From an article on Yahoo sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-ownersrankingspartone072208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns):
26. Chicago Bears – Virginia McCaskey (Michael McCaskey, Ted Phillips): By all rights, this should be one of the richest and most successful franchises in sports. The Bears have the NFL’s second-largest market all to themselves, a recognizable brand steeped in tradition and a refurbished stadium. They even played in the Super Bowl two years ago, though it’s hard to remember after last season’s harsh comedown. And yet? “What a disaster,” one owner says. “They should be first or second in revenues; they’re lucky if they’re in the middle of the pack.” With Michael McCaskey, who was publicly declawed by mother Virginia after mismanaging the team back in the ’90s, back in charge of the family business (Phillips is technically the CEO and president), there’s not a whole lot of promise on the horizon. McCaskey, the nominal head of the league’s Super Bowl committee, takes that role very seriously: Before the most recent vote he reminded his fellow owners how important it was to be polite during the presentations, earning eye rolls throughout the room. As for the lagging cash flow, one owner suspects that the Bears intentionally turned down a marketing deal, citing a supposed conflict with one of the league’s national sponsors, in an effort to keep profits low enough to avoid contributing to the league’s revenue-sharing pool. And you thought finding a quarterback was the Bears’ biggest problem.
12 comments:
The Bears should make more money, but they don't gouge their fans. They pay just as much as every other team because of the Hard Cap, so I don't understand the basis of his ranking.
He points out that the Bears made the Super Bowl 2 years ago, but he seems to be criticizing the fact that he thinks the Bears should make more money.
If you look it up, Silver is a Redskin-lover. He is going to put Snyder in the top 5 because he licks the guy's arse.
Even worse, he licks it after Snyder has taken a dump.
What do you mean they don't gouge their fans? They upped their ticket prices significantly AGAIN this year. They are one of the highest in terms of ticket prices. You made the argument two years ago that even though they had high ticket prices, they weren't gouging because they put a quality product on the field and that would be the case for years to come. Last year, they were a huge bust but their prices had gone up from the previous year. This year, they are in rebuilding mode and may very well finish last in their division. What did they do? Jack up the prices. How is it not gouging? I have seen the comments from fans upset with the jacking up of prices.
Of course Silver is a Redskin lover. Any time something is printed positively for the Bears it is always fair and objective. If it is a negative portrayal the guy is not objective and just a Bear hater. In fact, he most likely is also a Redskin lover. Anything positive for the Skins is just the guy has been bought off by Danny boy and anything negative is just fair and objective. Funny how it works this way.
Silver is pro-Redskins in my opinion - that is my opinion - no point in arguing about it.
Let us stay on point. Do you believe the Bears have one of the the worst owners based on the fact that the team is not as profitable as they could be?
That is what Silver is basing his ranking on.
I completely disagree about the Bears finishing last in their division. Their problems last year centered on three things. Injuries to the D killed them and they fell to 28th in the NFL because of it. Everyone is back and healthy. Their line and rushing game were the problems on offense - not QB. They threw for 3700 yards last year, but were horrible on the run. They have addressed the line and rushing game.
I think they have done a great job and I fully expect them to compete for the Super Bowl this year - not just a playoff spot.
We'll have to see.
Super Bowl?!!! Are you crazy?!! They are no where near the Super Bowl quality. They didn't address their O line. That O line was pathetic last year. They brought in one rookie. Will that cure all of their O line woes? I doubt it. They addressed their rushing situation? They released their oft troubled projected starter and now will be relying on a rookie. That's expecting a lot from the rookie to be great. Their entire receiving corps has changed from last year. They don't even have a true #1 WR. Their QB situation is not resolved yet. They will be going into the season without a true #1 QB. If one of the two guys don't separate themselves in the preseason, you can bank that who ever starts the season will be facing high criticism if he doesn't perform early.
Defensively they are only getting older. Urlacher is older and has taken a lot of punishment and his body is showing the effects. D line is unclear. Harris is great and it's good they locked him up. Which Mark Anderson will show up? The one from two years ago or the guy that didn't seem to care whether he played or not last year. They don't have the depth that they had on D line. LBs should be fine. Briggs is very good. A battered and hurt Urlacher is still better than most at his position. Hillenmeyer is fine. CBs are solid. Safeties are a question mark. Brown has suffered numerous season ending injuries so he is fragile and it is hard to come back after so many serious injuries.
This is the team you think is going to the Super Bowl? You are crazy. I know you blindly follow the Bears but I don't think any of the "experts" will be picking the Bears to even get to the playoffs. Good luck with all of that.
Let's not get off track. We can agree to disagree. I have told you I don't give a sh*t about the "experts." We really don't need to re-hash all of the same arguments.
The only point to debate here is whether you think that not making profits is good reason for naming an owner one of the worst owners. Again, I will point out that the Bears spend as much as anyone. They are not holding back any cash from players.
Okay. Lets get back on track. I think it is a portion of the criteria. If a CEO is not making a profit of his company, the BOD will have him/her replaced. It is part of the criteria. What would be your criteria?
If the team doesn't win or the team is holding back on salaries. There are teams that are perennial losers.
If Silver wrote a column ranking the "most profitable owners" I wouldn't have a problem. But, calling the Bears ownership among the "worst owners" seems like a stretch.
FYI, that comment was not from "Lisa" - it was from me. Apparently she was just logged in to her Google account on the computer I used.
Any owner of any company wants to be profitable. If they are not, they are not running the organization well. That has to be part of the criteria.
Your criteria is if the team is not winning. The Bears struggled mightily last year and this year looks no different (don't forget that they continue to raise their ticket prices much to the fans dismay and points to your argument of gouging) so based on your criteria, the Bears ownership is failing.
Wouldn't you agree? Try and be objective. Don't look at it from a Bears perspective. Pretend it is the Houston Texans we are talking about. I am only taking your arguments and applying them to this situation.
No I don't agree. The Bears make a solid profit. They manage their cap well. They sign their players. They win games. If not for the fact that they lost the majority of their starting defense last year to injury, the Bears would have been better than 7-9.
If they fall off and lose games again this year then there is something to talk about with respect to play on the field.
That is being objective.
Injuries are part of the game. The Skins suffered their fair share of injuries but we made the playoffs. You brag about the depth that the Bears had but they still finished poorly and were one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) disappointments in the NFL last year.
Fine, we'll see if they are the Bears from two years ago or the Bears from last year.
Post a Comment