PDA

View Full Version : The Value In Beating the Browns


epicSocialism4tw
09-19-2009, 01:46 AM
The Broncos have one in-conference away victory. Beating the Browns would be an important supplement to the conference record. Coming down the stretch at the end of the season, these conference victories will be that much more significant if the Broncos are in position to win their conference or to slip into the playoffs on a tie breaker.

Popps
09-19-2009, 02:09 AM
Yep. You never know what the season could bring. I'm not expecting playoffs, but crazier things have happened. An AFC game certainly carries importance.

A team has to approach the season like they DO believe they're going to the playoffs. I'll guarantee you our guys do believe that.

I just think it's a big game because it's one of our only games that doesn't look brutal, on paper. I don't think we're in many "should-win" situations this year, but this may be one of them. We need the win for confidence, momentum, etc.

Atwater His Ass
09-19-2009, 02:56 AM
The Broncos have one in-conference away victory. Beating the Browns would be an important supplement to the conference record. Coming down the stretch at the end of the season, these conference victories will be that much more significant if the Broncos are in position to win their conference or to slip into the playoffs on a tie breaker.

away vs. home doesn't matter.

conference games matter as the 4th tie breaker for in-divisional rivals after head-to-head, win % in division, and win % in common games (aka out of conference common opponent games are potentially more important, espcially with the way nfl scheduling works now by rotating divisions against each other), but are much more important as the 2nd tie breaker (when head to head may not apply) in out of division wild card tie breakers.

of course you are referring to win their division and not conference as the conference champion is decided by the, wait for it,..... conference championship game.

regardless of details, in-conference games are 2nd only to divisional games, as anyone with half a brain should already know.

Drek
09-19-2009, 04:49 AM
My biggest concern is wanting to see a Broncos team that takes care of business at home. We used to be near unbeatable at home, last year we where 4-4 if I recall. That's pathetic for a team with playoff aspirations. The Browns should be a solid team, Mangini has worked a quick turnaround before, but this is a game the Broncos need to win to make a statement about this new group of guys.

Atwater His Ass
09-19-2009, 04:57 AM
My biggest concern is wanting to see a Broncos team that takes care of business at home. We used to be near unbeatable at home, last year we where 4-4 if I recall. That's pathetic for a team with playoff aspirations. The Browns should be a solid team, Mangini has worked a quick turnaround before, but this is a game the Broncos need to win to make a statement about this new group of guys.

taking care of business at home is taking care of business at home, regardless of the opponent or the conference they are affiliated too.

and yes, it would be nice establish a home field dominance again, but alas, I think the money and politics of the NFL and building stadiums had pushed the die hard fans out.

Drek
09-19-2009, 05:09 AM
taking care of business at home is taking care of business at home, regardless of the opponent or the conference they are affiliated too.

and yes, it would be nice establish a home field dominance again, but alas, I think the money and politics of the NFL and building stadiums had pushed the die hard fans out.

It hasn't pushed die hard fans out, it just changed the tax bracket of die hard fans you get.

The Steelers have an army of die hard fans who take over stadiums wherever the team goes. Pittsburgh isn't exactly the economic powerhouse of the world. Winning consistently, especially at home, does a whole lot for charging up a fan base and making people feel like they'd rather put some disposable income towards football tickets than something else.

In short, no one wants to pay $500 to take the family out to the football stadium and watch a drubbing at home.

Atwater His Ass
09-19-2009, 05:20 AM
It hasn't pushed die hard fans out, it just changed the tax bracket of die hard fans you get.

The Steelers have an army of die hard fans who take over stadiums wherever the team goes. Pittsburgh isn't exactly the economic powerhouse of the world. Winning consistently, especially at home, does a whole lot for charging up a fan base and making people feel like they'd rather put some disposable income towards football tickets than something else.

In short, no one wants to pay $500 to take the family out to the football stadium and watch a drubbing at home.

one of the reasons pitt has such a strong following is the fact that a lot of pitt fans have left pitt from the economic results of the economic collapse of the steel industry.

regardless, Bowlen got what he wanted in being able to supply more ceo boxes and budgeted the regular fan out of the stadium. i don't blame him form a business standpoint, money talks. however, a lot of fans were priced out of the new stadium as happens in every city where new stadiums are built.

TailgateNut
09-19-2009, 05:43 AM
, a lot of fans were priced out of the new stadium as happens in every city where new stadiums are built.

That's BS. IMO most of the fans who "gave up" during the move to Incestco did so due to the relocation process (there was no rhyme nor reason to the seat relocation process). The only real increase in tix was in the south stands.
The Broncos and Stadium mgt made no attempt what-so-ever to keep fans which had been "neighbors" for years together and it seemed as if they just rolled a dice to determine where your "new" seats would be. In addiion the time of the move coincided with the open sale of season ticked rights.

Atwater His Ass
09-19-2009, 05:47 AM
That's BS. IMO most of the fans who "gave up" during the move to Incestco did so due to the relocation process (there was no rhyme nor reason to the seat relocation process). The only real increase in tix was in the south stands.
The Broncos and Stadium mgt made no attempt what-so-ever to keep fans which had been "neighbors" for years together and it seemed as if they just rolled a dice to determine where your "new" seats would be. In addiion the time of the move coincided with the open sale of season ticked rights.

k hoss.

you explain why invesco sucks compared to mile high then, if it's the same people attending the game as before. have fun with that.

TailgateNut
09-19-2009, 05:51 AM
k hoss.

you explain why invesco sucks compared to mile high then, if it's the same people attending the game as before. have fun with that.

I didn't say it was the same people. If you take the time to read what I wrote.
All I was trying to say is that it wasn't the ticket prices which drove fans away. The moderate increases were expected. But many were dis enfranchised by the relocation process and many others took advantage of the open sale policy which was a one time deal.

Atwater His Ass
09-19-2009, 06:00 AM
I didn't say it was the same people. If you take the time to read what I wrote.
All I was trying to say is that it wasn't the ticket prices which drove fans away. The moderate increases were expected. But many were dis enfranchised by the relocation process and many others took advantage of the open sale policy which was a one time deal.

k.

lol

Meck77
09-19-2009, 07:01 AM
k hoss.

you explain why invesco sucks compared to mile high then, if it's the same people attending the game as before. have fun with that.


TaiglateNut is right. There was a massive turnover of season ticket holders during the transition. One major reason was the Broncos changed the ability of season ticket holders to sell their ticket rights to any other buyer. I know because I shopped for them and the paper was filled with them. At the time a season ticket "right" was still worth a $1,000 or more. Old timers were cashing in since the Broncos just went back to back and Bowlen was screwing them.

You could see the difference in the crowd that 2001 season. The old Bronco jackets and hats just weren't there as much after that season.

NYBronc
09-19-2009, 07:28 AM
That's BS. IMO most of the fans who "gave up" during the move to Incestco did so due to the relocation process (there was no rhyme nor reason to the seat relocation process). The only real increase in tix was in the south stands.
The Broncos and Stadium mgt made no attempt what-so-ever to keep fans which had been "neighbors" for years together and it seemed as if they just rolled a dice to determine where your "new" seats would be. In addiion the time of the move coincided with the open sale of season ticked rights.

The Giants did the same thing and there were famlies sitting next to eachother for 60 years. At least no one in Denver had to pay PSLs.

baja
09-19-2009, 07:59 AM
My biggest concern is wanting to see a Broncos team that takes care of business at home. We used to be near unbeatable at home, last year we where 4-4 if I recall. That's pathetic for a team with playoff aspirations. The Browns should be a solid team, Mangini has worked a quick turnaround before, but this is a game the Broncos need to win to make a statement about this new group of guys.

I agree loosing the home field advantage was one of the sorriest things about the last years of the Shanahan regime and I would bet a key factor in Bowlen firing Shanahan. If fans expect to win at home they will go to the games.

The hotdog sales to no shows is predictably low.

epicSocialism4tw
09-20-2009, 10:19 PM
away vs. home doesn't matter.

It doesnt matter in calculation, but away conference victories are typically more difficult to reel in. Relatively speaking of course. The Broncos have lost several conference games to sub-par teams (Chiefs, etc.)



of course you are referring to win their division and not conference as the conference champion is decided by the, wait for it,..... conference championship game.

regardless of details, in-conference games are 2nd only to divisional games, as anyone with half a brain should already know.

Did something crawl up your rear and die? Sheesh.

There are extensive tie breakers that come into factor in every season.

Hercules Rockefeller
09-20-2009, 10:31 PM
k hoss.

you explain why invesco sucks compared to mile high then, if it's the same people attending the game as before. have fun with that.

The "invesco sucks" meme is perpetuated by reporters who are in their enclosed press box at the top of the stadium and morons who don't attend games but believe what those people write.

Yes, some people have been priced out, it's happened with every team in th league. However, the stadium has never been as bad as some here so desperately want to believe.

Edit: and the question that is never answered when I ask it here, if Invesco sucks because all the "real" fans were priced out, why wasn't Mile High that loud in '99 and '00?