The NFL 2011 Offseason/Strike/Lockout Thread

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

As far as whats really happening I just get sick of owners thinking they can get whatever they want. Yes, these players make a lot of money but so do movie actors that actually have other options. The whole "players make millions why are they bitching" doesnt do it for me because they have the right to make market value just like everyone else. I think they are being paid under their true market value because the owners cant keep their big greedy hands out of the pot.

But what's fair profit? The owners are the ones taking the financial risk in all of this. If CBS folds tomorrow and the NFL doesn't collect the three billion as the contract calls for... they're still on the hook for all the contracts that have been signed with players, vendors and everyone else.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

As far as whats really happening I just get sick of owners thinking they can get whatever they want. Yes, these players make a lot of money but so do movie actors that actually have other options. The whole "players make millions why are they bitching" doesnt do it for me because they have the right to make market value just like everyone else. I think they are being paid under their true market value because the owners cant keep their big greedy hands out of the pot.

Out of a $9 billion revenue pot, the owners take a $1 billion cut for infrastructure costs, and the players get 60% of the remaining $8 billion, for $4.8 billion going to players. So just over half of all money flowing in to the NFL ends up in the players' pockets. I wish half of all money flowing in to my company ended up in the employees' pockets.

[stevew]

I hope they keep bitching long enough to fight over splitting up a 6 billion dollar revenue pot.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But what's fair profit? The owners are the ones taking the financial risk in all of this. If CBS folds tomorrow and the NFL doesn't collect the three billion as the contract calls for... they're still on the hook for all the contracts that have been signed with players, vendors and everyone else.

Players dont have guaranteed contracts other than the signing bonus portion. And while there is risk its a pretty safe investment

[Young Drachma]

soccer365.com | mls | Ochocinco on Trial with Sporting K.C.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Out of a $9 billion revenue pot, the owners take a $1 billion cut for infrastructure costs, and the players get 60% of the remaining $8 billion, for $4.8 billion going to players. So just over half of all money flowing in to the NFL ends up in the players' pockets. I wish half of all money flowing in to my company ended up in the employees' pockets.

I guess Im not sure what business you are in but Id guess that the employees arent the actual product that is being sold.

The players are creating the revenue. If they dont play the revenue stops.

You cant just replace these players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I wish half of all money flowing in to my company ended up in the employees' pockets.

nobody's gonna pay 75 bucks a ticket to watch you milk goats

they're not laborers they're entertainers. nobody goes to see a movie because the theatre has comfortable seats.

[LloydLungs]

Until this NFL thing gets settled, I would support a national ban on all sentences that begin with "If my boss told me..." or "If I told my boss..."

But that is the real fantasyland. In reality we're all doomed to about six months of bad analogies. Oh well. I'm so glad I'm also a fan of that paragon of labor peace, baseball.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The players are creating the revenue. If they dont play the revenue stops.

You cant just replace these players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same.

The players play the game, but are they the complete product?

I'm also not so sure you couldn't replace the players wholesale. There may be some short-term losses but in the long run the fans would get to know the new players.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The players play the game, but are they the complete product?

I'm also not so sure you couldn't replace the players wholesale. There may be some short-term losses but in the long run the fans would get to know the new players.

Then you are looking at a league like the UFL and CFL though. A decent National/Regional product but not an international product that generates 9 billion in revenue each year. People want to see the best play. They are not going to be easily fooled into thinking the NFL is still the best when the best college players are going to Canada to play.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Then you are looking at a league like the UFL and CFL though. A decent National/Regional product but not an international product that generates 9 billion in revenue each year.

Not at first. But once the NFL restocks for several years (through the player draft) the level of play would return (and the money).

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Not at first. But once the NFL restocks for several years (through the player draft) the level of play would return (and the money).

Perhaps they will but after this 9 billion pot gets reduced from TV networks not wanting to pay them that for "2nd tier players" while the UFL/CFL start signing some of these bigger names life will get a lot tougher and competition will be greater. It will take them a long time to get where they currently are.

Lets just say it would be a great time for someone like Bill Gates to start a league and knock the NFL down a level. They are going to piss this momentum away if they dont come to their senses.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Perhaps they will but after this 9 billion pot gets reduced from TV networks not wanting to pay them that for "2nd tier players" while the UFL/CFL start signing some of these bigger names life will get a lot tougher and competition will be greater. It will take them a long time to get where they currently are.

The NFL would have to completely crumble for the UFL, CFL or AFL to gain any ground. I actually think the reverse would happen... those leagues and the NCAA would be severely damaged as many players would be trying to get onto an NFL roster.

I'm not so sure the talent level would go down sufficiently enough for the average NFL fan to even notice. And that's really the key.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Then you are looking at a league like the UFL and CFL though. A decent National/Regional product but not an international product that generates 9 billion in revenue each year. People want to see the best play. They are not going to be easily fooled into thinking the NFL is still the best when the best college players are going to Canada to play.

The players are free to go to Canada now, or as insane as it would be, they're free to fund and join a startup league. The don't, and they won't, because the NFL, as "greedy" as its owners are, can and do offer far more than any other league. The NFL isn't offering "modern day slavery", they're not demanding a CBA with a reserve clause and a maximum salary of $50,000. They're offering a deal that keeps players rich, and the players, within their rights, are trying to get even more. There's no specific "X" number that's specifically "fair" - both sides are just trying to get every penny they can, but they are easily close enough that nobody has to consider these fantasy nuclear options. The owners' latest offer would be better for the players than trying to go to Canada or something (and if it wasn't, they'd be going off to Canada).

It a new league, or a different existing league were such a tremendous option for players then it'd be something they'd actually consider.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

The players are free to go to Canada now, or as insane as it would be, they're free to fund and join a startup league. The don't, and they won't, because the NFL, as "greedy" as its owners are, can and do offer far more than any other league. The NFL isn't offering "modern day slavery", they're not demanding a CBA with a reserve clause and a maximum salary of $50,000. They're offering a deal that keeps players rich, and the players, within their rights, are trying to get even more.

It a new league, or a different existing league were such a tremendous option for players then it'd be something they'd actually consider.

They've probably learned their collective lesson from the 1982 strike All-Star games that only drew a few thousand paying fans.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I missed this yesterday, sorry. The last proposal from the NFL had already caved on nearly everything the players wanted, it was just down to a small separate of dollars with the players barely budging at all from their position. That's why I think access to the books is a key point of the players. I'm not sure what else they expect to gain from this, they may well eat up whatever additional money they'll get in legal expenses to get it.

I'm not so sure the last offer would be considered "caving." There were some devils in the details which made the last owner's offer coming about 30% of the way instead of splitting the difference.

That being said, I wouldn't rely too much on any proposal or viewpoint that's been put out by either party to the media. There's a game within a game that we or the media are not privvy too. That's why I chuckled at Twitter on the day of decertification. Media heads like Adam Schefter, Peter King, Mike Silver etc. can only go on what their sources tell them, and there's always deliberate misleading information out there.

Also, a union's job is to accumulate as much as possible for its workers. If the Union believes it could get one penny more by decertifying than not decertifying, it's pretty much a no brainer. So, "close enough" won't end this negotiation, it will only end when the union feels it has extracted as much as it possibly can from owners.

Lastly, the most troubling thing about this conflict is that I think the players are getting fed raw information. Jeffrey Kessler, outside counsel for the Union, is a major promoter of the decertification path but also personally stands to gain much from litigation in legal fees.

Keep in mind that there was leadership turmoil in the NFLPA two years ago, as Troy Vincent (hired by the NFL...by coincidence or plan depending on what you believe...in advance of this lockout) and David Cromwell. DeMaurice was a compromise candidate who also came in with a litigation background and having a relationship with Kessler.

Simply put, I think the players are getting a pretty raw deal. New Union leaders who take an aggressive "take no prisoners" approach to their first negotiations often end up with a pretty bad "first" deal in the relationship. It happened in the early 1980's with the NFL and some would say the early 1990's with MLB.

[gstelmack]

While the players as a collective whole may be a key part of the product, only a handful of individual players are truly key. With the advent of free agency, players move from team to team, but fans still tend to focus on a particular team. I got so annoyed with this that first adult-sized Patriots jersey was a customized one with my own name and favorite number on it, because I could not trust that any particular player would still be with the team for any particular length of time. Sure, Brady may have been a safe bet, but who else?

[molson]

This is what the NFL says its last offer was. I haven't heard the players come out and say this was incorrect, or that they would have taken this deal if it had actually been offered. There's rumblings that some of the owners are glad that this offer wasn't accepted. I don't think the offers are going to get much better than this until we actually have cancelled games (at which point, both sides are losers because they're going to be shedding tons of money they'll never get back.) The union I'm sure would have a different characterization of this offer, and they're entitled to try get more, but I'm not seeing something that's going to propel the players to take a few years off and start a new enterprise, or try to play in Canada, nor do I see anything that will encourage regular Americans to revolt against the NFL and go to war on the side of the poor players (i.e. "slaves".) Every single person involved in this mess is in that "top 1%" that Americans have a growing resentment towards.

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury, the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

The union did not make a counter offer.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I guess Im not sure what business you are in but Id guess that the employees arent the actual product that is being sold.

The players are creating the revenue. If they dont play the revenue stops.

You cant just replace these players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same.

I work for a publicly traded consulting company so financial statements are readily available. Our employees are essentially the actual product that is being sold. Last year compensation and benefits was about 55% of our total revenue. Very different industry, comp structure, etc - but it's perhaps a better benchmark than looking at a typical company that has to buy raw materials or has other mfg costs.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Simply put, I think the players are getting a pretty raw deal. New Union leaders who take an aggressive "take no prisoners" approach to their first negotiations often end up with a pretty bad "first" deal in the relationship. It happened in the early 1980's with the NFL and some would say the early 1990's with MLB.

I would argue a raw deal that they brought on themselves. This is their union leadership that they voted in that is lying to them.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I would argue a raw deal that they brought on themselves. This is their union leadership that they voted in that is lying to them.

Nah, this can be one of the problems with unions. It's not as simple as it being more than 50% of players wanted Smith & Co.

There's always a concentration/handful of powerful players inside the union who really control everything. Those on the top will benefit from the new deal, those in the middle and back will be worse off than before.

[kingfc22]

Potential New Rules

Highlights of NFL conference call

ILLEGAL HITS
NFL to be more aggressive with suspensions for illegal hits next season. Rules defining defenseless players expanded to eight categories:
• QB in act of throwing
• Receiver trying to catch pass
• Runner in grasp with forward progress stopped
• Player fielding punt or kickoff
• Kicker or punter during kick
• QB after change of possession
• Receiver who receives blind-side block
• Player already on ground
KICKOFF CHANGES?
• Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20.
• No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball.
• Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.
REPLAY CHANGES?
• Committee will propose making all scoring plays reviewable. Replay official would order replays on any touchdowns, field goals, safeties and extra points without the coaches needing to challenge. Similar to current system for final two minutes of each half and overtime.
• Eliminating third coach's challenge if he is successful on first two.
NFL SCHEDULE
NFL plans to release regular-season schedule in mid-April, despite current work stoppage.

NO-GO
There will be no "Calvin Johnson rule" proposal on what is a catch.


Many more fines were implemented throughout the remainder of last season but no player was suspended, even though suspensions were considered, Anderson said. "We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," Anderson said. "The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul." The league looks at two years worth of plays to determined repeat offenders.

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:
• A quarterback in the act of throwing;
• A receiver trying to catch a pass;
• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;
• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;
• A kicker or punter during the kick;
• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;
• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;
• A player already on the ground.

At next week's owners meetings in New Orleans, the competition committee will propose moving the kickoff up to the 35-yard line, and bringing a touchback out to the 25. There would be no changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with the ball coming out to the 20. No player other than the kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind the ball, and the committee will suggest outlawing the wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009. "The injury rate on kickoffs remains a real concern for us and the players and the coaches' subcommittee," said Falcons president Rich McKay, the chairman of the competition committee. "This is a pretty major change." So would be making all scoring plays reviewable, another proposal the committee will bring to the owners on Monday. This change would empower the replay official to order replays on any touchdowns, field goals, safeties and extra points without the coaches needing to challenge. It would be similar to the current system for the final two minutes of each half and for overtime. It also would mirror what colleges do on scoring plays for entire games. Eliminating a third coach's challenge if he is successful on the first two also will be proposed; McKay said the third challenge rarely was used. There will be no "Calvin Johnson rule" proposal on what is a catch. Johnson seemingly made a touchdown reception late in the Lions' season opener last September, but had it ruled incomplete because, with the ball still in his hand, it touched the ground as he raced off to celebrate. McKay's committee is only recommending a further clarification of the rules on such receptions. "We confirmed a rule that has been there for more than 70 years which basically says there are three elements to a catch," McKay said. "Secure the ball in your hands; maintain control when have you two feet down or any body part other than the hands [are down]; and we will write it into the rules that you must control the ball long enough after 'A' and 'B' [to] enable you to perform any act common to the game. That doesn't mean you have to perform the act, but must have the ability to. "Would Calvin Johnson's be a catch under 2011 rules? Our answer would be no." NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league plans to release the regular-season schedule in mid-April, despite the current work stoppage. "A specific date is not set," Aiello said. "We plan to do what we normally do."

Why not just give the QB's flags or have turn the league into two-hand touch. I'm all for player safety, but this is bordering on turning football into non-football.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Nah, this can be one of the problems with unions. It's not as simple as it being more than 50% of players wanted Smith & Co.

There's always a concentration/handful of powerful players inside the union who really control everything. Those on the top will benefit from the new deal, those in the middle and back will be worse off than before.

One of the reasons I hate unions

But it still doesn't make me have any more sympathy for them or anything.

[JediKooter]

They should just put the QBs in a cage with an opening for their arms, so they can throw the ball.

[GrantDawg]

Drop back, pump fake, drop back, pump fake, pump fake, pump fake, throw.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Potential New Rules


Why not just give the QB's flags or have turn the league into two-hand touch. I'm all for player safety, but this is bordering on turning football into non-football.

Funny, I support most of these changes. Eliminate the illusion of giving support to the defense.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

This is what the NFL says its last offer was. I haven't heard the players come out and say this was incorrect, or that they would have taken this deal if it had actually been offered. There's rumblings that some of the owners are glad that this offer wasn't accepted. I don't think the offers are going to get much better than this until we actually have cancelled games (at which point, both sides are losers because they're going to be shedding tons of money they'll never get back.) The union I'm sure would have a different characterization of this offer, and they're entitled to try get more, but I'm not seeing something that's going to propel the players to take a few years off and start a new enterprise, or try to play in Canada, nor do I see anything that will encourage regular Americans to revolt against the NFL and go to war on the side of the poor players (i.e. "slaves".) Every single person involved in this mess is in that "top 1%" that Americans have a growing resentment towards.

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury, the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

The union did not make a counter offer.

This are all theoretically player 'wins'. Has the list of owner 'wins' from that last proposal ever been released? I can't imagine all the points went in favor o the players.

[gstelmack]

This post's for Pumpy:

Two NFL receivers heading back to Arena Football League - NFL - SI.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This are all theoretically player 'wins'. Has the list of owner 'wins' from that last proposal ever been released? I can't imagine all the points went in favor o the players.

The player split of the total revenue wouldn't be a total win there, the nfl was just splitting the difference. But I think that's the only thing that the players were asking for that was holding up a deal (and the access to the NFL teams' financial information - though that's kind of related.)

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

One of the reasons I hate unions

But it still doesn't make me have any more sympathy for them or anything.

Spare me - these guys are not you. They have actually, high value skills that you simply don't possess. In this case, you have an NFL that is trying to have their cake and eat it too, while actively planning for a lockout and penalizing the players as a result (Doty's ruling ought to be pretty damn clear on that).

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Spare me - these guys are not you. They have actually, high value skills that you simply don't possess. In this case, you have an NFL that is trying to have their cake and eat it too, while actively planning for a lockout and penalizing the players as a result (Doty's ruling ought to be pretty damn clear on that).

Don't fall for the emotional appeals by either side. This is a business matter and both sides made professional decisions which both believe best serve each own sides' interest.

I don't feel bad for the owners or the players. I feel bad for fans who are missing out on free agency and a normal NFL offseason.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I feel bad for fans who are missing out on free agency and a normal NFL offseason.

Don't feel bad for me. The offseason is generally the only thing that is worse than the season for Bengals fans. I'm hoping for a long lockout and a two week mad scramble for free agents/draft picks. Quickly watching Mike Brown do nothing would be better than slowly watching Mike Brown do nothing.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Don't fall for the emotional appeals by either side. This is a business matter and both sides made professional decisions which both believe best serve each own sides' interest.

I don't feel bad for the owners or the players. I feel bad for fans who are missing out on free agency and a normal NFL offseason.

I'm not falling for an emotional appeal - I've followed the details pretty closely, and I'm comfortable in my stance re: favoring the players. I absolutely hate ever time some fan claims "his job pays him $50K and the players should be thankful" bit. In this case, you have the owners opting out of a deal, and then blaming the players for it.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm not falling for an emotional appeal - I've followed the details pretty closely, and I'm comfortable in my stance re: favoring the players. I absolutely hate ever time some fan claims "his job pays him $50K and the players should be thankful" bit. In this case, you have the owners opting out of a deal, and then blaming the players for it.

I think that's a simple view of it, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Raiders Army]

Missed this stuff the past few days.

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

like jbergey said where does your allegiance lie. the washington redskins? the green bay meat packers? the cleveland paul browns? you're gonna cheer for a bunch of flunkies in cowboy uniforms because it's tradition? that's silly.

I'm not sure it's as silly as you think. People have cheered for the different people in the same uniforms for a long time because it's tradition.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I guess Im not sure what business you are in but Id guess that the employees arent the actual product that is being sold.

The players are creating the revenue. If they dont play the revenue stops.

You cant just replace these players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same.

You can surely replace players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same in the long run.



I'm sorry I missed this conversation. It sounds a lot like what Todd McFarlane, et al did in the 1990s. A bunch of artists at Marvel wanted more of the profits from their creativity. They left and made their own company, Image. See what happened there.

[Mustang]

This battle over the public's opinion is pretty stupid. Not like we are going to pay either side more or less depending on who we 'side' with. "Oh.. I hate the owners and support the players so, I'm not going to go to any games" "Oh.. I hate the players now so I'm not going to watch any games". End result is the same.

My only opinion is that you have 2 sides, a pool of $9B with each side trying to grab as much money as possible. If you can't figure out how to do it without damaging your image then you are idiots.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Missed this stuff the past few days.
I'm not sure it's as silly as you think. People have cheered for the different people in the same uniforms for a long time because it's tradition.

You can surely replace players with cheaper options and expect business to be the same in the long run.

I'm sorry I missed this conversation. It sounds a lot like what Todd McFarlane, et al did in the 1990s. A bunch of artists at Marvel wanted more of the profits from their creativity. They left and made their own company, Image. See what happened there.

we can't talk about this or else logan will call in an air strike on fantasyland and i don't want the deaths of 350 million imaginary people on my hands.

also, coming from a raiders fan i'll just go ahead and concede you the point.

[Logan]

Not my fault you're delusional pal.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm not falling for an emotional appeal - I've followed the details pretty closely, and I'm comfortable in my stance re: favoring the players. I absolutely hate ever time some fan claims "his job pays him $50K and the players should be thankful" bit. In this case, you have the owners opting out of a deal, and then blaming the players for it.

I think you are misunderstanding my arguments. The chain here was someone arguing that since the players ARE the product, they should enjoy a bigger slice of the pie. I pointed out that they already HAVE a huge chunk of that pie, getting over 50% of revenue, and that doesn't include their medical care, etc. My comment about "I wish my company paid employees 50% of revenue" was reinforcing that these guys are already paid a much higher percentage of the business than other typical employees, so they are already getting paid well more than people who aren't the product.

I've also argued that collectively they might be part of the product, but individually it's only a true handful, so not sure how much that holds water.

I'm also not going to cry a river over the fact that the union leadership is driving the players off a cliff, because it's THEIR leadership.

I don't have a ton of sympathy for either side, although the more I listen to what's going on, the less sympathy I have for the players, because they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth every time they talk ("no 18 game schedules, player safety is our #1 priority!" alongside "stop fining me for hitting defenseless players!", "I don't WANT to wear the concussion-reducing helment, it looks goofy!", and "why should I wear thigh pads, they slow me down!")

There has been some hypocrisy from the owners as well (fining players for hits vs putting them up for sale on the site), but so far I haven't found anything they've publically asked for all that big a deal, while the players appear to just be digging for deep financial info.

Maybe the NFL owners are doing a much better PR job, but to ask me to have sympathy over whether a player earns $1 million instead of $1.2 million (a typical case), or Peyton Manning only gets $18 million / year instead of $20 million+ / year (an outlier), sorry, it ain't happening. Of course, I also don't have a lot of sympathy for owners complaining about a billion dollars out of a 9 billion dollar pie either, as they've priced out fans from attending stadiums for a long time, their restrictions on when and how I can watch the games, etc makes it hard for me to be a fan.

But you don't see me defending owners all that much, other than saying it looks to me like they've come closer to the players' position than the players have compromised at all. It's just that I see all this "I'm on the players' side because they're getting screwed" talk and I just don't buy it one little bit. Even if the owners got EVERYTHING they asked for, the players would still be in great shape. So don't ask me to feel bad for EITHER side in the mess. They are arguing over how to split a huge, giant pie.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

A bunch of artists at Marvel wanted more of the profits from their creativity. They left and made their own company, Image. See what happened there.

not the same. i can throw a rock out the window and hit a comic book artist.

also, wolverine> jacksonville jaguars

Originally Posted by Logan

Not my fault you're delusional pal.

images.jpg

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

not the same. i can throw a rock out the window and hit a comic book artist.

also, wolverine> jacksonville jaguars

Attachment 2581

Well... you can throw a rock out the window and hit someone who wants to be a football player.

I have trouble siding with the players because this all seems to come down to what the top 2% - 5% are able to make. Little of what the NFL has proposed looks to affect what the low to mid tier players make.

[mckerney]

[mckerney]

Chris Kluwe on the lockout.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rest in Peace

Drew Hill has passed away | Georgia Tech

Former Georgia Tech and NFL standout Drew Hill died today at Piedmont Hospital after suffering two strokes earlier this week. He was admitted to the hospital on Thursday after becoming ill while playing golf. Funeral arrangements are pending.

Hill is in Tech’s record books in several categories: receiving yards per season (t-15th, 708, 1978), receiving yards/career (19th, 1,080, 1975-78), and yards per reception/career (t-4th, 19.3, 1975-78).

Hill, a native of Newnan, caught 634 passes for 9,831 yards and 60 touchdowns in the NFL. He was selected by the Rams in the 12th round of the NFL draft in 1979. He played for the Falcons in 1992-93.

[Passacaglia]

Wrong thread?

[Young Drachma]

That cartoon is great.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Cam Newton should not put this on his resume

Smith doesn't see Newton comparison

Akili Smith, now an offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach himself, is just hearing that some of the draft gurus have been comparing him to Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton and he doesn't see it. Unless, of course, it's the one-year wonder thing...

..."I was nowhere near the athlete that Cam is," Smith said this week. "He's an amazing runner with great moves. And we ran different offenses. I never ran the zone option. But I'll always believe I had as good an arm as anybody."

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This post's for Pumpy:

Two NFL receivers heading back to Arena Football League - NFL - SI.com

Thanks, pal.

[Suburban Rhythm]

The change with kickoffs from the 35 is huge for Pittsburgh

Josh Cribbs and Brad Smith will no longer average 40 yards per return against the Steelers special teams.

And, the Steelers are guaranteed to start drives at their own 20, rather than the 5 when Keyaron Fox blocks someone in the back on the opposite sideline of where the ball is.

Win-win

[gstelmack]

Kickoffs back to the 35 should also mean going back to the old overtime rules, since pushing kickoffs back to 30 coincides with the coin toss issues cropping up.