posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:00 AM
Originally posted by ABNARTY
Source? You need a source to verify a team in a larger market makes more dollars even with a revenue split?
Do you even read your own material?
The assertion you made is that "It is good business to have a team from a large market win a big game. It's more profitable. "
More profitable for whom? How does a large market team winning a big game benefit a smaller market team? Where is the incentive for the league
overall to "fix" a Super Bowl to benefit a large market team?
Does anyone even think this through or is it just kneejerk regurgitation based upon some preconceived looney conspiracy mindset?
Buffalo isn't going to benefit "more" by a NYC team winning the Super Bowl. If it was all about large markets skewed to win, why hasn't there
been a team in LA since 1994?
Do you need an answer?
Because the game is phenomenally successful already. Nothing would do more collateral damage than a hint that the games aren't legit competition.
The Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL and they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1995. The Redskins are second most valuable, and they
haven't won since '91.
You guys need to go check the Illuminati Madonna Halftime Conspiracy thread. The goofiness in there just blends into the background. You're just
embarrassing yourselves with this nonsense.