ESPN Get Worse

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

This is one of the best and sums it up beautifully. These guys aren't going to win.  Maybe in the lefts mind and on principle, but they are hurting those in front of them and taking their future peers backwards.  Kinda like a reverse tiger woods

Yes. Uppity blacks need to learn their place.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes. Uppity blacks need to learn their place.

Its fine, he doesn't grasp what any of this is about.

Its just about some ungrateful "non traditionals" disrespectin' the military!

He has zero perspective, and has no interest in seeking any.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

First of all, this is what it is about-the national anthem.  You might be right about any other workplace...but that's not what we have here.  Let's say an employer starts each day with a prayer?  A meeting?  Etc etc...if an employee(s) interrupt those with a protest, I'm sure they'd be thru the door before it even opened. 

Let's use that example. An employer starts the workday with a prayer. Employee doesn't want to participate in said prayer. I think the equivalent "protest" in this situation would be that the employee doesn't do the sign of the cross/bow his head/fold his hands....instead the employee just sits there and does nothing. I think, but could be wrong, that if the employer told the employee that he was going to be fired if he didn't participate in the prayer and then carries the threat out....I'm pretty sure the employer gets the pants sued off him. That seems like an open/shut wrongful termination case.

Maybe the fact that we have called it a protest in the first place is the problem. When first asked why he didn't stand, Kaepernick never used the word protest. He said: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color". He didn't want to protest necessarily, he just doesn't want to participate in a ritual he doesn't believe in. He may have called it a protest since then, I don't know. But I don't think it is ever right to force someone to participate in the national anthem. That kind of forced patriotism seems extremely un-American to me. The best part about living in America is the freedom to disagree with America IMHO. But I can understand the argument that a protest or perceived protest hurts the bottom line and the NFL has a right to protect that bottom line.

What about this as a compromise? Allow players to choose whether or not they are on the field for the national anthem. If they are on the field, they must stand. If they are in the locker room they can do whatever they want but cannot come onto the field until the national anthem is over. It protects the players' right to opt out of the anthem if they so choose and addresses the fans' concerns about the flag being disrespected.

[naginiF]

........But I don't think it is ever right to force someone to participate in the national anthem. That kind of forced patriotism seems extremely un-American to me. The best part about living in America is the freedom to disagree with America IMHO. But I can understand the argument that a protest or perceived protest hurts the bottom line and the NFL has a right to protect that bottom line.......

The bolded is the bottom line for me.  Forcing everyone to think or act the same is very anti USA and why i can't understand why people are so worked up about something that is a personal point of view and not something that harms or puts anyone else in harms way. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Let's use that example. An employer starts the workday with a prayer. Employee doesn't want to participate in said prayer. I think the equivalent "protest" in this situation would be that the employee doesn't do the sign of the cross/bow his head/fold his hands....instead the employee just sits there and does nothing. I think, but could be wrong, that if the employer told the employee that he was going to be fired if he didn't participate in the prayer and then carries the threat out....I'm pretty sure the employer gets the pants sued off him. That seems like an open/shut wrongful termination case.

Maybe the fact that we have called it a protest in the first place is the problem. When first asked why he didn't stand, Kaepernick never used the word protest. He said: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color". He didn't want to protest necessarily, he just doesn't want to participate in a ritual he doesn't believe in. He may have called it a protest since then, I don't know. But I don't think it is ever right to force someone to participate in the national anthem. That kind of forced patriotism seems extremely un-American to me. The best part about living in America is the freedom to disagree with America IMHO. But I can understand the argument that a protest or perceived protest hurts the bottom line and the NFL has a right to protect that bottom line.

What about this as a compromise? Allow players to choose whether or not they are on the field for the national anthem. If they are on the field, they must stand. If they are in the locker room they can do whatever they want but cannot come onto the field until the national anthem is over. It protects the players' right to opt out of the anthem if they so choose and addresses the fans' concerns about the flag being disrespected.

Modify your example ...

The employee is in sales interfacing with clients.  The employee is using their position with the company to preach or protest to customers of the company. 

NFL players kneeling are subjecting the CUSTOMERS of the NFL to the protest.  If they wanted to protest before the practice and subject and subject fellow employees to the protest then it would fit your example.

[Lennys Tap]

I wouldn't be surprised if I could count the number of people who support the cause but are boycotting the NFL because of the protests on one hand.

Depends on what "the cause" is. If it's improving community/police relations by demanding that police be held responsible and accountable for the mistreatment (brutality, profiling, etc.) of people of color, sign me (and lots of others Tiny Tim would call "angry white guys") up. If "the cause" includes "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!", "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!", "Hands up, don't shoot!", pigs in police uniforms on socks, etc., then not so much. I think the situation was decidedly polarized before many of the players joined in the protests, and both sides want to ignore the facts that are inconvenient but are driving two parallel but decidedly different realities.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Modify your example ...

The employee is in sales interfacing with clients.  The employee is using their position with the company to preach or protest to customers of the company. 

NFL players kneeling are subjecting the CUSTOMERS of the NFL to the protest.  If they wanted to protest before the practice and subject and subject fellow employees to the protest then it would fit your example.

I used the example that was provided for me. What if an employer insisted on starting all sales meetings with customers in the room with a prayer. What if an employee didn't participate in the prayer? The customers are subjected to this "protest." I still think an employer would be successfully sued for wrongful termination if he fired an employee for refusing to participate in a prayer in front of customers.

What do you think of my compromise? Do you think it would work?

[Lennys Tap]

What about this as a compromise? Allow players to choose whether or not they are on the field for the national anthem. If they are on the field, they must stand. If they are in the locker room they can do whatever they want but cannot come onto the field until the national anthem is over. It protects the players' right to opt out of the anthem if they so choose and addresses the fans' concerns about the flag being disrespected.

This has been suggested by others and makes perfect sense. The side who embraces it wins the argument.

[forgetful]

This is the year my house started boycotting it.  My wife became political over the last year.  She was unaware of the Papa Johns CEO political views in 2012.  I knew, cared, but since kids and wife liked their pizza, I didn't make an issue.   It is an issue now.

The weird thing about the Papa Johns losing business argument, is Papa John is a big Trump supporter and vocal evangelical republican. 

If you are to buy the "NFL protest hurting his business angle," you have to then believe that republican Trump supporters are either boycotting one of their own (Papa Johns) or are too stupid to be aware of his very vocal political leanings.

Or, just maybe, his blaming the NFL players is just another part of his very vocal Pro-Trump Pro-GOP beliefs and statements, and the decline in business has nothing to do with the NFL. 

Instead it has everything to do with increased competition and price pressures from a aggressive campaign from Pizza Hut.

[rocket surgeon]

Its fine, he doesn't grasp what any of this is about.

Its just about some ungrateful "non traditionals" disrespectin' the military!

He has zero perspective, and has no interest in seeking any.

So, according to you hards,  if I don't get in line and agree with your summation, along with all the others echoing your ideology, I'm all wrong, stupid, ignorant, insensitive and according to little Timmy, a racist as well.  Did I miss any?

I'm going to go with we just have different opinions without malice and let's see how this plays out

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I never said you were racist. Just that you are using typical white arguments to explain things to black people. It's condescending.

[GGGG]

The weird thing about the Papa Johns losing business argument, is Papa John is a big Trump supporter and vocal evangelical republican. 

If you are to buy the "NFL protest hurting his business angle," you have to then believe that republican Trump supporters are either boycotting one of their own (Papa Johns) or are too stupid to be aware of his very vocal political leanings.

Or, just maybe, his blaming the NFL players is just another part of his very vocal Pro-Trump Pro-GOP beliefs and statements, and the decline in business has nothing to do with the NFL. 

Instead it has everything to do with increased competition and price pressures from a aggressive campaign from Pizza Hut.

Also remember that Jerry Jones is a big Papa Johns franchisee.  So there's another reason why he is blaming the protests for his crappy pizza not selling.

[Hards Alumni]

So, according to you hards,  if I don't get in line and agree with your summation, along with all the others echoing your ideology, I'm all wrong, stupid, ignorant, insensitive and according to little Timmy, a racist as well.  Did I miss any?

I'm going to go with we just have different opinions without malice and let's see how this plays out

Yes, you missed it all again.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my ideology or my summation.  You won't bother to actually learn what the reasoning behind the protest is.  You seem to decide for everyone that it is disrespectful to kneel for the National Anthem.  But that isn't the point at all.

I can't tell if you are intentionally being obtuse, or if it is simply by accident.

[rocket surgeon]

Yes, you missed it all again.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my ideology or my summation.  You won't bother to actually learn what the reasoning behind the protest is.  You seem to decide for everyone that it is disrespectful to kneel for the National Anthem.  But that isn't the point at all.

I can't tell if you are intentionally being obtuse, or if it is simply by accident.

But see, that's one of the reasons why "protest" isn't going very well-they don't have a unified message.  Not to mention, imho, it's not right.  So how you can you say that I won't bothe to learn what the reasoning behind the protest is?  Just that statement alone is condescending.  Nothing obtuse about that.  You've heard of the finger pointing thing, right?  4 back at ya? 

   Understand, depending on which poll you refer to, this issue is at least 50-50. My point is, there are strong opinions to both sides and only time is going to tell how this plays out.  Unfortunately or not, I don't think this board is going to have a say, but it is good to debate it.  I need to hear your side, as well as others opposing viewpoints in order to understand it, but I don't have to agree with it-peace! 

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

If you can't understand the message now you are either dumb, willfully ignorant or too afraid to acknowledge what it is.

I've come to the conclusion that people claim they are upset about the kneeling but they really aren't. They are upset because of the message behind it. It makes them uncomfortable because they know there is a problem but they don't really want to deal with it. So they hide behind the "white racism" lines promoted by many here.

If a random white player was kneeling during the anthem three seasons ago, would it have even raised an eyebrow?  Of course not.

People are upset about the message. Not the action. Cause if people were upset about the anthem, they wouldn't treat it like an afterthought when at home sitting on their couch.

[B. McBannerson]

Yes. Uppity blacks need to learn their place.

Sad this keeps being the go to by so many.  We just can't have conversations anymore without this nonsense.

May I ask you a question, since you seem to imply someone that hasn't walked in someone else's shoes can't have an opinion any longer.  Are women allowed to have comments about men since they aren't men?  How about middle class people about the rich?  Where does this race logic that is used start and end?  Especially since many people, regardless of race, have been poor at one time in their lives and some for their entire life, yet the broad brush that you are painting with is odd.   If you don't think these attitudes which are widely used in discussion these days do not influence how people vote and turn people off, you aren't paying attention in my opinion.

[tower912]

Yes, pointing out he we are failing as a society and challenging to improve can cause some to vote to embrace those failings.

[B. McBannerson]

Also remember that Jerry Jones is a big Papa Johns franchisee.  So there's another reason why he is blaming the protests for his crappy pizza not selling.

Let's use common sense.

Papa John's sales were up in Q2 of '17 per their earnings report. Also up in Q1 of '17.  And Q4 of '16. And Q3 of '16.  I didn't go back further than that. 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x929076/6B0A8A3B-507B-46AC-A821-05EF1E8AF37F/Q4_2016_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x940487/B63B6F31-67A1-4A23-BE25-664A101E5FDA/Q1_2017_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x951830/A7F5E22F-1D57-4C4C-B2BB-C1451CF51DEB/PJI_Q2_2017_Press_Release_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x961890/7DEAFE74-363E-4109-9370-869D15F2ABB6/Press_Release_-_Q3_2017_-_Final.pdf

What has changed?  The pizza got crappy this quarter?  The recipe changed?  The founder just now said he was a Trump supporter (he has been a supporter since last year).  Common sense time.

If you read the WSJ article and another by Barron's (I believe that was the publisher), people have boycotted brands like Papa John's, Ford, Budweiser, Direct Tv, ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC and others because fans think it puts money in players pockets. They aren't wrong, but it also hurts the sales of the brand.  This is why those companies are considering going in another direction.  Papa John's clearly has made that decision.

The pizza is the same. The founder is the same. What changed is people are boycotting NFL and guess what two days are the most popular in pizza sales?  Saturday and Sunday.  If less football is watched, less need to buy pizza.

[B. McBannerson]

The bolded is the bottom line for me.  Forcing everyone to think or act the same is very anti USA and why i can't understand why people are so worked up about something that is a personal point of view and not something that harms or puts anyone else in harms way.

We still have rituals however, that doesn't mean we are forcing people to think or act the same way.  We all have to file our federal taxes, at least the 55% that actually pay federal taxes.  That act is required of us by law.  Should we not have to do that because it's anti-USA as you put it?   

Should the Pledge of Allegiance be banned in schools?
How about having an American flag in classrooms to begin with? That was a mainstay when I was growing up. 

People can choose to do what they wish, but people can also choose to have commentary on it as a result.

[B. McBannerson]

The weird thing about the Papa Johns losing business argument, is Papa John is a big Trump supporter and vocal evangelical republican. 

If you are to buy the "NFL protest hurting his business angle," you have to then believe that republican Trump supporters are either boycotting one of their own (Papa Johns) or are too stupid to be aware of his very vocal political leanings.

Or, just maybe, his blaming the NFL players is just another part of his very vocal Pro-Trump Pro-GOP beliefs and statements, and the decline in business has nothing to do with the NFL. 

Instead it has everything to do with increased competition and price pressures from a aggressive campaign from Pizza Hut.

Not at all.  Read the WSJ and Barron's article on fans wanting to hurt the players. Follow the money. Sure it hurts a pro Trump supporter, but it also hurts the players and league, which is their ultimate goal. That is why they are boycotting the NFL sponsors. A means to an end in their minds.

[forgetful]

Let's use common sense.

Papa John's sales were up in Q2 of '17 per their earnings report. Also up in Q1 of '17.  And Q4 of '16. And Q3 of '16.  I didn't go back further than that. 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x929076/6B0A8A3B-507B-46AC-A821-05EF1E8AF37F/Q4_2016_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x940487/B63B6F31-67A1-4A23-BE25-664A101E5FDA/Q1_2017_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x951830/A7F5E22F-1D57-4C4C-B2BB-C1451CF51DEB/PJI_Q2_2017_Press_Release_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x961890/7DEAFE74-363E-4109-9370-869D15F2ABB6/Press_Release_-_Q3_2017_-_Final.pdf

What has changed?  The pizza got crappy this quarter?  The recipe changed?  The founder just now said he was a Trump supporter (he has been a supporter since last year).  Common sense time.

If you read the WSJ article and another by Barron's (I believe that was the publisher), people have boycotted brands like Papa John's, Ford, Budweiser, Direct Tv, ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC and others because fans think it puts money in players pockets. They aren't wrong, but it also hurts the sales of the brand.  This is why those companies are considering going in another direction.  Papa John's clearly has made that decision.

The pizza is the same. The founder is the same. What changed is people are boycotting NFL and guess what two days are the most popular in pizza sales?  Saturday and Sunday.  If less football is watched, less need to buy pizza.

So in Q1 and Q2, Pizza hut was losing share to Domino's and some to Papa Johns.  Because of a loss in business they started a vigorous new ad campaign and price war, to regain marketshare by targeting largely Papa Johns business.  Domino's continued their recent fight to regain market share.

Papa Johns did nothing.  They stayed idle, while being targeted by the two other big players in the market.  They lost market share as a result. 

That is how business works.  If you don't react to a market move, you lose.  Apparently you do not understand that simple concept...and neither does Papa John.

[B. McBannerson]

Oh God. The "people who point out racism are responsible for Trump" line. Yes. The poor who're people of the world. So oppressed.

And I'm not playing the "race card."  It's a protest about racial injustice. Race is inherent in the discussion.

Actually, you very much are.  We can't have discussion in this country today without that card being played.  You have done it several times yourself, maybe you don't realize you are doing it.  More importantly, why do you get decide if it is racist or intent? Are you in another person's heart to be able to make those claims?  The term is being weaponized and that is the intent.

Justice Thomas' comments the other day were right on target.  Civil commentary without this kind of innuendo and charges is no longer possible, which is very troubling.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

We still have rituals however, that doesn't mean we are forcing people to think or act the same way.  We all have to file our federal taxes, at least the 55% that actually pay federal taxes.  That act is required of us by law.  Should we not have to do that because it's anti-USA as you put it?   

Should the Pledge of Allegiance be banned in schools?
How about having an American flag in classrooms to begin with? That was a mainstay when I was growing up. 

I have no idea what any of this means.

[naginiF]

Let's use common sense.

Papa John's sales were up in Q2 of '17 per their earnings report. Also up in Q1 of '17.  And Q4 of '16. And Q3 of '16.  I didn't go back further than that. 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x929076/6B0A8A3B-507B-46AC-A821-05EF1E8AF37F/Q4_2016_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x940487/B63B6F31-67A1-4A23-BE25-664A101E5FDA/Q1_2017_Press_Release_-_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x951830/A7F5E22F-1D57-4C4C-B2BB-C1451CF51DEB/PJI_Q2_2017_Press_Release_Final.pdf

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PZZA/5509086779x0x961890/7DEAFE74-363E-4109-9370-869D15F2ABB6/Press_Release_-_Q3_2017_-_Final.pdf

What has changed?  The pizza got crappy this quarter?  The recipe changed?  The founder just now said he was a Trump supporter (he has been a supporter since last year).  Common sense time.

If you read the WSJ article and another by Barron's (I believe that was the publisher), people have boycotted brands like Papa John's, Ford, Budweiser, Direct Tv, ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC and others because fans think it puts money in players pockets. They aren't wrong, but it also hurts the sales of the brand.  This is why those companies are considering going in another direction.  Papa John's clearly has made that decision.

The pizza is the same. The founder is the same. What changed is people are boycotting NFL and guess what two days are the most popular in pizza sales?  Saturday and Sunday.  If less football is watched, less need to buy pizza.

To be fair, not everyone is boycotting Papa Johns
http://www.newsweek.com/papa-john-alt-right-nazis-white-supremacists-nfl-pizza-701648

As always, Nihilist Arby's summed up the Papa Johns situation perfectly (NSFW)
https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/status/926238595412905985

[B. McBannerson]

Please stop it with "the rules". It has been mentioned several times in this thread that it is NOT in the "rules". The NFL's rulebook says nothing about player conduct during the pre-game playing of the U.S. national anthem.

Don't confuse the rulebook (the rules of the game) with the requirements of behavior, etc on and off the field.  Yes, the game operations manual being one of them.  Does the rulebook say if a player skips a media interview he's in trouble? No, it doesn't, yet that's what happens because there are multiple requirements and rulebooks (as it were) for the players.

If you would like me to phrase it as policy and not a rule, I'm happy to do that.  The NFL already has a policy, they just refuse to enforce it.  The policy says players shall stand for the national anthem. The NFL has chosen not to enforce that policy.