Is Michael Vick a legit candidate for the cover?

[BallH4wk31]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

Are these "most NFL fans" you talk about some separate part of America or the world that does not spend money on products? Does their viewership not equate to ratings, which equates to the NFL being able to set a King's Ransom to advertisers who want to sell a wide varierty of products to those same "NFL fans" on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays during the fall? The arguments you make about Vick not being a viable option for a business and turning off a demographic are the same arguments that were made when he was looking for an NFL team to sign with. It's the exact same risk, business-wise, that the Eagles took. It only takes one company to take the leap.

Totally different arguments. Any team desperate enough to win (see Redskins, Eagles, etc) would have taken a shot because he could be a huge asset to a team if he could still play. He's very talented, so he got another shot from them.. if he was average, he would never find work. It was a dice roll and it worked out for the team and in the NFL all that matters are wins.. which is why he's seen in a good light there after getting support from media and saying/doing the right things. Making ratings money is a LOT different from having him with a product's name.

If he wins, that puts Philly fans in the stands.. that's great. A lot of people watch him love him or hate him, which are ratings.. but that doesn't mean he'd be a good candidate for advertising. He'd be representing a product...the product would be saying "this is who we are." That's suicide. Chris Brown beat Rihanna a while ago now.. his phone isn't ringing with endorsements even though lots of people love him and he's still a successful artist. He was wrong, paid his due, but is still paying for it years later. He got dropped by everyone and his songs are still boycotted on some stations.

If you're a major company owner and you have a big product, are you TRULY going to say "Yeah let's call Vick" or are you going to play it much safer with maybe Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees? Money in your hand and you have the decision, what's it going to be? Risking taking a major hit in sales or probably doing the same amount if Vick succeeds as if you went with a better alternative?

[blklightning]

he's number one in pro bowl voting. that tells you that people are over it.

[ODogg]

I hope he is on the cover and I hope he gets hurt once again..

[seanhazz1]

Vick won't be on the cover for many of the previously listed reasons. The NFL also has a case of hysteria when it comes to their "poster boys" and their franchises being on the Madden cover, and being exposed to the Madden curse(Manning, Brady, Romo, Ryan) Brees has a chance to dispel the myth entirely this year. I think they should put multiple players from the SB winner, or go back to Madden.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by BallH4wk31

Totally different arguments. Any team desperate enough to win (see Redskins, Eagles, etc) would have taken a shot because he could be a huge asset to a team if he could still play. He's very talented, so he got another shot from them.. if he was average, he would never find work. It was a dice roll and it worked out for the team and in the NFL all that matters are wins.

The Eagles were coming off of a season where they were in the NFC Championship game when they signed Vick. I wouldn't exactly call them "desperate to win". If anything, the Eagles were the most secure organization of all the teams that were mentioned to possibly sign Vick.

To the bolded part:

In the NFL, it's all about wins, and in the board room it's all about profit. Not politics, sex, religion, or anything else... profit trumps it all. And when there is enough data available to make said companies comfortable that the public has moved on, then the felony and the outrage from three years ago is all academic. There might be a handful of CEO's, and I'm being generous there -- a handful that MIGHT take a pass on Vick on moral grounds. The rest will roll the dice as you say.

Here's a small excerpt from an article on why Dick's was hesitant to stock Vick's jersey last year:

Even after Vick was picked up by the Philadelphia Eagles in August of last year, Dick’s Sporting Goods didn’t stock its shelves with Vick jerseys. It wasn’t a political statement. It was merely due to the fact that it was believed that Vick’s jersey wouldn’t sell well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...ckjersey092710

Quote:

Making ratings money is a LOT different from having him with a product's name.

Actually, it's all tied up together. If viewship spikes because a certain player is on the tube then the advertisers who are paying those huge dollars to advertise during an NFL game will want a piece of said player.

Television ratings equal viewship. The NFL fans who are watching, who have put him in the lead in the pro bowl, and who by the time the next figures for jersey sales are released, will have put Vick in the top 5 at least in sales. That's speaking with your wallet and that's what an endorser wants. All that in a year and half.

Quote:

If he wins, that puts Philly fans in the stands.. that's great. A lot of people watch him love him or hate him, which are ratings.. but that doesn't mean he'd be a good candidate for advertising. He'd be representing a product...the product would be saying "this is who we are."

Any advertising man worth anything can sell aligning themselves with Vick.

"We are a company that believes in second chances, in forgiveness, in redemption, and afterall, isn't that what America is about?"

Quote:

That's suicide. Chris Brown beat Rihanna a while ago now.. his phone isn't ringing with endorsements even though lots of people love him and he's still a successful artist. He was wrong, paid his due, but is still paying for it years later. He got dropped by everyone and his songs are still boycotted on some stations.

It was Feb of 09 when Chris Brown and Rihanna went down. That hardly qualifies as years later. That just really goes against your argument. There was palpable disgust at Chris Brown, news specials, tanked album sales, fellow celebrities taking shots at him -- for all intents and purposes his career was dying. But low and behold he's got the number one single with Deuces 19 months later. That's a pretty quick turnaround and tells you how fickle the public is. Imagine what happens in another year.

Quote:

If you're a major company owner and you have a big product, are you TRULY going to say "Yeah let's call Vick" or are you going to play it much safer with maybe Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees? Money in your hand and you have the decision, what's it going to be? Risking taking a major hit in sales or probably doing the same amount if Vick succeeds as if you went with a better alternative?

What kind of majoy company are you talking about? You didn't say Vick would never get an endorsement from a major company, you said:

"he'll never get cover or another endorsement again."

"I'd bet every dollar he never gets another endorsement."

I never argued that he was going to be the face of GE or Toys 'R Us. In fact, I made a point of saying those days of being the Jordan-esque pitchman are probably over. But there are an infinite number of products that target different sects of people, people who are the "NFL fans" and those companies will pay handsomely. So it won't be the number 1 company in a particular arena or even the number 2 like a Nike or Reebok, but what about a company like Under Armour, who has always passed itself off as a more daring, cutting edge brand? Make no mistake, there is going to be a serious demand for Michael Vick product whether it's t-shirts, hats, shoes, etc. There is a market and a demographic that will want to be served. Do you honestly think that every company out there is going to say, 'No, we don't want that money. We're going to stand on our moral principals because he is a convicted felon.'

You seem to think that there is something going on here other than money and it's not. Public outrage only matters to a company in sofar as it affects profit. Any company that will hesitate to work with Vick will only do so until such time as they feel the public has moved on. And make no mistake, they will move on. Here is a perfect example of how points of view shifts. The judge in Michael Vick's case who sentenced him to 18 months more than was recommended is now a coming off like a big softy: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shu...urn=nfl-293375

I wished the world worked on more of an honor code where there was a such a thing as shame, and where right and wrong were the prevailing factors. But this is 21st Century America where no one has an attention span, and people are as fickle as it gets. If you think that the majority of public is going to hold a grudge against Michael Vick beyond the next five minutes, even if he continues to burn of the football field and despite lionization from the press, then all righty.

[BallH4wk31]

Eagles weren't desperate on a "our whole team sucks" level, but McNabb's skills are all but gone. Kolb isn't THAT good. They can't get over the NFC championship hump and the odd time they make the 'ship (last time they got free agent desperate and signed TO before he stopped being a primma donna) they lost. They have NO rings, they've been desperate for one for a while.

Look, this essay war isn't going to settle anything, we're clearly both very entrenched in our points.

To settle it, I honestly want you to just call up your local sports radio station and ask them. Mike Francesa, among the most known men in radio discussed this when I was in the car the other day. I won't tell you what he said.. but call up or text or email them and listen to what they say. I'm serious.

[kjcheezhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by crucifixx

yes he is. i dont care if he' on there, personally i want aaron rodgers on the cover , but oh well .

Please god, no. The last time a Packer was on the cover was Brett Favre and Green Bay were forced to root against their favorite son after that.

Personally i would love to see Vick on the cover. The cover athlete is usually chosen for Madden's theme. Vick was on the cover in 2004, had his troubles and now has lit it up in Philly. In my opinion, Madden has followed the same trajectory, so he's the perfect cover boy for a "return to glory theme". Return of the Franchise/superstar modes, return of the features that made Madden great in those ps2 days but this time done even bigger and better.

[MrSkagTrendy]

Every year we talk loads and loads about the cover and when you really think about it, it really doesn't matter. I probably care for about 10 seconds a year. Nonetheless, I think the fact Vick is leading the NFL in Pro Bowl voting suggests that people for the most part aren't bothered any more. If Ray Lewis could be on the cover, so could Vick.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrSkagTrendy

Every year we talk loads and loads about the cover and when you really think about it, it really doesn't matter. I probably care for about 10 seconds a year.

agreed .............

[SouthernBrick]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

Not quite the same, but:

Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me because, I was talking about the madden cover.