Judge grants preliminary injunction....

[Caveman_Nick]

What the players want, as in, changing nothing from the last CBA? Or what the players want, as in, the legal posturing they've done since the owners moved to blow up the CBA and lock them out? Because those aren't the same thing.

 

Det, you can't go on completely ignoring that the last CBA was only instituted because the players agreed to the opt-out clause. The Owners were on record at the time as not liking the direction the agreement was taken, but decided to go along in good faith IF the players agreed that the owners could opt out if they felt like the CBA was moving in the league in the direction they predicted.

 

And that's what happened.

 

The players made all sorts of ugly threats during the last CBA bargaining as well, and the Owners were the ones that gave the ground they didn't want to give. Now they want some of it back. It's not like the players have some right to the agreement that was there before, and claiming some injury on their part because the owners opted out is complete nonsense.

 

BB's point remains the most on point thing I have read on the subject IMNSHO.

[Caveman_Nick]

People credit the draft for being why the league is so competitive but the data shows that is simply not the case. Will it be a great equalizer if they can get a rookie wage scale in place? It sure will. Then again, the NBA has had one for some time and yet you still see the same guys at the top, year in and year out.

 

 

I don't find this to be true either. Look at the success OKC is having. Look at the turn-around for Boston in the last several years. Think of how good Portland will be if they can get a healthy Greg Oden on the court. Chicago is back in the mix after a long layoff.

 

Sure, the Lakers are always there and the Spurs have been there consistently since Duncan was drafted, but I see a lot of movement in teams getting better/worse.

[bpwallace49]

Its like groundhog day everytime I see these owner vs player posts . . . . .

[detlef]

Det, you can't go on completely ignoring that the last CBA was only instituted because the players agreed to the opt-out clause. The Owners were on record at the time as not liking the direction the agreement was taken, but decided to go along in good faith IF the players agreed that the owners could opt out if they felt like the CBA was moving in the league in the direction they predicted.

 

And that's what happened.

 

The players made all sorts of ugly threats during the last CBA bargaining as well, and the Owners were the ones that gave the ground they didn't want to give. Now they want some of it back. It's not like the players have some right to the agreement that was there before, and claiming some injury on their part because the owners opted out is complete nonsense.

 

BB's point remains the most on point thing I have read on the subject IMNSHO.

How does shaving off another billion off the top before the revenues are split drastically change the course of the league and prevent the league from turning into MLB.

 

Which, btw, is another over-blown deal. Guys like to pretend that the NFL is way more balanced competitively but it's really not the case. The numbers just don't support it. We went through this in another thread. I showed how (weighted by the fact that a higher % of NFL teams make the play-offs each year) there were about as many perennially good and bad teams in both leagues over the last 10-15 years, the best I could get in response was, "I know that if we bet going forward over the next 10 years, I'd prove you wrong". So, looking at actual data that shows both leagues have been equally competitive over recent history was not as good as what some dude knew in his heart would happen over the next 10. And that, for some reason, Lion's fans had more reason to have hope than Royals fans despite the fact that, for all the advantages the NFL's system apparently gives the Lions, they've pretty much sucked every year save about 5 years in the late 90s for the last 30 years. Or that Cleveland fans should feel like they have a chance because, a few years ago they went like 10-6 or something. Forget for a minute that they've sucked balls pretty much every other year since they started up again and got their franchise ripped from them some years before that.

 

But, ultimately, the NFL has Detroit, Buffalo, and Cleveland (along with teasers like Cinci) and MLB has Pitt, KC, and Mil. There's really only the Yanks and Sox that screw everything up. After that, there's as many teams who don't spend as who do spend who end up in the WS. In fact, the Marlins, who don't spend for crap have won more WS over the last 15 years than anyone other than Boston (or something like that).

 

None the less, I do agree with the cap. I think it makes sense, and I like the fact that you don't have some teams spending 4x what others are.

 

But the players aren't looking to abolish the cap. I mean, maybe they say they are now, but they weren't in 2006 and they weren't as recently as two months ago. They just wanted a bigger piece of the pie back then and want to maintain it now. And if the teams shared revenues amongst themselves better, everyone would make money and everyone would be able to compete for FAs all the same. But it's certainly a more palatable option to just take a bigger piece of the pie collectively, so that the poorer franchises can make more without that coming at the expense of the richer ones. And hell, who can blame them? I'd try as well.

 

But that's not about saving the NFL from turning into MLB, that's just about making more money. And again, that's fine. But it's not some noble gesture to preserve the quality of play, it's just businessmen trying to maximize their return. And I only have a problem with that once people start pretending it's anything but.

Edited April 26, 2011 by detlef

[detlef]

I don't find this to be true either. Look at the success OKC is having. Look at the turn-around for Boston in the last several years. Think of how good Portland will be if they can get a healthy Greg Oden on the court. Chicago is back in the mix after a long layoff.

 

Sure, the Lakers are always there and the Spurs have been there consistently since Duncan was drafted, but I see a lot of movement in teams getting better/worse.

Boston did not improve themselves via the draft and if we counted "if only"s, then there's no end to the discussion.

 

More importantly, the NBA is floundering and there are certainly markets who don't feel like they have a realistic shot at going far. Cleveland gets gifted a player like LeBron, but the moment his contract is up, they suck again. Meanwhile, you still have Golden State, Minnesota, Memphis who just won their first play-off win in franchise history, Toronto who had a decent run some time ago but is largely irrelevant year in and year out, The Clippers who are the worst franchise in the history of pro sports and the list goes on.

 

It should also be noted that the draft should help sports like basketball more than any other because you can be an elite team on the strength of two stars. Football, Hockey, and Baseball that is truly not the case.

 

ETA: Obviously Boston drafted both Pierce and Rondo (though I don't recall either being super high picks, top half of the 1st round, but it wasn't a Shaq or LeBron or Duncan situation where they turned a last place team into a contender). At any rate, they won it all once they traded for Garnett and Allen

Edited April 26, 2011 by detlef

[Caveman_Nick]

How does shaving off another billion off the top before the revenues are split drastically change the course of the league and prevent the league from turning into MLB.

 

Which, btw, is another over-blown deal. Guys like to pretend that the NFL is way more balanced competitively but it's really not the case. The numbers just don't support it. We went through this in another thread. I showed how (weighted by the fact that a higher % of NFL teams make the play-offs each year) there were about as many perennially good and bad teams in both leagues over the last 10-15 years, the best I could get in response was, "I know that if we bet going forward over the next 10 years, I'd prove you wrong". So, looking at actual data that shows both leagues have been equally competitive over recent history was not as good as what some dude knew in his heart would happen over the next 10. And that, for some reason, Lion's fans had more reason to have hope than Royals fans despite the fact that, for all the advantages the NFL's system apparently gives the Lions, they've pretty much sucked every year save about 5 years in the late 90s for the last 30 years. Or that Cleveland fans should feel like they have a chance because, a few years ago they went like 10-6 or something. Forget for a minute that they've sucked balls pretty much every other year since they started up again and got their franchise ripped from them some years before that.

 

But, ultimately, the NFL has Detroit, Buffalo, and Cleveland (along with teasers like Cinci) and MLB has Pitt, KC, and Mil. There's really only the Yanks and Sox that screw everything up. After that, there's as many teams who don't spend as who do spend who end up in the WS. In fact, the Marlins, who don't spend for crap have won more WS over the last 15 years than anyone other than Boston (or something like that).

 

None the less, I do agree with the cap. I think it makes sense, and I like the fact that you don't have some teams spending 4x what others are.

 

But the players aren't looking to abolish the cap. I mean, maybe they say they are now, but they weren't in 2006 and they weren't as recently as two months ago. They just wanted a bigger piece of the pie back then and want to maintain it now. And if the teams shared revenues amongst themselves better, everyone would make money and everyone would be able to compete for FAs all the same. But it's certainly a more palatable option to just take a bigger piece of the pie collectively, so that the poorer franchises can make more without that coming at the expense of the richer ones. And hell, who can blame them? I'd try as well.

 

But that's not about saving the NFL from turning into MLB, that's just about making more money. And again, that's fine. But it's not some noble gesture to preserve the quality of play, it's just businessmen trying to maximize their return. And I only have a problem with that once people start pretending it's anything but.

 

You know what? I am not in a position to make the case on one side or the other.

 

I AM in a position to observe that the last CBA was signed somewhat under protest by the owners in order to avoid a labor dispute at the time. I can observe that this clause was added so that the Owners could opt out if things were not going in the right direction for their business as they saw fit. And I can observe that BB's observation that I quoted was spot on.

 

You want to have NFL football in the future? I do...and the only way I see that happening is if the owners are successful in maintaining a positive or even growth direction.

[Caveman_Nick]

Boston did not improve themselves via the draft and if we counted "if only"s, then there's no end to the discussion.

 

More importantly, the NBA is floundering and there are certainly markets who don't feel like they have a realistic shot at going far. Cleveland gets gifted a player like LeBron, but the moment his contract is up, they suck again. Meanwhile, you still have Golden State, Minnesota, Memphis who just won their first play-off win in franchise history, Toronto who had a decent run some time ago but is largely irrelevant year in and year out, The Clippers who are the worst franchise in the history of pro sports and the list goes on.

 

It should also be noted that the draft should help sports like basketball more than any other because you can be an elite team on the strength of two stars. Football, Hockey, and Baseball that is truly not the case.

 

ETA: Obviously Boston drafted both Pierce and Rondo (though I don't recall either being super high picks, top half of the 1st round, but it wasn't a Shaq or LeBron or Duncan situation where they turned a last place team into a contender). At any rate, they won it all once they traded for Garnett and Allen

 

Boston traded draft picks and young, recently drafted talent for players. We often grade team's drafts in the NFL keeping trades of picks in mind. I don't see why this is so different.

 

LA has stayed on top because they got lucky with Kobe in that nobody else wanted the baggage.

 

Cleveland is a great example...they got better through the draft. Their inability to maintain that excellence is their own fault, not the draft's fault.

[Brent]

I agree with you about this, but the prior post about letting all of the current players walk and have the NFL be only about fresh out of college players for the next couple of years was just as ignorant. No way revenue remains the same with that line of thought. The NFL would shut it's doors before the level of player quality was achieved.

 

 

First of all, it would never come to that, as the players will cave to the owners demands, and if they didnt, they can get a real job. Nothing ignorant about the threat of such tactics, cause isnt that exactly what the NFL was doing locking the players out. And you think the NFL would shuts its doors before the level of player quality was achieved, umm have you ever heard of scabs crossing the picket lines, and playing regular season games until the players came back to their demands. Its already happened several times in the past.

[detlef]

You know what? I am not in a position to make the case on one side or the other.

 

I AM in a position to observe that the last CBA was signed somewhat under protest by the owners in order to avoid a labor dispute at the time. I can observe that this clause was added so that the Owners could opt out if things were not going in the right direction for their business as they saw fit. And I can observe that BB's observation that I quoted was spot on.

 

You want to have NFL football in the future? I do...and the only way I see that happening is if the owners are successful in maintaining a positive or even growth direction.

Fair enough.

 

If had to guess, I'd say it went something like this. The players wanted a bigger cut of the pie, so the owners pushed back and got the slice off the top. As revenues grew, that slice meant their overall share would decrease because the percentages matter more than fixed returns. The owners new that and realized that, by opting out, they could change the deal before that came back to bite them in the ass.

 

So they tried a reset to undo the respective diminishing overall cut they got as revenues increased. And it seems the players are wise to that.

 

At any rate, I've never contended that either side was proposing a deal that made more sense than the other. Rather, that each side was going to get what they could. None the less, it's always a safe assumption that it is in the best interest of the league, long term, if ownership gets as much as they want. Especially if the labor base is well compensated. Thus, as a fan, it makes sense to be on the side of the owners. After all, the league will not fold if players can't expect better than $5 million per year. My issue with that is that I don't like the precedent and don't think we should give that allegiance carte blanche, just because it's the way most likely to deliver us a product.

 

I'm betting that the owners are doing well enough under the expire CBA that we weren't under any risk of having teams pull up stakes and quit, so I guess I don't see the situation as dire as some or as big a threat to the long-term health.

[detlef]

Boston traded draft picks and young, recently drafted talent for players. We often grade team's drafts in the NFL keeping trades of picks in mind. I don't see why this is so different.

 

LA has stayed on top because they got lucky with Kobe in that nobody else wanted the baggage.

 

Cleveland is a great example...they got better through the draft. Their inability to maintain that excellence is their own fault, not the draft's fault.

So what about the perennial also-rans I mentioned? And LA's run at the top started when they signed Shaq as a FA.

 

None the less, the NBA is in a unique position where a single great player can make immediate impacts and turn a team around. Not many other sports enjoy that. Yet, despite this, there are as many teams that fail to improve themselves in this manner as there are who don't.

 

So, even given the rookie salary structure that really makes having a top pick a great thing. Even given the fact that one player can make a huge impact and turn a team around immediately. It's still sort of hit and miss and that can't overcome the fact that some teams are just destined to be crappy.

[Brent]

What the players want, as in, changing nothing from the last CBA? Or what the players want, as in, the legal posturing they've done since the owners moved to blow up the CBA and lock them out? Because those aren't the same thing.

 

Let us not forget that the players would have been completely happy playing under the CBA that was agreed upon in 2006, and that had nothing to do with abolishing the draft or any of the things that that the league wants to pretend the players are all about.

 

As far as the all-mighty draft is concerned. Why does everyone assume that everyone would all go to the best or richest teams when Free Agents, time and again, prove that does not happen? History is littered with guys eschewing offers from winning teams to "be the man" for a lesser team. Why would rookies be any different?

 

People credit the draft for being why the league is so competitive but the data shows that is simply not the case. Will it be a great equalizer if they can get a rookie wage scale in place? It sure will. Then again, the NBA has had one for some time and yet you still see the same guys at the top, year in and year out.

 

 

Not this yr you dont. San Antonio is about to be the 2nd #1 seed to lose to a 8 seed, and its Memphis doing the damage. New Orleans is tied 2-2 with the mighty Lakers, and this is without David West. Indiana should have the bulls down 3-1, but its 3-1 the other way. Parity in the NBA is starting to exist. And had it not been for Lebron and Bosh going to Miami, they were only a borderline playoff team a year ago, where Cleveland went from best record in the NBA last yr, to worst record this year.

 

The players want the MLB set of rules, where the rich get richer. And while Im against it in MLB, because the Yankees buy players almost every year. In the NFL it would be my Dallas Cowboys turning the Packers and Chiefs into the Royals and Brewers of baseball. Minor league teams grooming talent that will be plucked from them when their contract expires. And how often really do the Yankees not get their man. I know it happened last yr with Cliff Lee, but Philly actually offered him more money per year, just less years than New York, and Philly isnt a small market team either. You bet your ass the players would flock to teams with the most resources to pay them. For the mere fact there would be a Scott Boras of the the NFL leading them to the highest bidder if there wasnt a salary cap. And all he would have to do is show them how much money they have pissed away already, showing them they need the biggest payday they can get. A rookie pay scale would eliminate rookies getting paid more than veterans before they ever played an NFL down. It would also make rookies more valuable, as you could pay them less. So teams would be carrying more youth, at a lower salary, then having to pay a 5th year vet to play on special teams. This is why the players dont want the rookie scale, it isnt that they want the rookies getting paid that much, its that they want to have an opportunity to make a living themselves, those who are not pro bowlers, instead of being replaced by much cheaper players, aka rookies who make a fraction of what they might make after being in the year half a decade. .

Edited April 26, 2011 by Brent

[Brent]

I've never agreed with this dude before... but he's spot on with regard to this.

 

 

You have never been right before. Welcome to the party.

[NAUgrad]

First of all, it would never come to that, as the players will cave to the owners demands, and if they didnt, they can get a real job. Nothing ignorant about the threat of such tactics, cause isnt that exactly what the NFL was doing locking the players out. And you think the NFL would shuts its doors before the level of player quality was achieved, umm have you ever heard of scabs crossing the picket lines, and playing regular season games until the players came back to their demands. Its already happened several times in the past.

I agree that it would never come to that. It was actually a completely ridiculous series of posts which was my point. Thank you.

 

Scabs were a very short period of time and attendance absolutely dropped during that time. Are you aware of how things worked out during scabs? Do you actually think a season of "scabs" would have any prayer of not losing its ass during that season? Is that the discussion you want to have? Because that seems like a pretty stupid discussion and really has nothing to do with what's happening now in the NFL. Scabs aren't an option in any way currently as the current players and owners know they need each other in order to make this work.

[detlef]

Not this yr you dont. San Antonio is about to be the 2nd #1 seed to lose to a 8 seed, and its Memphis doing the damage. New Orleans is tied 2-2 with the mighty Lakers, and this is without David West. Indiana should have the bulls down 3-1, but its 3-1 the other way. Parity in the NBA is starting to exist. And had it not been for Lebron and Bosh going to Miami, they were only a borderline playoff team a year ago, where Cleveland went from best record in the NBA last yr to worst record this year.

 

The players wants the MLB set of rules, where the rich get richer. And while Im against it in MLB, because the Yankees buy players every year. In the NFL it would be my Dallas Cowboys turning the Packers and Chiefs into the Royals and Brewers of baseball. Minor league teams grooming talent that will be plucked from them when their contract expires. And how often really does the Yankees not get their man. I know it happened last yr with Cliff Lee, but Philly actually offered him more money per year, just less years than New York, and Philly isnt a small market team either. You bet your ass the players would flock to teams with the most resources to pay them. For the mere fact there would be a Scott Boras of the the NFL leading them to the highest bidder if there wasnt a salary cap. And all he would have to do is show them how much money they have pissed away already, showing them they need the biggest payday they can get. A rookie pay scale would eliminate rookies getting getting paid more than veterans before they ever played an NFL down. It would also make rookies more valuable, as you could pay them less. So teams would be carrying more youth, at a lower salary, then having to pay a 5th year vet to play on special teams. This is why the players dont want the rookie scale, it isnt that they want the rookies getting paid that much, its that they want to have an opportunity to make a living themselves, those who are not pro bowlers, instead of being replaced by much cheaper players, aka rookies who make a fraction of what they might make after being in the year half a decade.

Again, the dispute, at least before it hit the courts, had nothing to do with abolishing the draft of the salary cap. So this has nothing to do with some teams not being able to keep up.. it was about how much more than the $1 Billion the owners were getting, they were going to get off the top. The players were not looking to do any of the things that are being thrown around. That didn't even come up until the owners locked them out and all bets were off.

 

Also, the players have already conceded the rookie cap, the only question is who gets the savings. Whether that goes to the vets or to the owners. Honestly, I wish they just would have split the money up and called it a day.

 

It's a complete untruth that players fear a rookie wage scale because it would mean rosters would be dominated by rookies at the expense of vets because they'd all be cheaper. According to the NFL, any rookies drafted in the 2nd round or later would make as much or more than they do now. So, ultimately, you're really only talking about 15 or so rookies a year who are making less in the new plan and none of these guys are the ones fighting for special teams jobs with vets. These are all high profile players who are slated to be starters either right away or very soon.

 

Also, as for the NBA. That Memphis team that you're heralding as en example of NBA parity? They've just won the first 3 play-off games in the history of their franchise. LA is tired as hell and ready to be replaced. Even the Yanks fell off after a while (oddly enough once their focus shifted from homegrown talent to cherry picking everyone else's best players). And I don't care what Indy should be vs the Bulls, the fact is, they just staved off getting swept.

Edited April 26, 2011 by detlef

[Brent]

I agree that it would never come to that. It was actually a completely ridiculous series of posts which was my point. Thank you.

 

Scabs were a very short period of time and attendance absolutely dropped during that time. Are you aware of how things worked out during scabs? Do you actually think a season of "scabs" would have any prayer of not losing its ass during that season? Is that the discussion you want to have? Because that seems like a pretty stupid discussion and really has nothing to do with what's happening now in the NFL. Scabs aren't an option in any way currently as the current players and owners know they need each other in order to make this work.

 

 

My point wasnt scabs were the way to go, I was pointing out where you said the league would fold before it got to that, and it didnt, so you were wrong.

 

And there was nothing ridiculous about my posts, it was posturing to the players, and thats what happened with the lock out. And now we are headed to appeals, which may very well put us back in a lock out. Sure the owners need the players, but players become expendable very quickly as there is always new talent.

[Bronco Billy]

In MLB, the bottom two thirds of the league are nothing but developmental systems for the upper third, most notably the Yankees, Boston, and the Phillies. The lower teams invest the time, capital, and effort to grow talent in their minor league systems, bring the players to the bigs and provide more training that enables them to flourish, and then the big boys simply throw $20M/yr at those studs and rape the lower teams of that talent.

 

The NBA is a joke in its soft cap/Bird exemption and now in that uber-stud players are going to determine what ideal locales they can form their little cadre of uber-star buddies so that the same 4-6 teams will meet in the final year after year.

 

Is this what we want the NFL to turn into? Why do you think the NFL has turned into the finacial juggernaut that it is? Fans have hope every year at the start of the season - legit hope, not pipe dreams. It's because the league requires all teams to play on a financially equivalent field, which guarantees a spread of great talent. Sure, there are teams that have poor business models - CLE and CIN come immediately to mind. But overall teams rise & fall through eras where they can grow and keep enough great players and then fill around them with capable role players. It's why NFL teams generally operate on 3 to 5 year windows. The teams that perform well understand and manage these windows better than the others - but the others aren't immediately handicapped by innate unequal talent levels created by some teams paying more than others - its because of their own errors in talent evaluation or poor coaching. On most teams, that can be overcome by change in personnel/coaching. But every team has a real opportunity to make those changes that is equal to all its brethren in the league.

 

The shared revenues and the hard cap accompanied by the FA system and the draft is a superb check and balance system. Anyone who looks at it objectively can only marvel at the final product and how great that product is, especially in comparison to all other major pro leagues. To think that the product can be fundamentally changed without unintended (or intended in some cases) consequences is just foolish.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Brent]

Again, the dispute, at least before it hit the courts, had nothing to do with abolishing the draft of the salary cap. So this has nothing to do with some teams not being able to keep up.. it was about how much more than the $1 Billion the owners were getting, they were going to get off the top. The players were not looking to do any of the things that are being thrown around. That didn't even come up until the owners locked them out and all bets were off.

 

Also, the players have already conceded the rookie cap, the only question is who gets the savings. Whether that goes to the vets or to the owners. Honestly, I wish they just would have split the money up and called it a day.

 

It's a complete untruth that players fear a rookie wage scale because it would mean rosters would be dominated by rookies at the expense of vets because they'd all be cheaper. According to the NFL, any rookies drafted in the 2nd round or later would make as much or more than they do now. So, ultimately, you're really only talking about 15 or so rookies a year who are making less in the new plan and none of these guys are the ones fighting for special teams jobs with vets. These are all high profile players who are slated to be starters either right away or very soon.

 

 

 

Why do you think the NFL is moving the kickoff up 5 yards. So more kicks are touch backs, making this part of special teams less important, and CHEAPER to fill roster spots. If 90% of kickoffs are touchbacks, teams are less likely to spend as much on kickoff return and kickoff coverage. And with the lockout, they got this done with little resistance from the NFLPA. Do you really think safety was the reason for this change, hell no. It was about the bottom line. So if owners get a break in the 1st round of the draft, with a rookie pay scale. And then they are able to use rookies who make less than vets on special teams, they just cut payroll in 2 areas at once. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture, not just what you read.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Brent

[detlef]

In MLB, the bottom to thirds of the league are nothing but developmental systems for the upper third, most notably the Yankees, Boston, and the Phillies. The lower teams invest the time, capital, and effort to grow talent in their minor league systems, bring the players to the bigs and proivde more training that enables them to flourish, and then the big boys simply throw $20M/yr at those studs and rape the lower teams of that talent.

 

The NBA is a joke in its soft cap/Bird exemption and now in that uber-stud players are going to determine what ideal locales they can form their little cadre of uber-star buddies so that the same 4-6 teams will meet in the final year after year.

 

Is this what we want the NFL to turn into? Why do you think the NFL has turned into the finacial juggernaut that it is? Fans have hope every year at the start of the season - legit hope, not pipe dreams. It's because the league requires all teams to play on a financially equivalent field, which guarantees a spread of great talent. Sure, there are teams that have poor business models - CLE and CIN come immediately to mind. But overall teams rise & fall through eras where they can grow and keep enough great players and then fill around them with capable role players. It's why NFL teams generally operate on 3 to 5 year windows. The teams that perform well understand and manage these windows better than the others - but the others aren't immediately handicapped by innate unequal talent levels created by some teams paying more than others - its because of their own errors in talent evaluation.

 

The shared revenues and the hard cap accompanied by the FA system and the draft is a superb check and balance system. Anyone who looks at it objectively can only marvel at the final product and how great that product is, especially in comparison to all other major pro leagues. To think that the product can be fundamentally changed without unintended (or intended in some cases) consequences is just foolish.

Again, how would the owners shaving an additional $1 Billion off the top stop the NFL from turning into MLB? Because that's why we are where we are. The players negotiated a deal that had no effect on the competitive balance of the league (case in point, the Packers and the Steelers are in markets who would be the kind that would not be able to compete if the NFL turned into a free for all and they both did just fine under the last years of the expired CBA). And the only thing the owners wanted to change and enough to stop play, was to take more off the top.

 

Abolishing the cap was not on the table when that happened. Abolishing the draft was not on the table when that happened. So, what the players did that you seemed to think is worthy of blaming them for trying to drastically change the direction and competitive balance of the league was not be willing to surrender that chunk of money?

 

Interesting. Now that we're done pretending that the owners are actually trying to give the players a better deal that they had, we've shifted to pretending that this whole thing is about the players trying to abolish the salary cap and draft?

[MikesVikes]

Why do you think the NFL is moving the kickoff up 5 yards. So more kicks are touch backs, making this part of special teams less important, and CHEAPER to fill roster spots. If 90% of kickoffs are touchbacks, teams are less likely to spend as much on kickoff return and kickoff coverage. And with the lockout, they got this done with little resistance from the NFLPA. Do you really think safety was the reason for this change, hell no. It was about the bottom line. So if owners get a break in the 1st round of the draft, with a rookie pay scale. And then they are able to use rookies who make less than vets on special teams, they just cut payroll in 2 areas at once. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture, not just what you read.

 

Is the league minimum going to take a hit? I don't think that those players are the ones causing the owners to lose sleep at night wondering how they can pay these guys.

[MikesVikes]

In MLB, the bottom two thirds of the league are nothing but developmental systems for the upper third, most notably the Yankees, Boston, and the Phillies. The lower teams invest the time, capital, and effort to grow talent in their minor league systems, bring the players to the bigs and provide more training that enables them to flourish, and then the big boys simply throw $20M/yr at those studs and rape the lower teams of that talent.

 

The NBA is a joke in its soft cap/Bird exemption and now in that uber-stud players are going to determine what ideal locales they can form their little cadre of uber-star buddies so that the same 4-6 teams will meet in the final year after year.

 

Is this what we want the NFL to turn into?

 

I hope that the NFL can do better than the others.

[detlef]

Why do you think the NFL is moving the kickoff up 5 yards. So more kicks are touch backs, making this part of special teams less important, and CHEAPER to fill roster spots. If 90% of kickoffs are touchbacks, teams are less likely to spend as much on kickoff return and kickoff coverage. And with the lockout, they got this done with little resistance from the NFLPA. Do you really think safety was the reason for this change, hell no. It was about the bottom line. So if owners get a break in the 1st round of the draft, with a rookie pay scale. And then they are able to use rookies who make less than vets on special teams, they just cut payroll in 2 areas at once. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture, not just what you read.

Once again. Exactly 15 teams per year will realize any significant savings on rookies and none of those rookies are the types that will be running down on kicks. Again, according to the NFL, they may be actually paying those late round rookies more than what they were. Besides, once there is a cap again, there will be a salary floor. The players as a whole are assured a certain percentage of the total revenues. The owners have no choice but to spend it and, thus, there is no sneaky way to save cash like doing away with the importance of kick-offs.

 

Also, do you think that eliminating kick-off returns makes the game more interesting? Do you find touchbacks more interesting than returns? I sure don't. So, if what you say is true, the owners are purposefully making the game less interesting in some sneaky way to save money. And these are the guys we're all supposed to thank for making sure the game remains the greatest game on the planet? Guys who are dumbing it down to save money on the lowest paid players on the team?

[detlef]

Is the league minimum going to take a hit? I don't think that those players are the ones causing the owners to lose sleep at night wondering how they can pay these guys.

Everything I've heard from the owners side is that they intend to increase minimum salaries. Whether that's a real increase, as in, as a percentage or whether that's simply because revenues are increasing so they're bound to go up, even if less so than they would have had the old CBA remained in place, I don't know. But the minimum salary, both for vets and rookies will increase.

 

And, again, they can't not spend money on players. Whatever the final number will be, it will almost certainly look much like what it does now, where the owners scoop some money off the top and split the rest with the players. Whatever that cut the players is, it is, and the teams have no choice but to pay it to them some how.

[Bronco Billy]

Again, how would the owners shaving an additional $1 Billion off the top stop the NFL from turning into MLB? Because that's why we are where we are. The players negotiated a deal that had no effect on the competitive balance of the league (case in point, the Packers and the Steelers are in markets who would be the kind that would not be able to compete if the NFL turned into a free for all and they both did just fine under the last years of the expired CBA). And the only thing the owners wanted to change and enough to stop play, was to take more off the top.

 

Abolishing the cap was not on the table when that happened. Abolishing the draft was not on the table when that happened. So, what the players did that you seemed to think is worthy of blaming them for trying to drastically change the direction and competitive balance of the league was not be willing to surrender that chunk of money?

 

Interesting. Now that we're done pretending that the owners are actually trying to give the players a better deal that they had, we've shifted to pretending that this whole thing is about the players trying to abolish the salary cap and draft?

 

The only one pretending here is you. The players are getting a 5% fixed increase in the cap number every year to 2014. The players are getting enhanced benefits. The players are getting more days off. Now I know you can't comprehend this, but in most logical people's minds, getting paid more every year with better benefits for less days of work is a better deal. To you apparently it is getting hosed.

 

It also completely ignores that sustained annual growth of revenues of 8% annually is simply unrealistic. That's easy to support and document, as are the increased costs of doing business and marketing to new markets since 2006 and what those costs are expected to be over the next few years.

 

Okay - got sucked in again. I'm done with you in this thread.

[kcmast]

I own stock in companies and, ultimately, have no freaking say at all in what they do. I get some stupid ballot each year that says I get to vote on things. Big deal.

 

Right now, you've got 32 owners. They all send a rep to annual meetings that decide what is good for the league. You've got guys in Buffalo who need some things and guys like Jerry Jones who want others. In fact, many argue that this whole labor dispute is about the owners realizing that they can't come to a common ground about how the teams should divide the spoils so they're just trying to increase the overall owner's share so that everyone is happy. Let's not pretend that the current situation is one big happy family.

 

Regardless, instead of 32 owners sending a guy to the table, player reps are chosen, just like they are now. Either that, or the GMs hired to run the franchises meet just like they do now.

 

Again, you need to think of it like a publicly traded company that hires executives to run the day to day. How do these places manage to make it without a sole proprietor? The only difference is that it's not publicly traded, it's collectively owned by the players. But, in terms of making policy, the average player has as much say in what goes on as the average share holder, basically none. Dumbass meatheads would have exactly as much say in what goes on as they do now. None.

 

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't think this would be remotely easy to pull off and that the players would be much better off just trying to secure the best deal they can within the current situation. But that so would the owners.

 

I"m talking about coming up with 32 "owners." How are the players going to decide who those guys are? And the players will be happy with their decisions? No chance. None.

 

How often do you vote on those stocks? Mine go in the garbage.

[detlef]

The only one pretending here is you. The players are getting a 5% fixed increase in the cap number every year to 2014. The players are getting enhanced benefits. The players are getting more days off. Now I know you can't comprehend this, but in most logical people's minds, getting paid more every year with better benefits for less days of work is a better deal. To you apparently it is getting hosed.

 

It also completely ignores that sustained annual growth of revenues of 8% annually is simply unrealistic. That's easy to support and document, as are the increased costs of doing business and marketing to new markets since 2006 and what those costs are expected to be over the next few years.

 

Okay - got sucked in again. I'm done with you in this thread.

I invite you to find one time where I said the players are getting hosed. Just once.

 

Whatever. Oh and by the way. The MLB? Where 2/3s of the teams don't stand a chance? in the last 10 years, only one team has won the WS more than once (and that team, Boston won it twice) and 14 of the 30 teams have played in it. In the NFL, where you just don't know who may be good, One team has won it 3 times, another has won it twice (that's 2 teams accounting for half the SB Championships over the last 10 years) and, like MLB a total of 14 teams have competed in it.

 

Oh, and let me help you realize what I don't think of as a "better deal".

 

Say you have a deal with your boss that pays you 10% of total sales. The company does $1 million dollars in sales, so you get $100K. The next year, sales go up a bunch. Say they go up to $1,100,000 but your boss cuts your % share to 9.5%. Is that a "better deal?" You're making more. Almost 5% more at that. Has your boss given you a "better deal" than you had? Or are you simply making more despite the fact that your deal is actually worse than it was.

 

Now, this is not passing judgment on whether the new deal makes sense or is fair or whether or not it's really the only way your boss can make ends meet. Maybe you were grossly overpaid at 10% and maybe still are at 9.5%. But, without knowing any of that, your boss just can't say. "How can you question whether or not this is a better deal for you?! You made $100K last year and this year you're going to make $104.5! Why are you not thanking me!?" That sure opens the door for him to keep slicing off your % every time sales goes up, doesn't it?

Edited April 26, 2011 by detlef