFL gets rid of it from their doorstep and Kaep gets a lot of money. IMO I'm not sure it actually really touched or really affected the issue.This is one of the hallmarks of a good protest. It gets people talking about and debating the issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
munstermagic11 wrote: »Then unfortunately it failed as a protest. The discussion and debate was about about kneeling/flags/Kaep/NFL..... and in the end the NFL gets rid of it from their doorstep and Kaep gets a lot of money. IMO I'm not sure it actually really touched or really affected the issue.
Well Kaep has been able to raise a lot of money to try help the cause he was promoting but I agree, the major debate regarding this was the method and right of protesting rather than the reason for protesting.0
Advertisement