Did anyone else watch Comcast postgame? (Lavar Related)

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

You can continue thinking the coaching staff owes you something if you'd like, but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Comparing Microsoft to football is like comparing apples and anything else irrelevant.

Once again, the NFL is a business first and foremost. Do you think the NFL is there just so a bunch of guys can go out on the field and toss the ball around? No, it's there to make money by selling it's product, which is the team, and it's byproducts which is it's merchandise, tickets, and advertising space. And that money comes from nowhere else but the fans.

If we weren't supposed to know anything about the state of the team other than what we see on Sundays, they wouldn't bother producing a hundred different shows about the NFL and Redskins(locally), and newspapers and radio shows wouldn't bother reporting on team related issues. Now of course no one can force the coaches to divulge information to us, just as no one can force Bill Gates to offer tech support for his product, but if you plan on having repeat customers, or long time fans to generate continued revenue for the future, you do little things like that to appease them. If it got to a point where people stopped buying the tickets and merchandise, things would change because it would be taking money out of Snyders pocket. Luckily for him, that won't happen in any time soon because for some reason, we blindly follow and love the Redskins, in spite of a decade of big spending, false hope, empty promises, and sub par seasons.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

If we weren't supposed to know anything about the state of the team other than what we see on Sundays, they wouldn't bother producing a hundred different shows about the NFL and Redskins(locally), and newspapers and radio shows wouldn't bother reporting on team related issues. Now of course no one can force the coaches to divulge information to us, just as no one can force Bill Gates to offer tech support for his product, but if you plan on having repeat customers, or long time fans to generate continued revenue for the future, you do little things like that to appease them. If it got to a point where people stopped buying the tickets and merchandise, things would change because it would be taking money out of Snyders pocket. Luckily for him, that won't happen in any time soon because for some reason, we blindly follow and love the Redskins, in spite of a decade of big spending, false hope, empty promises, and sub par seasons.

two points, first, bill gates doesn't give tech support to anyone personally, he has people that do that for him. He also is allowed to keep his clap shut about anything he wants, and it doesn't really affect the MS bottom line.

You say the nfl needs to appease fans, but honestly, how many people here are cancelling their season tickets and are going to stop watching the games because one coach wouldn't talk extensively about the benching of a single player.... I don't see any hands up.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by That Guy

two points, first, bill gates doesn't give tech support to anyone personally, he has people that do that for him. He also is allowed to keep his clap shut about anything he wants, and it doesn't really affect the MS bottom line.

You say the nfl needs to appease fans, but honestly, how many people here are cancelling their season tickets and are going to stop watching the games because one coach wouldn't talk extensively about the benching of a single player.... I don't see any hands up.

As far as your first point, obviously Bill Gates isn't personally responsible for Microsoft tech support, just as Snyder isn't directly responsible for all the Redskins merchandise and TV shows, I just used his name to make the statement more relatable. And I said that no one can force him to offer tech support, but he does it to make his customers happy. If you think him cutting off tech support and updates would have no effect on the Microsoft bottom line, you're crazy.

Secondly, I stated that we blindly stick with the Redskins here in the Washington area, but fans being unhappy or uninterested to the point of the franchise losing money happens all the time. Anytime a team moves to a new city, it's generally because the owner isn't happy with the amount of money he's making in the current city. All the little Redskins shows and events are what Snyder throws at us to appease us, and it apparently works.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

As far as your first point, obviously Bill Gates isn't personally responsible for Microsoft tech support, just as Snyder isn't directly responsible for all the Redskins merchandise and TV shows, I just used his name to make the statement more relatable. And I said that no one can force him to offer tech support, but he does it to make his customers happy. If you think him cutting off tech support and updates would have no effect on the Microsoft bottom line, you're crazy.

MS offers tech support cause it makes them more money, cusstomer satisfaction does mean much compared to profits. If you think they offer tech support for the love of their customers instead of because of its profitability, THAT'S crazy.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by That Guy

MS offers tech support cause it makes them more money, cusstomer satisfaction does mean much compared to profits. If you think they offer tech support for the love of their customers instead of because of its profitability, THAT'S crazy.

Ugh, we could argue this point all day, but I only used Microsoft as a comparable business analogy, and we're basically saying the same thing. Yes, Microsoft does offer tech support and updates to make more money, but it's not because they charge for tech support directly. Anyone who buys the product and registers it gets free tech support. They do this to keep customers happy and buying their products in the future.

The Redskins organization does basically the same thing when they offer us little bits of information when we want to know why our favorite players aren't on the field. Gibbs told us Ramsey wasn't the starter anymore because Brunell gave them a better chance to win. Many of us were pissed about that and disagreed, but wow, Brunell proved us wrong. Well now they're trying to tell us Holdman is a better linebacker than LaVar, which anyone with half a brain knows isn't the case. None of you devout Gibbs and Williams followers can even bring yourselves to say that.

And as I said before if they're so afraid that LaVar is going to be the sole reason the Redskins lose games, why doesn't every corner or safety get benched when they get beat for a touchdown? Why wasn't Portis benched when he fumbled early in the game last week, which can be argued, "lost us the game"? So in spite of all the differing information that continues to surface, if you can still believe that LaVar was basically the only defensive player who didn't touch the field on any defensive play or special teams play because of his on field performance, I commend your conviction.