05-24-2021, 12:15 PM
I think there's some disconnect on what it means to be competitive as it relates to this conversation. I'm not going to say which is right or wrong, but I would like to share how it is I understood when it was initially used (when the stadium deal was being worked).
When that term was used (competitive), I think many of understood as much more than simply being better on the field.
By saying a new stadium would allow you to be more competitive we didn't believe that a new field would automatically make us a better team. We thought what that meant is that the old one was preventing the Bengals from spending or investing more. And with a new stadium, and the influx of money it would bring the Brown family, it would allow them to better their approach.
Very simply put: We imagined they'd use this revenue to build out their front office; maybe hire a GM, hire more scouts, build a practice facility, etc.
That's at least how I understood it. They couldn't do these things before because their revenue wasn't as strong as it would be with a new stadium. They could sell more luxury boxes and at higher prices, they could sell more tickets (capacity size went up by 20%) and with these changes they could spend more.
But that really hasn't happened. None of it. People point to free agency but don't understand that doesn't mean more dollars are being spent, it just changes how those dollars are spent. And with league rules requiring you meet a cap floor, it's largely unavoidable if your roster dosen't have enough good players to retain.
Aside from overall player spending, which is regulated by the league itself, the Bengals aren't competitive in spending. They are at, or near the bottom in every single other catergory. To me, that's not being competitive.
When that term was used (competitive), I think many of understood as much more than simply being better on the field.
By saying a new stadium would allow you to be more competitive we didn't believe that a new field would automatically make us a better team. We thought what that meant is that the old one was preventing the Bengals from spending or investing more. And with a new stadium, and the influx of money it would bring the Brown family, it would allow them to better their approach.
Very simply put: We imagined they'd use this revenue to build out their front office; maybe hire a GM, hire more scouts, build a practice facility, etc.
That's at least how I understood it. They couldn't do these things before because their revenue wasn't as strong as it would be with a new stadium. They could sell more luxury boxes and at higher prices, they could sell more tickets (capacity size went up by 20%) and with these changes they could spend more.
But that really hasn't happened. None of it. People point to free agency but don't understand that doesn't mean more dollars are being spent, it just changes how those dollars are spent. And with league rules requiring you meet a cap floor, it's largely unavoidable if your roster dosen't have enough good players to retain.
Aside from overall player spending, which is regulated by the league itself, the Bengals aren't competitive in spending. They are at, or near the bottom in every single other catergory. To me, that's not being competitive.
