Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Reaser wrote:

Mark L. Ford wrote:I'll identify myself.

I agree, Mark. I've always used full or last name.

Though I definitely understand people liking to use pseudonyms, especially on the internet or on a football forum where you can tie in favorite teams/players. Though specific to a place like here, I've always wondered why people didn't use their actual names? Seems like for the validity of discussion and/or new information that "putting your name on it" is stronger than having a pseudonym so you can get away with posting nonsense - "nonsense" not specific to PFRA or any members, just an in general thought.

Good question and I will reply. When I first joined the old forum, I got there by chance, looking for info about Chris Hanburger. I'll never imagine that I could be a member, and most of all, go to the meetings and being in a Committee. So for a long time I used this pseudonym (it's the same I use in other forums, mostly from my country, Mexico) and when this new forum opened I kept it, mainly that the members could recognize it or look by older posts. But I have no problem to put my real name and if the forum wants it, I'll change it.

Gary Najman

Teo wrote:I kept it, mainly that the members could recognize it or look by older posts.

Makes sense, by now you're known as "Teo" on these forums.

OK, so that's one nomination for Ken Crippen.

JeffreyMiller wrote:OK, so that's one nomination for Ken Crippen.

My thoughts exactly.

If not Mark L. Ford, I'd like to see someone step in with a progressive view and and eye for business development. Someone whose goal isn't to assuage the egos of existing members and maintain the status quo, but to take the organization to the next level.

We're getting our @ss kicked by SABR and, quite frankly, there's no reason for that. Football is more interesting than baseball and I'm not buying the argument that it doesn't translate as well to analysis or history buffs. That's hogwash. It just means nobody has pulled it off yet.

There are great members here and tremendous knowledge to be leveraged. It can be done.

Neither I, nor anyone else in management, would make ANY apologies for putting our members first. You can call it assuaging egos or nepotistic backslapping, but when it comes to a conflict between a member who shells out 35 dollars for a year's membership, and a guest who doesn't, the member wins. Even the members have to abide by that code of conduct that everyone has to agree to to be here, and a few years ago, President Maher politely reminded me about the rules, and I got the message. Bear in mind that this is a membership organization that depends on annual renewals, not a retail establishment. Members have rights, guests have privileges.
The people here can defend themselves against being publicly insulted, but why should any of them have to? For anyone who feels that he or she must direct an insult to someone else on the Forum, send a private message, but don't show off here.

As to the idea that PFRA could be like SABR if it didn't look out for the people who support it, that's ridiculous. Membership organizations don't choose between respecting the dues-payers or taking the organization to the next level. They try to do both. Can PFRA improve? Definitely. We can all improve.

Mark L. Ford wrote:Neither I, nor anyone else in management, would make ANY apologies for putting our members first. You can call it assuaging egos or nepotistic backslapping, but when it comes to a conflict between a member who shells out 35 dollars for a year's membership, and a guest who doesn't, the member wins. Even the members have to abide by that code of conduct that everyone has to agree to to be here, and a few years ago, President Maher politely reminded me about the rules, and I got the message. Bear in mind that this is a membership organization that depends on annual renewals, not a retail establishment. Members have rights, guests have privileges.
The people here can defend themselves against being publicly insulted, but why should any of them have to? For anyone who feels that he or she must direct an insult to someone else on the Forum, send a private message, but don't show off here.

As to the idea that PFRA could be like SABR if it didn't look out for the people who support it, that's ridiculous. Membership organizations don't choose between respecting the dues-payers or taking the organization to the next level. They try to do both. Can PFRA improve? Definitely. We can all improve.

Have no clue where you're going with the members vs. guests observation. Agree with all that, never said any different.

I also respect the overall tone of your message. You're defending the organization you represent. If you didn't, that'd be a problem.

I stand by my comments.

When Bob Carroll ran the organization, he kept things informal. He did not push to grow the organization exponentially. Frankly, the organization was not set up to grow to the likes of SABR. When I took over as ED, and what was continued when Mark and Chris took over, was to get the foundation in place in order to grow. Now, I think that we have a solid foundation to grow. There are people in place that are doing a great job, but there will always be room for improvement.

There are multiple ways to get the PFRA name out there:

-Press Releases. Let the media know what the PFRA is doing. We started this when I was E.D. and I would like to see this increase.
-Establish relationships with people in the media. I started this while E.D. and I would like to see it increase. I have done this on my own since I was E.D. and would like to see it continue. Special focus was placed on Hall of Fame selectors, since the PFRA is in a position to get them information to help them make their decisions.
-Establish relationships with NFL teams. Andy Piascik has done a great job to identify key people in each organization to help promote the PFRA. This changes each year as people move out of positions or go to other teams. This is something that is addressed every year.
-Put more focus on the HOVG. This has given the PFRA the most visibility outside of the organization. Teams pick it up, based on our press releases and the fact that we specifically contact them to let them know when one of their players have been inducted. Media outlets have picked it up based on our press releases. I also contact the players to let them know that they have been inducted.
-Expand PFRA Football Publications. We have published two books. I would like to see more. This is a way for the PFRA to get their research out there, as well as provide an avenue for PFRA members to get their work published, if traditional publishers say no. It is also a way to generate revenue for the PFRA. It may not be much, but every little bit helps. As the PFRA expands, the visibility for the books will also expand. It is also a way to entice people to join. They see the work that is being done by the PFRA and they want to join.
-Mentor new authors. Coffin Corner only exists when we have people writing for the magazine. However, a lot of members do not write anything for the magazine because they feel that they are not a good enough writer. We have editors on staff to help them shape their article to get it ready for publication.
-Social Media. This has grown, but there is still room to grow. We need to be more active on social media to get the PFRA name out there.
-Networking. I did this while I was ED and would continue to do this if elected President. I hit alumni events. I hit football-related activities. I had pamphlets and extra copies of Coffin Corner, as well as business cards.
-While it is not sexy, we need to cut costs. That will free up more money to do targeted advertising to get the PFRA name out there.

These are just a few things. Visibility is the key.

The other one I'll throw in there, that we've finally got a plan for in place, is to set up more local PFRA events for members and non-members alike who want to talk about the history of the game. The meeting last week in California was just the first in a series. Again, it's very informal-- we call them PFRA chapters, but the basic idea is meet some friends your favorite sports bar some evening, have a few beers, and talk about football. If someone at the meeting likes the idea of PFRA and joins, great. If not, that's okay too, you had a great time talking to people who actually know what you're talking about when you say things like AAFC, Bert Bell, or 3-4 defense.

Ken Crippen wrote:When Bob Carroll ran the organization, he kept things informal. He did not push to grow the organization exponentially. Frankly, the organization was not set up to grow to the likes of SABR. When I took over as ED, and what was continued when Mark and Chris took over, was to get the foundation in place in order to grow. Now, I think that we have a solid foundation to grow. There are people in place that are doing a great job, but there will always be room for improvement.

There are multiple ways to get the PFRA name out there:


-While it is not sexy, we need to cut costs. That will free up more money to do targeted advertising to get the PFRA name out there.

These are just a few things. Visibility is the key.

Well, The Coffin Corner is biggest expense. Just stop printing and mailing the thing.
Personally, I would just get rid of the whole paid membership/Member's Only. The website costs next to nothing to run and could be paid by a small number of donations.

The PFRA doesn't compare well to SABR. SABR's focus is much more broad, encompassing the field of rotisserie baseball, whereas the PFRA really doesn't have a place for fantasy football or DFS. In that respect the PFRA is really limiting its membership to at most a few thousand people, where SABR's upper limit is in the millions.