The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:29am
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,497
Probably a preventative measure. Someone has either proposed it or it has been done. Imagine a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag. Fed may just be trying to get out in front, for once.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 12, 2017, 07:34am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 885
I'm truly bothered that the Rules Committee has taken the time to adopt a rule concerning the loss of a prosthetic limb, yet still refuses to define the IB/OB status of an airborne player.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 12, 2017, 03:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
Probably a preventative measure. Someone has either proposed it or it has been done. Imagine a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag. Fed may just be trying to get out in front, for once.
Doesn't make sense, considering they allow the leagues & schools themselves to advertise there, just not to rent the space out to others. If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Doesn't make sense, considering they allow the leagues & schools themselves to advertise there, just not to rent the space out to others. If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?
Not EVERYTHING that turns out to be good for the goose, is automatically good for the gander. I have yet to see, or hear of, league or school advertising that comes anything near, "a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag" that could easily become problematic to the extent of negatively affecting the game.

Lets, "not just go there", although there are likely "some" that would sell their soul for advertising revenue..
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 12, 2017, 07:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Not EVERYTHING that turns out to be good for the goose, is automatically good for the gander. I have yet to see, or hear of, league or school advertising that comes anything near, "a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag" that could easily become problematic to the extent of negatively affecting the game.

Lets, "not just go there", although there are likely "some" that would sell their soul for advertising revenue..
But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?
Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?
Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves smart. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT an appropriate place for optional advertising.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?
Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?
Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves a worthwhile idea. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and the NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT a suitable place for additional commercial advertising, which seems a reasonable and rational restriction.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?
Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.

I don't see any logic whatsover in extending that past the point of absurdity in tying standards for the major game implement to an ad on the fence or stadium ticket policies. There has to be a line, and the ball and player uniforms seem well within that line.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 13, 2017, 06:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.
But look at all the exceptions they make. It's not like they don't allow a ball to be all marked up, only that the markings can't be commercially sponsored. A ball's just as marked up if it says, "Property of Podunk Bd. of Ed." as it is if it says "Budweiser". So it's not about consistency of appearance.

But you're right that it would be a poor spend of ad $ if they wanted people to see it at a distance. This is more about the possibility of a sponsor's making a donation in kind to a school -- balls marked with their logo or name -- so the kids using the equipment will appreciate them.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 14, 2017, 10:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
as it is if it says "Budweiser". So it's not about consistency of appearance.

This is more about the possibility of a sponsor's making a donation in kind to a school -- balls marked with their logo or name -- so the kids using the equipment will appreciate them.
Most High School students don't need visual stimulation to heighten their appreciation of Budweiser (or competitors).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black pants: to press or not to press? sir_eldren Football 9 Sat Sep 03, 2011 09:55am
NFHS Rule Change Basketball Press Release Tim C Basketball 4 Fri May 07, 2010 12:33am
NFHS Press Release BillyMac Basketball 0 Tue May 08, 2007 06:43pm
ASA PRESS RELEASE: BANNED BATS !!!! ump57006 Softball 5 Sat Aug 03, 2002 11:40pm
NCAA Press Release for 2002-03 rules changes. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball 38 Fri May 10, 2002 10:39am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1