The incessant, weekly, cut Nugent extravaganza!!!

[*ochocincos*]

(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.

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.