The NFLPA released a survey of different aspects of all 32 teams.
I have never witnessed a survey that you could draw more worthless information form.
The Chiefs and Steelers ownership both received F’s, yet they are almost certainly top of the list in ownership in the NFL.
I could pick more of this apart, but that is unnecessary.
Chiefs are obviously the worst franchise in the NFL. Unless you factor in the odds that they could win half of the next 10 championships.
Survey is stupid.
They have been doing this survey for a few years now. Freakonomics podcast talked about it in detail, along with interviews with some of the people who put it together.
You can call it worst if you want, but teams are paying attention, working to address some of the players’ complaints.
Correlation with on-field success does not appear to be very high.
In fairness:
True, one of the things that makes me laugh is the low grade the Chiefs training staff got. Yet the Chiefs are one of the least injured teams.
Ya, Clark Hunt was dinged for not investing enough money in facilities.
So now he is asking taxpayers for a billion dollars.
Titans owner (one of the worst) got a B+ because she got taxpayers to build a new stadium.
He was dinged for promising to upgrade the locker room facilities and then only swapping out stools with chairs with backs.
The surveys are not about whether owners are good or bad people. They’re about the specific things players care about. I think the fact that there are teams that got Fs in some categories and As or Bs in others suggests the players took it seriously.
Listen to that Freakonomics episode. Interesting stuff.
I have no doubt, but IMO, this is an example of why you don’t let the Unions make policy.
They’re not making policy. They’re providing a perspective. And in this case, they’re doing so in a thoughtful, systematic way. You just seem to disagree with the results.
The results go against basic data.
I think the methodology is fucked.
The methodology is to survey players on topics and get their impressions, grades. I don’t know of a problem with it and you haven’t cited one or the “basic data” it supposedly goes against.
Again, this is about player treatment and things they like. As noted in the podcast, it’s not especially correlated to success on the field, and probably only marginally related (so far) to how players choose teams in free agency.
So, it is basically worthless.
Only if you don’t give a shit about your players and what they think.
Not really, like I said, the methodology sucks.
So…what’s wrong with the methodology? How would you do it differently?
Not rely almost exclusively on facilities to measure an owner.
Huh? It’s a survey of players of how they are treated by owners, including facilities, food, training, their families, etc. It was never intended as a survey of the quality of the owners and how good they are at football or at being humans. It’s about all the non-monetary things players care about, their experience working for these owners.
Again, listen to the podcast. At least some of the owners are taking note of these concerns and looking to the next iteration of the survey to see if their grades improve.
The sub category of “owners” is all about facilities.
I already pointed out how dumb the sub category of “training staff” was.
I stand by my criticism.
I would guess not the ones with business sense.
FFS-Marc Davis got a B+