27 minutes ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

I'd think for most making money and winning aren't mutually exclusive.  Winning makes more money, doesn't it?  Especially in a sport with salary caps and all.

Winning absolutely makes “more” money but in my opinion it is foolish to believe these owners aren’t making money whether they win or not.   They don’t even have to build their own stadiums that they can afford to build.   
 

If teams that suck aren’t making money then why aren’t we hearing more stories of owners losing money with their losing teams?  Why aren’t owners of losing teams selling their teams to offset their losses?  
 

As long as their bottom line isn’t affected why would they change their business strategy for the team?  

If the argument is winning vs. making money I think that answer is simple...

In a hypothetical situation, all owners are given the choice of having a winning franchise or making millions (or billions) of dollars. Surely, nobody thinks anybody would rather win, right? We're talking about billionaires here. Money IS winning to them. 

All owners want to win (maybe varying degrees). All owners make money. Let's not get lost in the weeds with the subject at hand.

Ownership groups are predominately white because the overwhelming majority of people that can afford a franchise are white. Demographics 101. While that is the magic pill - meaning having more minority owners - that ain't happening.

The key is changing culture through more executive positions. Not just hiring minority head coaches. Or as I said in my analogy earlier, not just nominating a non-white actor for an Oscar. That is simply putting lipstick on a pig, as they say.

44 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

As long as their bottom line isn’t affected why would they change their business strategy for the team? 

Cause they can make a lot more by winning?

With how easy it is to go from the bottom of the division to a playoff and potential Super Bowl contender in the NFL, why wouldn't you want to do both?

Now in the MLB, I'm 100% on board with your argument.

38 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

If the argument is winning vs. making money I think that answer is simple...

In a hypothetical situation, all owners are given the choice of having a winning franchise or making millions (or billions) of dollars. Surely, nobody thinks anybody would rather win, right? We're talking about billionaires here. Money IS winning to them. 

But they aren't mutually exclusive, so there isn't really a need for a hypothetical.

3 hours ago, PurplePride92 said:

We’ll just have to disagree.  Too many average and mediocre teams for me to believe otherwise.  You’re telling me that men competent enough to become billionaires aren’t competent enough to put a winning product on the field?  

Yeah, okay. 
 

Mike Brown stumbled into a Super Bowl.  He didn’t plan this.  
 

 

 

Every team can't win, someone has to lose otherwise every team would be .500.  By definition no matter how good a job everyone does most teams will just be average, throw in poor personnel decisions, injuries and other factors and you get teams that are bad. 

 

 

1 hour ago, oldgrappler said:

In addition to what others have said regarding getting up to speed on the draft, etc., hiring one's own assistant coaches is a huge reason not to delay the hiring of a HC.  Most Head Coaches want to hire their own set of assistants.  The delay you suggests puts them way behind the eight ball in hiring assistants and makes getting together a good draft strategy even harder.  Plus, some of the guys a new HC may want to pick could have been hired during that 6-week delay by existing head coaches on other teams who have a vacancy.  

Then make it a hiring freeze across the board then.  No coach, regardless of position, can change teams during that 6-week period.  You want to promote from within?  Fine.  But that position that becomes vacated remains open until later.

Look, I know it wouldn't be easy.  But I don't think a time "constraint" should be a road block in getting these guys additional exposure.  I mean, teams HAD to have two-a-day practices in training camp before...otherwise they couldn't get everything in.  And yet they found a way.  Teams HAD to have all these mandatory workouts and training camps...otherwise the players would slack off or not learn anything.  And yet two years ago, they found a way to do it.  Heck, even the four game preseason that's been around for 50 years, was eventually reduced to three, and there's talk that they may even go to just two.  And the almighty combine that you HAD to have your coaches at...wasn't even held last year.  Man, it's amazing that we've had football at all, given all these changes.

All I'm saying is that things were done a certain way until someone decided that there was a better reason not to.  If you want to seriously allow for an increase in exposure to black candidates, you can find a way to adjust everything else.

46 minutes ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

But they aren't mutually exclusive, so there isn't really a need for a hypothetical.

Are you saying average teams in the NFL aren't making money?

1 hour ago, bugatti said:

All owners want to win (maybe varying degrees). All owners make money. Let's not get lost in the weeds with the subject at hand.

Ownership groups are predominately white because the overwhelming majority of people that can afford a franchise are white. Demographics 101. While that is the magic pill - meaning having more minority owners - that ain't happening.

The key is changing culture through more executive positions. Not just hiring minority head coaches. Or as I said in my analogy earlier, not just nominating a non-white actor for an Oscar. That is simply putting lipstick on a pig, as they say.

The culture is never going to change.  

1 hour ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

Cause they can make a lot more by winning?

With how easy it is to go from the bottom of the division to a playoff and potential Super Bowl contender in the NFL, why wouldn't you want to do both?

Now in the MLB, I'm 100% on board with your argument.

Making money is prioritized over winning in all sports.  

42 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

Are you saying average teams in the NFL aren't making money?

Not at all.  I'm saying I don't think there is a situation where an owner needs to choose which they want to do, win or make money. They are not mutually exclusive.  They can do both and in fact, winning makes them more money.

So a hypothetical of asking them to choose which they rather do, just doesn't work in the NFL. Now in the MLB with no salary cap, that's a whole different story.

26 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

Making money is prioritized over winning in all sports.  

I'm not arguing against that.  But I'm saying that in the NFL, you can do both at the same time.

43 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

Making money is prioritized over winning in all sports.  

But, as MJ is pointing out, if you win you make more money. If an NFL owner is totally focused on making the most money he can, he will do whatever he can to win. To make the most money, prioritize winning.

30 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

But, as MJ is pointing out, if you win you make more money. If an NFL owner is totally focused on making the most money he can, he will do whatever he can to win. To make the most money, prioritize winning.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.  
 

You think billionaires who lose football games are incompetent at winning but they somehow know how to make a boatload of money.   
 

I think they are simply content with making a profit.  
 

To each his own.  

47 minutes ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

I'm not arguing against that.  But I'm saying that in the NFL, you can do both at the same time.

And some teams actually pull it off. Like the Patriots.  I simply don’t believe that the Pats are the only team capable of doing both.  Too many are satisfied with simply making a profit.   I’m supposed to believe the Browns care more about winning than turning a profit?   The Bengals never truly cared about winning.  The Jaguars.  The Jets.  Even the Giants to a certain extent.  Do they want to win?  Sure.  Do they want to make money more than win?  Absolutely.   Do they want to both?  Sure.  But turning a profit is always more important.