(12-05-2016, 03:19 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: And, in a way, this is a microcosm what what is screwed up with this organization.  It's the little things that are not addressed that add up to the myriad reasons this team can't get over the hump.  The first, last, and only goal of ownership should be to maximize success and win titles.  The NFL is wildly profitable.  Teams increase in value each year. However, the FO has always valued profits over production.

(12-05-2016, 03:19 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: And, in a way, this is a microcosm what what is screwed up with this organization.  It's the little things that are not addressed that add up to the myriad reasons this team can't get over the hump.  The first, last, and only goal of ownership should be to maximize success and win titles.  The NFL is wildly profitable.  Teams increase in value each year. However, the FO has always valued profits over production.

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Actually, the NFL and each franchise are businesses first and foremost. Therefore, the main goal of ownership is profit.
The fans just want sports to be different from a regular company, but they never really are any different.

The big thing fans will never know is how much profit the organization actually makes. If they did know, there likely would be even further uproar, not understanding.

All we have to go off of is the Packers 2015 profits since they are the only publicly traded company. The Packers had a profit of $48.9 million last fiscal year, which was a record for them ($29.2 million in 2014, previous record $43 million in 2012).
Link - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/16486925/green-bay-packers-report-record-profit-489-million-2015-fiscal-year

The Bengals, I would expect, likely make somewhere in the $20-30 million range, but we don't know for sure. Purely a guess since I expect the Bengals are in the bottom 10 in profits and the Packers were 9th at $48.9 million. They say in the article that if the Packers had just a 1% reduction in income, they'd be 13th.

So if the Bengals were to pay out the remainder of Nugent's contract (roughly $300k?) and sign a new kicker for around the league minimum for the remaining four games ($150k or so I think?), you're at least looking at somewhere close to $500k extra for the rest of the year. Simply reducing that percentage of the team's overall profit (1-2%?) for the sake of winning a couple more games at this point really may not be worth it from a business standpoint.

But fans don't want their sports teams to prioritize profit, they want the team to prioritize wins at all cost, even if it's not realistic.

(12-05-2016, 02:12 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Agreed.


I think most of us understand that the primary goal for all teams is profit. That said, some teams are more willing to make short term (and sometimes longer term) sacrifices to their yearly profit in order to win more games. They happen to realize that consistent winning is also profitable as it improves the image of the franchise and brings in more fans, who in turn purchase more merchandise. These well run teams also treat their players like royalty with the finest practice facilities, free drinks, top notch weight rooms, etc.

Now do all of these things immediately help profit? No. They just give the appearance that you're a first class organization that cares about winning enough to at least do as everyone else is doing. Obviously Mike Brown sees it differently. He is much less concerned with long-term outlooks and whether or not his organization is viewed as top notch, and much more concerned with immediate profit and pinching every penny. Right down to how many hot dogs are in the stadium.

While other teams would've likely signed a new kicker after the terrible preseason Nugent had, Mike Brown would rather not pay 2 kickers. While most teams would fire Marvin Lewis for this major disappointment of a season, it's most likely that Mike will retain Marv because he has a year left on his deal. 

So yes, the #1 priority for all owners is profit, but most are more willing than Mike Brown to cut into that profit at times, in order to help the team be more successful and be on even footing with other teams on the field.

Being the owner of a sports franchise IS no different than any other business in that way. "Fans" are customers. The product is what we see on the field. A good business owner makes concessions to his customers in order to retain their business. Mike Brown leeches off of a fail-proof business model (revenue sharing), and views his customers as an inconvenience that he'd rather not deal with.

(12-05-2016, 02:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yep. A top-notch business should/would risk a bit of the profits in the short term to set up better long term success.

The Bengals should have cut Nugent earlier in the season back when there was a shot. Everything started falling apart in late October when Nugent missed 2 FGs vs Cleveland and then a FG and XP against Washington in London. He should have been cut after the London game. The playoffs were still in reach at that point.
Now, the stadium is practically half empty and people have lost (more) faith in the organization.
It's so bad that the fans who do attend the game now are booing Nugent when he's lining up for kicks.

Hopefully the plan is to replace Nugent in the offseason (and to a lesser extent, Marvin Lewis?). Perhaps the org feels that anyone out there right now is just a band aid to stop a bleeding wound and there's really no definitive long term upgrade. There's no other logical explanation for why he's still on the team.

I am curious to know if the cost replacing Nugent now (or even after London) would actually result in a profit increase overall at the end of the fiscal year because perhaps the team would be doing better, the stadium would be more filled, and the fans would have more faith in the organization. Guess we'll never know.

(12-05-2016, 04:36 PM)Fresno B Wrote: So nuge is the reason for the shitty season? 

(12-05-2016, 04:48 PM)grampahol Wrote: Yup, lousy kicker and should be cut, but some of you have him right up there with mother rapers, father stabbers...FATHER RAPERS!
You really need to move off the Group W bench .. it's football, not the draft.. That comes in the spring.. April 28th.

(12-05-2016, 04:48 PM)grampahol Wrote: Yup, lousy kicker and should be cut, but some of you have him right up there with mother rapers, father stabbers...FATHER RAPERS!
You really need to move off the Group W bench .. it's football, not the draft.. That comes in the spring.. April 28th.

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Actually, the NFL and each franchise are businesses first and foremost. Therefore, the main goal of ownership is profit.
The fans just want sports to be different from a regular company, but they never really are any different.

The big thing fans will never know is how much profit the organization actually makes. If they did know, there likely would be even further uproar, not understanding.

All we have to go off of is the Packers 2015 profits since they are the only publicly traded company. The Packers had a profit of $48.9 million last fiscal year, which was a record for them ($29.2 million in 2014, previous record $43 million in 2012).
Link - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/16486925/green-bay-packers-report-record-profit-489-million-2015-fiscal-year

The Bengals, I would expect, likely make somewhere in the $20-30 million range, but we don't know for sure. Purely a guess since I expect the Bengals are in the bottom 10 in profits and the Packers were 9th at $48.9 million. They say in the article that if the Packers had just a 1% reduction in income, they'd be 13th.

So if the Bengals were to pay out the remainder of Nugent's contract (roughly $300k?) and sign a new kicker for around the league minimum for the remaining four games ($150k or so I think?), you're at least looking at somewhere close to $500k extra for the rest of the year. Simply reducing that percentage of the team's overall profit (1-2%?) for the sake of winning a couple more games at this point really may not be worth it from a business standpoint.

But fans don't want their sports teams to prioritize profit, they want the team to prioritize wins at all cost, even if it's not realistic.

(12-07-2016, 11:38 AM)bengals67 Wrote: Nugent should not have been re-signed. He is an average to below average kicker when he is making extra points. His kickoffs are below average which accounts for some of the returns run against the Bengals this year.

At this point, I really don't think it matters if he is cut as we have no shot at the playoffs. Steelers are not going 1-3 though ravens might.

The problem with the Bengals is that long term below average performance seems to be acceptable - Nugent, Bodine, Ray M being exhibits A,B, and C.

Pats or Steelers NEVER would have kept any one of these three below average players all three of whom play very critical positions.

For those who say Bodine did OK last week, that was against a 4-3 defense. He has always been awful against a 3-4 defense which so happens to be the system played by our two biggest rivals.

It is amazing that Dalton has done as well as he has this year given the complete absence of a running game and poor protection because of Bodine against 3-4 defenses and Og.

(12-07-2016, 02:39 PM)Derrick Wrote: This begs the question: WHY don't the Bengals run a 3-4 scheme? I know it must be because they draft LBers who are too fat and too slooooow. One would think the Bengals would do what works for other teams in their division who have had a lot more success than the bengals. Surely Mikey does not dictate the D, does he?