Looking through Forbes' valuation of the 32 NFL teams, I noticed Buffalo is third with $59/fan.  Only New Orleans ($77/fan) and Green Bay ($277/fan) were higher (and I'd argue Green Bay is a special case).

So, if Bills fans really are more passionate than average, and if Bills fans are unusually committed and unusually demanding, here's something of an economic justification (money is a measure).

The stat also indicates that Bills fans are especially important to the team.  The New York teams can afford to lose some of their $8 fans, but not the Bills!  And that's why sites like this are so important.

So while I wouldn't draw too much into this little Forbes stat, I do think it says something about our unique fan base, and even gives us a little psychological leverage at the imaginary bargaining table with ownership and management, where we gripe and moan and -- hopefully one day -- raise a glass together in celebration.

A team without a proven QB, few (if any) superstars, but a good RB, a pretty good secondary, and some good defensive players?  The Ryan way might be the way to go.

This is not a post about the Jets, so I don't want to argue about how much luck played into their season.  They were not unlucky, that's for sure, but they were in a position to capitalize on good fortune thanks to good coaching and conservative football that was a good fit for an unspectacular roster.

Now, at this point it's pretty clear the Jets have more talent up and down the roster (especially on defense and the OL) but was that really clear going into the season? Ok, maybe with the OL, but otherwise Ryan and his scheme brought out the talent that few knew was there. 

I wouldn't mind ground and pound football.  Emphasize defense.  Limit the QB's role.  Make moves in the offseason to get a lock down corner.  A LB who's a defensive leader.  And, of course, a professional caliber OL.  (as if that were a simple task)

But, from what I understand of Texas Chan, we're going in the opposite direction?

(Nobody likes thinking, but sometimes you gotta to do it, for the sake of your team!  So instead of bulimically regurgitating the same cliches about "inhibiting players development" and "short-term excitement" I've made the ultimate sacrifice --  because I know you Knicks execs are reading!)

1) Tossing players into games does not equal player development.  Force guys into the wrong roles, push them before  they're ready, expose them to a lifeless, nihilistic environment where they have no chance to win, and it can corrupt players.  Look at Chandler and Duhon, who get worse every game.

2) Let me don my evil banker's hat for a moment.  Players are assets which appreciate and depreciate in value.  Losing depreciates the entire roster/portfolio.  We're looking to barter almost everything we have, but the more we lose, the less each piece is worth.  A few wins will make everyone worth more.

3) Companies buy distressed assets, fix them up, then resell them at a higher price.  The knicks should assume this philosophy because we have no pick next year, and nothing of value at present to trade.  We have to garbage pick and refurbish.

With 1-3 in mind, signing Iverson makes sense, not just to sell tix now, but to rebuild for the future.  If AI plays well, all players will look better, and be worth more -- AND, we can trade a renovated AI to a contender at the Feb trade deadline and get a pick or prospect.  And I'd actually go for a 2 yr contract so that if he does have a renaissance, we have one more worm on the hook in the waters of 2010. 

Will he play well? I don't know -- if not, waive him and we're back where we started.  No harm done.

Editor's Note: I've seen this mentioned a couple times around P&T. Even Alan Hahn has mentioned a Rubio deal of late. What do we think of this?

I'm not too smart.  Every time a ball sails out of bounds, or a lay-up is mixed in slapstick fashion, I put my head in my hands and mutter "at least we'll get a top 3 pick."   Then it hits me and I look up at the heavens and and lament biblical like.  It pains me ten times worse than the missed lay-up. 

Maybe I"ll never get it through my thick skull that all this losing is for naught.  In any case, I have to hope -- Obama taught me that.  Then I think of Brandon Jennings and his Italy stats and then I think of Rubio and his Barcelona stats and I say Maybe this kid is as good as I thought during the Olympics.  If we can't get a top rookie by drafting him, maybe we can get a top rookie by trading for his rights after a lackluster season overseas.  His value might drop, the knicks can afford a buy-out, we can offer Minny  -- well, I don't know -- something. 

Thoughts?  Anyone watching Rubio?  Can someone remind me how a buy-out from a Euro team counts against salary cap etc?  We need something to talk about . . .

How bad does Hill have to be if he can't get pt on this team?   Does he have the swine? leprosy? what?  I'm catching up with the Knicks after baseball, so sorry if this is old territory -- I just have a hard time imagining a player so bad he can't get off the bench at the Garden.  I didn't like the pick, but I took comfort that at least some other sucker fell for Thabeet before the Knicks had the chance to humiliate themselves.  But hey, at least Thabeet gets to prove how awful he is -- he and even gets the chance to shatter his jaw on the court.  Hill only gets the chance to show how bad he is in practice? that's not fair.   What the heck is going on?  He can't be that bad . . . can he?