The Steelers and Celebrations

[teegre]

can't they have fun and play at a high level?

No.
They are mutually exclusive.


Case in point:
Name one season where Antonio "Celebration" Brown put up any significant stats.

Answer: You can't, because he's more concerned about practicing his post-touchdown celebrations than he is on running win-sprints (while strapped to a sled) and/or catching 1000 balls per day.

[Craic]

Personally, I say give the team 45 seconds to kick a field goal after a TD.

If you want to celebrate, it has to be weighed against the 45 seconds. Eat up too much time, you lose the opportunity to kick the extra point. No refs. No fines. And no three-minute TV timeouts after a TD only to then have ANOTHER three-minute TV timeout after they kick the extra point, followed by a third one after the next kickoff.

[Mojouw]

Personally, I say give the team 45 seconds to kick a field goal after a TD.

If you want to celebrate, it has to be weighed against the 45 seconds. Eat up too much time, you lose the opportunity to kick the extra point. No refs. No fines. And no three-minute TV timeouts after a TD only to then have ANOTHER three-minute TV timeout after they kick the extra point, followed by a third one after the next kickoff.

But that's how everyone (but the players) makes oodles of cash. The NFL doesn't work at all without the numerous TV timeouts. This is again why the NFL is just asinine with their policies. No way can the players express themselves to maybe get a "brand" (I know I hate it too!) going and make a bit of those billions for themselves. But the NFL can flog any old damn thing it wants, as often as it wants (I get it - Chevy trucks are super manly but not as manly as Fords) no matter how damaging those breaks may be the "momentum" of a contest.

And before everyone freaks out, remember that the average NFL salary is about $2 million dollars per year. And the average career is 3 seasons. Sounds awesome, right? 6 million dollars to play some football! Hell yeah!

Remember how math works though! How many guys working the 0-4 year minimum salaries (465-690 K) does it take to balance out the 20-30+ million per year "stars"? The answer is a boatload. Same thing, how many guys playing 1-2 years does it take to balance out the 10+ year vets? Again, a bunch.

So when we all get frustrated about the players trying to make a buck with their "personal brand" and "online media whatevers" -- remember that the vast majority of these guys walk away with about a million bucks and broken bodies.

If it gets too ridiculous, well that's why technology developed the previous channel button and wifi - look at something else.

[smokin3000gt]

Yup and don't forget about the 40% they have to cough up to Uncle Sam

[Craic]

But that's how everyone (but the players) makes oodles of cash. The NFL doesn't work at all without the numerous TV timeouts. This is again why the NFL is just asinine with their policies. No way can the players express themselves to maybe get a "brand" (I know I hate it too!) going and make a bit of those billions for themselves. But the NFL can flog any old damn thing it wants, as often as it wants (I get it - Chevy trucks are super manly but not as manly as Fords) no matter how damaging those breaks may be the "momentum" of a contest.

And before everyone freaks out, remember that the average NFL salary is about $2 million dollars per year. And the average career is 3 seasons. Sounds awesome, right? 6 million dollars to play some football! Hell yeah!

Remember how math works though! How many guys working the 0-4 year minimum salaries (465-690 K) does it take to balance out the 20-30+ million per year "stars"? The answer is a boatload. Same thing, how many guys playing 1-2 years does it take to balance out the 10+ year vets? Again, a bunch.

So when we all get frustrated about the players trying to make a buck with their "personal brand" and "online media whatevers" -- remember that the vast majority of these guys walk away with about a million bucks and broken bodies.

If it gets too ridiculous, well that's why technology developed the previous channel button and wifi - look at something else.

Honestly, that doesn't sway me.

Football player at 465k a year for four years equals 1.86 million.

Average policeman on patrol makes 53k a year. It'd take 35 years to equal the earnings of a football player.
Average firefighter makes 48k a year. It'd take 39 years to equal the earnings of a football player.
Average coal miner makes 50k a year. It'd take 37 years to equal the earnings of a football player.

And, talk about broken bodies. I'd rather risk my body for four years in the NFL than 35-39 years in any of those three jobs.

[teegre]

Honestly, that doesn't sway me.

Football player at 465k a year for four years equals 1.86 million.

Average policeman on patrol makes 53k a year. It'd take 35 years to equal the earnings of a football player.
Average firefighter makes 48k a year. It'd take 39 years to equal the earnings of a football player.
Average coal miner makes 50k a year. It'd take 37 years to equal the earnings of a football player.

And, talk about broken bodies. I'd rather risk my body for four years in the NFL than 35-39 years in any of those three jobs.

Here's the thing... the general public wouldn't pay $5 to watch a police officer, a firefighter, nor a coal miner do their job. But, that same group of people would pay billions to watch athletes. Why? Because athletes do stuff that 99.999% of the population could never do.

Same with musicians.
And, actors.

In other words, I equate athletics with the arts: we pay highly for their services because their talents are extraordinary.


NOTE: "Cops" is indeed a popular show. But... most who tune in to watch that show, are enjoying the idiocy of the criminals (rather than watching what the police officers are doing).

[Mojouw]

In that same 4 years the league will take in $28.4 billion dollars and each team will take in 890.4 million.

Like any industry, the rank and file are ludicrously underpaid when compared to the higher echelons of their given industry.

If a coal miner, cop, or firefighter could make extra money by building a brand and celebrations after performing a key job task allowed them to do that -- then I would be advocating that they get to celebrate as well.

From 2009-2013 (the only period I can quickly find #'s on - https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincent.../#1e4680c32298) the average team saw its valuation increase 40%. The average player salary in the same period went from $1.98 to $2.0 million - that's a 1% raise. That's not even a cost of living adjustment (I realize they get paid a ton -- but the point is that is all relative).

Look, I'm wiling to bet a lot of us would trade positions with the back-up long-snapper if we could. And that trade would improve the quality of life for many of us. So it isn't like we need to have a benefit concert for these dudes - but they are underpaid outside of the top 1-2 guys per team. The whole NFL salary system from the rookie wage scale to the non-guaranteed contracts is set up to benefit the owners/league. So I think that it is okay that the league gives a little and lets these guys do what they want after they score. Just keep taunting out of it and it will be fine.

[Craic]

Look, I'm wiling to bet a lot of us would trade positions with the back-up long-snapper if we could. And that trade would improve the quality of life for many of us. So it isn't like we need to have a benefit concert for these dudes - but they are underpaid outside of the top 1-2 guys per team. The whole NFL salary system from the rookie wage scale to the non-guaranteed contracts is set up to benefit the owners/league. So I think that it is okay that the league gives a little and lets these guys do what they want after they score. Just keep taunting out of it and it will be fine.

To me, that is a non-sequitur. The amount of money the league makes versus the players has nothing to do with how a player celebrates after they score. Moreover, the players have a union, and the union negotiated a contract. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. The players receiver 55 percent of league media, 45 percent of NFL revenue including the website, tv channel, and NFL productions, and 40 percent of local revenue. From the owners pocket, they then have to pay the coaches, staff, buy equipment, training facilities, medical, blah, blah blah. In 2013, the Packers, for instance, had a total revenue of 324 million (they're a public company, so they are the only team that must disclose their revenue). Of that 324, 120-123 million had to be spent on player salary, bringing total rev. down to a rounded off number of 200 mill. From there, they had to pay coaches Head coach, 5 mill, 2 OC and DC, 1.5-2 mill (total). Position coaches, 300-400k per coach. At six coaches, that is 1.8-2.4 mill. Then, there are other expenses including stadium, practice, the tons of personnel including team doctors, managers, IT people, transportation costs, blah blah blah. In 2013, the average take after those costs was 53 million dollars. Of course, then there's taxes on that as well.

All said and done, if the Packers were average in costs in 2013, their 324 million income, after expenses and taxes, is only around 32 million. I have no problem with team owners making that much money that year. Has it shot up since then? Sure. Still don't have a problem with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the thing... the general public wouldn't pay $5 to watch a police officer, a firefighter, nor a coal miner do their job. But, that same group of people would pay billions to watch athletes. Why? Because athletes do stuff that 99.999% of the population could never do.

Same with musicians.
And, actors.

In other words, I equate athletics with the arts: we pay highly for their services because their talents are extraordinary.


NOTE: "Cops" is indeed a popular show. But... most who tune in to watch that show, are enjoying the idiocy of the criminals (rather than watching what the police officers are doing).

Going that route, how much does the lead actor make compared to the studio? How about the supporting cast? I have no problem with paying players. However, I don't want to hear about a player that makes an equivalent of 35 years of money in four years complain about it, or take every opportunity within the game itself to develop their personal brand.

After the game? Sure. Offseason? Absolutely. In the sixty minute of game time on Sunday? Nope.
---------------


All of this to say . . . I still love my idea. Forty-five seconds after a TD to kick an extra point or go for two. If your guys want to celebrate and it cuts into the time. That's between the guys and their team. No more penalties and no more fines (unless it's taunting or blatantly sexual).

[Mojouw]

To me, that is a non-sequitur. The amount of money the league makes versus the players has nothing to do with how a player celebrates after they score. Moreover, the players have a union, and the union negotiated a contract. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. The players receiver 55 percent of league media, 45 percent of NFL revenue including the website, tv channel, and NFL productions, and 40 percent of local revenue. From the owners pocket, they then have to pay the coaches, staff, buy equipment, training facilities, medical, blah, blah blah. In 2013, the Packers, for instance, had a total revenue of 324 million (they're a public company, so they are the only team that must disclose their revenue). Of that 324, 120-123 million had to be spent on player salary, bringing total rev. down to a rounded off number of 200 mill. From there, they had to pay coaches Head coach, 5 mill, 2 OC and DC, 1.5-2 mill (total). Position coaches, 300-400k per coach. At six coaches, that is 1.8-2.4 mill. Then, there are other expenses including stadium, practice, the tons of personnel including team doctors, managers, IT people, transportation costs, blah blah blah. In 2013, the average take after those costs was 53 million dollars. Of course, then there's taxes on that as well.

All said and done, if the Packers were average in costs in 2013, their 324 million income, after expenses and taxes, is only around 32 million. I have no problem with team owners making that much money that year. Has it shot up since then? Sure. Still don't have a problem with it.

It certainly does have a relationship. Players score. They then celebrate. This gets them on highlight shows, social media, twitter, etc. Suddenly that player is "hot" and then they can make money hawking some sports drink or car dealership or whatever. These guys are all trying to make as much money as they can while their 15 minutes of fame lasts.

Aaron Rodgers entire sponorship career started with a TD celebration. So did Donald Drivers.

[Craic]

It certainly does have a relationship. Players score. They then celebrate. This gets them on highlight shows, social media, twitter, etc. Suddenly that player is "hot" and then they can make money hawking some sports drink or car dealership or whatever. These guys are all trying to make as much money as they can while their 15 minutes of fame lasts.

Aaron Rodgers entire sponorship career started with a TD celebration. So did Donald Drivers.

And now we're back to ESPNball. It's the same issue that has caused a lack of tackling in the NFL, because the big hit that blows up the player gets them on ESPN, and the social media, etc. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's good.

[Mojouw]

And now we're back to ESPNball. It's the same issue that has caused a lack of tackling in the NFL, because the big hit that blows up the player gets them on ESPN, and the social media, etc. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's good.

That certainly played a part. It is also related to practice time priorities at the NFL, NCAA, and high-end high schools. Many teams at all of those levels spend shockingly small amounts of time teaching fundamentals and going over things like tackling. Majority of practice session time is spent on weekly game-plan installation and walk through. Certainly after OTAs and training camp that is all practice really is in the NFL - gameplan installation and reps.

If a player doesn't come to the NFL with good fundamentals, they certainly are not going to learn them in the league with most teams. Ever notice how often times those small school guys do the basic things well? More time prioritized at their college and/or HS level on fundamentals.

Again, ESPN played a part, but it wasn't the sole reason. It is more the symptom then the disease. Plus it is a young person's game that is increasingly market to young people. That's what they want - so why fight it?

[teegre]

Going that route, how much does the lead actor make compared to the studio? How about the supporting cast? I have no problem with paying players. However, I don't want to hear about a player that makes an equivalent of 35 years of money in four years complain about it, or take every opportunity within the game itself to develop their personal brand.

I'm not sure where you're going with those first two lines... The NFL and Hollywood are quite analogous to each other.

NFL owner = studio CEO
star player = marquee actor
backup = supporting cast
camp fodder = day player
medical staff = scenery design
head coach = director

As far as "complaining", I agree: no player nor actor should be complaining about earning $2 million in just four years. But, I'm not sure how the topic of "complaining" jumped into the discussion.


On the topic of "35 years' worth of salaries"... let's take the cast from The Office, most of whom were flashes in the pan (which is a good equivalent to the aforementioned NFL players who last 4 seasons/make $1.85 million). Yes, those actors' careers technically lasted nine years, but you get the idea.
Oscar made his $3 million.
Kevin made his $6 million.
Phyllis made her $7 million.

Meanwhile, the key grip, best boy, and makeup artist would take 35 years to make that much. But, I didn't tune in for the first seven years to see the best boy; I tuned in to watch Michael Scott... as well as Angela, Creed, Toby...