RedRamage

I found this part interesting: Main Street and other traditional RSNs promise teams a fixed amount per season for their TV rights, typically tens of millions for most teams. Teams carried by MLB, however, are not promised a fixed fee by the league. Instead, MLB pays them whatever their telecasts wind up bringing in, via streaming subscriptions and traditional TV distribution fees. So based on this a small market team still get small market media money from MLB. It's an interesting dynamic because there's no danger of MLB "missing payments" to teams because it's not a lump sum, it's a percentage of what MLB gets. It also incentivizes teams to have a better product because that would result in better subscriptions and more money. However that uncertainty means teams might be much more reluctant to commit big to a roster if there's not guarantee they'll get x-amount of dollars in media money. I think it also fails to recognize that big market teams will get big market media money. I still think some level of pooling of media money is necessary to balance the league.

Yeah, I'm rooting for a tie.

I agree that coaching (especially on the offense) was not ideal. But I think a big part of collapse also has to blamed on injuries... again. I know it seems like a cop out, but yet again the Lions had too many important players out with injuries. McNeil, Davenport, Read, Arnold, Branch, Joseph, Paschal, Onwuzurike, and Rodriguez all missed significant time on defense. On offense, just the OL: Decker missed 3 games, Mahogany 6, Glasgow 2, even Sewell missed a game. Outside of the OL: your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd string TE all missed significant time.

I 100% agree. I thought that was a bad call in real time and even worse on replay. And sure... every game has bad calls, I get it. But when it's a 4th and 4 play and the bad call gives them a free 1st down, it really stings.

I'm not sure I'd want the Lions to try to get him. On one hand: Premium pass rusher who instantly makes the DL one of the most dangerous in the game. But on the other hand... 28 years old, missed 5 games in '24, missed 2 games in '25, would cost a LOT of cap space AND would cost a lot of assets. That last part is the part that I'm most concerned with. If Crosby was a FA I'd be much more willing to go after him guns blazing. But if we're in a situation where we have to potentially give up two firsts just to get him, then also pay him a ton plus he's got 7 years of wear and tear... I'm a bit nervous with that. Our OL needs major attention (need: Center and/or Guard, and potentially LT, plus reliable backup), we may need two new safeties. We may need TE and LB help. I don't know if I want to give up two firsts when we have that many holes.

Wait, people are questioning that the Packers were trying to cover the spread? I get that there was no chance of the Packers winning so why call a time out and try for the FG... and if the score was something like 19-3 I'd say maybe there's some possible merit. But the Packers had a chance to NOT be shutout. I think pride dictates that you try to avoid the shut out if you can.

On a side note, with the win Dan Campbell has passed Buddy Parker to become the 4th winningest coach (by number of wins) in Lions history:

Yeah, it sucks we're not in the playoffs... and yeah we would have a better draft pick if we'd lost... but the win yesterday puts us at 4 straight years with a winning record. The last time Lions have four straight years with a winning record was 1969-1972.

Intellectually it's best if they lose, but in the game itself I'm be rooting for a win. I just can't watch a game and hope for a loss, especially against the Bears and Johnson.

So you're saying he needs just one more to tie Davenport.

The idea that was swimming in the back of my head that prompted this thread was trying to figure out some way to get a salary cap, but also give the players some slice of the revenue outside of salaries... thereby eliminating the idea that MLB is artificially limiting players salary and pocketing big chunks of money without any cap there. Of course this would be a major change for everyone so I'm not sure how it would go over and I'm not sure I'm smart enough to have thought of all the unintended consequences, but my idea would work something like this: Part 1: Salary Cap and Salary Floor are set (I'm with @chasfh here of the floor being closer to 90% than 40%). I would also set the cap lower than most people probably would expect it. Part 2: All media revenue is pooled together. 70% is distributed to owners based on their teams salary. 20% is distributed to players based on their individual salary, 10% is evenly distributed to players. Now I suspect part 2 might be confusing so here's a simplified example: Owners 70%: To make the math easy, let's say the Salary cap is $100, the floor is $80. There are 5 teams. Media revenue totals $50K. Then each team's portion of the media revenue would come out like this: The idea here is that the teams that spend more on their salary get a larger share of the media revenue. This way teams are encouraged to spend more on salary to get more media revenue. Players 20%: This would work out similar to the owners 70%. Players get a chunk of money based on what percentage of total players salaries equal their current salary accounts for. Players who have a bigger contract get a bigger cut. Players 10%: This would ensure that even those who are making league minimum would get something extra from media revenue. Obviously the percentages can all be adjusted here to what makes things seem fair. But my goal here is to set a salary cap to try to enforce a bit more level playing field for all team. I also want to make sure teams can't just pocket the big market revenue and not spend it on improving their team. I also want to try to make it so that players aren't locked out of making extra money if profits for MLB go up.

Yeah... it's not an easy quick fix... maybe we should have a thread where we throw around some major ideas to restructure things in MLB. There's an idea... 😉

Okay, so the idea of this thread here is very much a thought experiment. Here's the senario: MLB and MLBPA have come to you... yes you personally.. and said: "Our system is broken and we're worried our league is gonna fall part. We need you... yes you... to fix it for us. Please create a financial system in terms of balancing big market/small market, revenue sharing, player salaries--including caps and/or floors, and owners interest in a fair and equitable manner as possible." The rules here are pretty simple: You have the power to do anything, BUT... you need to be at least reasonably realistic about it. You can't say: "Owners only get to make $100 profit per year on their team." Nor can you say: "Players agree to a cap of $5M per player per season." Your goal is to set up a system that at least won't have the players or owners storm out of the room vowing to make their own league (with blackjack and hookers). Your system should also not assume owners or players are kind, noble, and altruistic. In other worlds: Expect some to try to game the system and build in safe guards to prevent it where possible.

My reply to them would be: How much would your 15 million local fans be in watching just the Mets, Yanks, Dodgers, and Angels play each other 162 times a year?

I think this is a good start, but if I'm a big market team who's been able to grow the media demand, I want some level of assurance that small market teams aren't just going to pocket the inflow of money. Now, I certainly think that many teams will use the money to try to improve their teams, but I also wouldn't be shocked to hear that some are simply happy to live off what the major market teams have built.

The solution is to just call him down at the 1. That's what the VAST majority of people think it should have been AND it probably means a TD in two or three plays anyway. This (almost certainly) isn't a game altering call, so it seems so odd that they called it in such a strange way.

So, this is part of the problem with replay in my humble opinion and why there should be specific rules around... which there actually are! But those rules needs to be enforced. My understanding is that replay looked at it, and said there was at least some evidence that he didn't have control of the ball when he knee was down, therefore he wasn't down and the play should continue. Then he recovered control in the endzone, and therefore it's a TD. That's not an unreasonable story, and if the story is correct than it's correct to call it a TD. BUT: What's the evidence? Did the ball move a bit? Maybe. Did he not have complete control? Maybe. But... did the ball also move because it hit the ground? Maybe! There is no clear evidence what happened regarding control of the ball and if you're going to say that the evidence maybe shows loss of control then I think there's just as much to say that the loss of control came because the ball hit the ground. So why are you picking the maybes that fit one story but ignore the maybes that fit a different story? Shouldn't all "maybes" just be ignored? Sorta like a rule that said clear evidence has to show what's happening? What do we know for sure looking at the replay? He had his hands on the ball AND his knee was down AND the defender had contact at the 1-foot line. He may or may not have bobbled control as he skidded into the endzone. That's not clear to me at all... certainly not anymore clear than that the ground caused the ball to move. In the end this call doesn't bother me because 1st and goal from the 1-foot line is 99.99% of the time going to end in a TD, so I don't feel like the Lions got jobbed here. But it definitely feels like a case where the refs decided to take some questionable evidence as fact while ignoring equal evidence that could have led to calling it an incomplete pass.

I feel just horrible about that... just horrible.

That makes ALL the sense in the world... which is why it won't be Germany.

If they do add more commercials, does that mean that they might actually cover the Lions pick rather than cutting to commercial right when it comes in?

I will be disappointed if Skubal suits up in a Tigers uniform on March 26 AND the Tigers have done very little to add to the roster. I don't think 2026 Tigers will be significantly better if other pieces aren't added. I expect them to be a fringe playoff team at best. IF the Tigers aren't going to seriously try in 26, then trade him for a load of talent. If they are going to try, then keep him around.

It's probably toner instead of ink.

Egads... a grandfather at 44? I mean I guess that's just averaging having a kid at 22, which isn't like super young... but that just seems odd to me. I've got a decade on him and no grandkids myself.

FWIW, here's the thread on reddit that @AlaskanTigersFan was screen shotting. Most of the fans there were also not believing it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodgers/comments/1pirr0z/the_skubal_deal_is_essentially_in_place_whats/ One interesting point raised there by one fan: Could the Dodgers be taking Baez as part of the deal? That would be one way to get his money off the books. Edit to add: Another commentor on Reddit indicated that Pingalore primarily covers NBA and NFL. If true that makes it even less likely that he's the only one to get the scoop on a blockbuster MLB move.

Yeah, I'm not sure I trust Pingalore as a source. Obviously I could be wrong, but I'd like to see more sources than one random sportscaster from a local TV station.