Is De Smith willing to do a deal?

[Bleedin Green]

And as to the evil greedy players-ask Kevin Everett, Mike Utley and Dennis Byrd.

Is it really that impossible to keep an objective viewpoint? Yes, because a few players have suffered some very serious injuries due to their choice of profession that means not a single player in the league is a greedy a$$hole? Give me a break. Let's of course ignore the fact that none of those listed are the kind of players who the NFLPA is currently looking out for AT ALL in their negotiations. I don't discount that these guys have a job that can potentially be very dangerous, but that's a part of the reason they are compensated as they are, but let's not pretend like that suddenly excuses every player from every action they take. There are a whole lot of MUCH more dangerous jobs out there which don't pay but a small fraction of an NFL player's salary. No disrespect in any way meant to any of the players who have been seriously injured playing the sport, but this is nothing more than trying to play the sympathy card to make an unrelated point. Not even their fellow players are looking out for those guys, just look at the class action suit recently filed by the retired players about them being shut out of the negotiations by both sides.

[Scott Dierking]

Is it really that impossible to keep an objective viewpoint? Yes, because a few players have suffered some very serious injuries due to their choice of profession that means not a single player in the league is a greedy a$$hole? Give me a break. Let's of course ignore the fact that none of those listed are the kind of players who the NFLPA is currently looking out for AT ALL in their negotiations. I don't discount that these guys have a job that can potentially be very dangerous, but that's a part of the reason they are compensated as they are, but let's not pretend like that suddenly excuses every player from every action they take. There are a whole lot of MUCH more dangerous jobs out there which don't pay but a small fraction of an NFL player's salary. No disrespect in any way meant to any of the players who have been seriously injured playing the sport, but this is nothing more than trying to play the sympathy card to make an unrelated point. Not even their fellow players are looking out for those guys, just look at the class action suit recently filed by the retired players about them being shut out of the negotiations by both sides.

Can we offer up Rae Carruth, Jamarcus Russell, etc, etc?

[T0mShane]

If we're trying to find out who's greedier, I'm gonna have to pick the guy who thinks it's perfectly fine to charge you $50 to park your car on a 6x10 piece of asphalt for four hours. But--I know, I know--they have to do that because the players make $126 million dollars and all the concessions, ticket revenue, PSL extortion and TV money that's generated doesn't cover salaries by itself.

[T0mShane]

Thank you for blowing up the idea that having my wife become a massage therapist will cause all marital issues to disappear. It was the trump card I was keeping in my back pocket, you know, just in case. Now my husbanding skills will have to stand on their own merits, feeble as they are.

What do you do for an encore, go to the mall at Christmas time where they're doing pictures and tell all the 3 year-olds that Santa Claus isn't real? You heartless monster.

I can absolutely see slats doing that, then organizing a toddler rebellion against the fascist mall propaganda machine.

[T0mShane]

How is the players union helping the Mike Utley's of the world.

Ask Dennis Byrd how the Jets helped him after his injury. From what I hear, they went above and beyond what they had to. Those are the players that actually get the help. My concern would lie with the players whose injuries ARE NOT publicized. Who is helping them?

Colin Cowherd actually brought up an interesting Devil's Advocate POV on alumni benefits this afternoon. His point was that, why should the league bear the responsibility of retroactively paying alumni just because the product has grown instead of fallen apart? Those guys (alums) negotiated their own CBA, including the language regarding pensions, when they were in the league. Why do they get to renegotiate now? If the league was falling on its face today, would they call up Franco Harris and ask him for some money back? If Ford invented the supercar tomorrow and dominated auto sales for the next twenty years, do they then have a responsibility to retroactively compensate auto-workers who retired in 1976?

[Bleedin Green]

If we're trying to find out who's greedier, I'm gonna have to pick the guy who thinks it's perfectly fine to charge you $50 to park your car on a 6x10 piece of asphalt for four hours. But--I know, I know--they have to do that because the players make $126 million dollars and all the concessions, ticket revenue, PSL extortion and TV money that's generated doesn't cover salaries by itself.

Is there even anyone out there arguing that the owners are not a bunch of greedy assholes? The dispute seems to be over whether or not that somehow, inexplicably makes the slightly-less-greedy-a$$hole players absolved of their own greed.

[T0mShane]

Is there even anyone out there arguing that the owners are not a bunch of greedy assholes? The dispute seems to be over whether or not that somehow, inexplicably makes the slightly-less-greedy-a$$hole players absolved of their own greed.

I've easily been the most pro-player guy on this board and even I never tried to argue that the players weren't greedy. Who's arguing that? A: No one.

[nycdan]

Who are these strawmen you're debating? I am completely devoid of pity.

These guys are the absolute top of their profession - even the scrubs at the bottom of NFL rosters are the cream of the crop. They are not simply laborers, they are the product. Think about strike football, or the UFL. Those things aren't selling out because it's a low grade game with low grade talent. They certainly deserve half the pie IMHO, as without them there is no pie. Right now it looks like the players have agreed to less than that, and yet they still can't get a deal done.

How they invest their money or live the rest of their lives should only be a concern in how it relates to their career on the field. Former NFL players killing themselves because of impenetrable depression as the result of multiple head traumas is a problem, for instance. I think the league is trying to school these guys on how to be smarter with their money, and I hope some of that sticks. But that's another issue entirely.

The question here is, what value do the players have in the product we call the NFL? Half the total revenue is more than fair, as they are really the whole product. People aren't lining Jerry Jones' Taj Mahal for $100+ or so a pop to watch frisbee dogs.

Are the individual players the product, or is it the uniforms. Before you jump on this, think that ten years ago, almost every player who plays today was in grade school, high school or college, but not playing NFL football. And we loved the game. 10 years from now, 95% of today's players will be retired, selling cars or life insurance, and we will still love the game. Players come and go, but the NFL and the teams (in most cases) go on. The product is really the brand of both the league and the teams.

Put it another way, if aliens came and stole every single active NFL player to go play a tournament in their dimension (gee, wouldn't that be a cool movie), we would have about 2-3 years of rough transition after which things would be almost completely normal and we would again have superstars, good players and scrubs. They may not be quite as good as the guys we have today at that point, but it's all relative and it would be pretty good football. Another year or two past that and it would be like it never happened. We could all scream about how we'd never watch the game again, and we'd almost all be fooling ourselves.

I know that sounds rough, and tends to minimalize the human beings who are the actual players, but in my view, they are a bit more of a commodity than you and many others believe. These guys are NOT performing brain surgery or designing rocket ships where a mistake will kill people. 'Best' is relative and there are always more guys out there who will kill for a chance to play in the NFL, even with a cap at 48% of revenues.

[slats]

I can absolutely see slats doing that, then organizing a toddler rebellion against the fascist mall propaganda machine.

It's easier to break them from their corporate masters at a young age.

[slats]

Are the individual players the product, or is it the uniforms. Before you jump on this, think that ten years ago, almost every player who plays today was in grade school, high school or college, but not playing NFL football. And we loved the game. 10 years from now, 95% of today's players will be retired, selling cars or life insurance, and we will still love the game. Players come and go, but the NFL and the teams (in most cases) go on. The product is really the brand of both the league and the teams.

Put it another way, if aliens came and stole every single active NFL player to go play a tournament in their dimension (gee, wouldn't that be a cool movie), we would have about 2-3 years of rough transition after which things would be almost completely normal and we would again have superstars, good players and scrubs. They may not be quite as good as the guys we have today at that point, but it's all relative and it would be pretty good football. Another year or two past that and it would be like it never happened. We could all scream about how we'd never watch the game again, and we'd almost all be fooling ourselves.

I know that sounds rough, and tends to minimalize the human beings who are the actual players, but in my view, they are a bit more of a commodity than you and many others believe. These guys are NOT performing brain surgery or designing rocket ships where a mistake will kill people. 'Best' is relative and there are always more guys out there who will kill for a chance to play in the NFL, even with a cap at 48% of revenues.

I get the whole rooting for laundry argument. I've said in the past that I'd probably root for the NY Jets if they were suddenly converted into a woman's roller derby team. But if you were to strip the league of it's 1696 current players and replace them with the next best 1696 players, the league would be a significantly inferior product. One that people would lose all interest in. Think of basketball after Michael Jordan retired - and that's just one guy.

[Larz]

I get the whole rooting for laundry argument. I've said in the past that I'd probably root for the NY Jets if they were suddenly converted into a woman's roller derby team. But if you were to strip the league of it's 1696 current players and replace them with the next best 1696 players, the league would be a significantly inferior product. One that people would lose all interest in. Think of basketball after Michael Jordan retired - and that's just one guy.

if you put ohio state in jets jerseys and michigan in patriots jerseys, 85% of the fans wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the level of play

baseball survived cancelling the WS

we are suckers for the logo's, and always will be

[jason423]

I get the whole rooting for laundry argument. I've said in the past that I'd probably root for the NY Jets if they were suddenly converted into a woman's roller derby team. But if you were to strip the league of it's 1696 current players and replace them with the next best 1696 players, the league would be a significantly inferior product. One that people would lose all interest in. Think of basketball after Michael Jordan retired - and that's just one guy.

Comparing the NBA and the NFL is like apples and oranges. There are so few players on a NBA team that one player makes a huge difference in the following of the team. Unlike the NFL they have also chosen to choose their marketing strategy based on making individual players the focal point of the league with a number of hits (Jordan, Shaq, evil LeBron) and misses(Hill, Carter, Yao- though that has certainly worked in China). The NFL is almost always about the team rivalry and the overall league play. The NFL does promote the QBs and they have always survived their retirements. The NFL went through a real special time with Elway, Marino, Montana, etc...and they then went a decade without that level of player---Aikman and Favre were probably the two best and they are way below the big players from the 80s--- and survived just fine until Manning showed up. Its such a team game you can make it look pretty good even with worse talent provided they have time to practice, which is what killed the XFL deader than dead.

[Sperm Edwards]

I've easily been the most pro-player guy on this board and even I never tried to argue that the players weren't greedy. Who's arguing that? A: No one.

That's where you're wrong. It's how I got sucked into this. I had the audacity to write that and have been hit with direct and indirect, "How are the players being greedy here?" as though I somehow care whether 32 NFL owners have $5B or $4B to split up.

[bitonti]

Put it another way, if aliens came and stole every single active NFL player to go play a tournament in their dimension (gee, wouldn't that be a cool movie), we would have about 2-3 years of rough transition after which things would be almost completely normal and we would again have superstars, good players and scrubs.

I dont agree. the super star QBs are not so replaceable. neither are the superstar DE or the star LT. or the Revis type players, or the Andre Johnsons. the product would suffer, it might take 10 years to be back to normal... i.e. another generation.

[Scott Dierking]

You know what's really odd, you don't see any players walking away from this lockout in mid-career, throwing up their hands and saying "That's it, I have had it with this profession, I can do better elsewhere".

I wonder why that is?

[slats]

You know what's really odd, you don't see any players walking away from this lockout in mid-career, throwing up their hands and saying "That's it, I have had it with this profession, I can do better elsewhere".

I wonder why that is?

Because of the NFL's monopoly?

[Scott Dierking]

Because of the NFL's monopoly?

I meant outside of football.

I read in this thread how these players are "not as well off" as general society.

Why do these players not just find other work?

[T0mShane]

Comparing the NBA and the NFL is like apples and oranges. There are so few players on a NBA team that one player makes a huge difference in the following of the team. Unlike the NFL they have also chosen to choose their marketing strategy based on making individual players the focal point of the league with a number of hits (Jordan, Shaq, evil LeBron) and misses(Hill, Carter, Yao- though that has certainly worked in China). The NFL is almost always about the team rivalry and the overall league play. The NFL does promote the QBs and they have always survived their retirements. The NFL went through a real special time with Elway, Marino, Montana, etc...and they then went a decade without that level of player---Aikman and Favre were probably the two best and they are way below the big players from the 80s--- and survived just fine until Manning showed up. Its such a team game you can make it look pretty good even with worse talent provided they have time to practice, which is what killed the XFL deader than dead.

This is an interesting debate. I know, myself, what always bothered me about products like the XFL and AFL wasn't that they sucked, necessarily, it was that the specter of the NFL loomed over it, reminding me that I wasn't watching the best players in the world. And how did I know that they weren't the best players? Because the NFL told me they weren't.

[T0mShane]

That's where you're wrong. It's how I got sucked into this. I had the audacity to write that and have been hit with direct and indirect, "How are the players being greedy here?" as though I somehow care whether 32 NFL owners have $5B or $4B to split up.

It was probably me who said it, too. Damn schizophrenia.

[Scott Dierking]

This is an interesting debate. I know, myself, what always bothered me about products like the XFL and AFL wasn't that they sucked, necessarily, it was that the specter of the NFL loomed over it, reminding me that I wasn't watching the best players in the world. And how did I know that they weren't the best players? Because the NFL told me they weren't.

The USFL was actually a very good product and they did a fine job of marketing it. It wasn't the NFL, but it certainly was entertaining to watch, and they actually had some interesting innovations, as well as style of football.

It is the GAME that people enjoy, not the players. Players certainly add interest to the game.

[T0mShane]

It is the GAME that people enjoy, not the players. Players certainly add interest to the game.

That's oversimplifying, dude. I like movies with plots, but I still understand why the actor gets $20 mil to star in it.

[slats]

That's where you're wrong. It's how I got sucked into this. I had the audacity to write that and have been hit with direct and indirect, "How are the players being greedy here?" as though I somehow care whether 32 NFL owners have $5B or $4B to split up.

I think it's a matter of relative greed. Who's greedier?

The owners were making money hand over fist, exercised their God given right to terminate the existing CBA, demanded a significant salary cap reduction, sought an 18 game season (more revenue!), and locked the players out in an attempt to get it.

The players, while certainly doing decently themselves (though not nearly as good as any owner), are pretty much just trying to hold onto what they've already got. They've been taking in roughly 52% of the total revenue, and reports are that their willing to drop that to 48% - and even 46.5% if the league exceeds expectations. If that's the case, and a deal isn't done yet, which party is really being greedy?

[slats]

The USFL was actually a very good product and they did a fine job of marketing it. It wasn't the NFL, but it certainly was entertaining to watch, and they actually had some interesting innovations, as well as style of football.

It is the GAME that people enjoy, not the players. Players certainly add interest to the game.

The USFL also paid big money to big stars to get their league off the ground - and still failed.

[jason423]

This is an interesting debate. I know, myself, what always bothered me about products like the XFL and AFL wasn't that they sucked, necessarily, it was that the specter of the NFL loomed over it, reminding me that I wasn't watching the best players in the world. And how did I know that they weren't the best players? Because the NFL told me they weren't.

The XFL had huge interest early on and their business model (unlike the USFL which paid far too much money for players relative to their intake) seemed fine to withstand the pressure of the NFL. I think people were fine, initially, with seeing guys that were either too small for the NFL or simply not good enough to stay (guys like Tommy Maddox, Jim Druckenmiller) . But when they took the field I mean they were downright pitiful. It was below the level of college play and I remembered reading how they had limited practices and something like a preseason scrimmage prior to their opening night. The level of play actually got better over time with that league, but it was already doomed from that first week.

My guess is if the NFL had a full year of lockout or strike in any given year and then came back the next season with scabs the fans wouldnt go crazy. I think what would not work is bringing scabs in during the middle of a season when the level of play is fresh in the heads of the fans. You cant fool them that way.

Whenever I think of the argument that the NFL cant survive without the current set of players I always go back to that 1980s era with the awesome defenses and HOF QB's. They all faded away by the early 1990's and you were pretty much left with Dallas as the one real incredible football team and San Francisco pretty as a really good one. The rest of the league kind of stunk and that went on through 2002 when the Bucs beat the Raiders. The NFL made you believe that players like Kerry Collins, Jake Delhomme, Rich Gannon, Dante Culpepper, Jake Plummer, Trent Green, Mark Brunell, Neil O'Donnell, etc...were some kind of superstars. Some were pretty good for a period but none of them could hold a candle to the era before or the era now. But the NFL made you think they were all something special. Nobody really knew the difference because the play was down overall. The time people began to notice was when Manning was so far superior to everyone else in the league and then Brady joined him in 2003/04 at that level. You looked around at your teams supposed stars (Pennington and Bulger for example) and realized you had no chance because the other guys were just so much better. I think that all changed with the Eli/Rivers/Roethlisberger draft as the league started to get more and more players that could at least be in the discussion with those two. I think thats a big reason why the popularity of the league has skyrocketed with teams being on more equal footing, but once they all go, and they all have a limited shelf life, the league will survive and make you t hink you are seeing something special until that next great player comes along and you think you arent.

[RutgersJetFan]

I dont agree. the super star QBs are not so replaceable. neither are the superstar DE or the star LT. or the Revis type players, or the Andre Johnsons. the product would suffer, it might take 10 years to be back to normal... i.e. another generation.

Weren't you bitching just last week about someone else playing semantics with you and missing the overall point?

[RutgersJetFan]

The XFL had huge interest early on and their business model (unlike the USFL which paid far too much money for players relative to their intake) seemed fine to withstand the pressure of the NFL. I think people were fine, initially, with seeing guys that were either too small for the NFL or simply not good enough to stay (guys like Tommy Maddox, Jim Druckenmiller) . But when they took the field I mean they were downright pitiful. It was below the level of college play and I remembered reading how they had limited practices and something like a preseason scrimmage prior to their opening night. The level of play actually got better over time with that league, but it was already doomed from that first week.

That and the weather. I may have been able to tolerate it and watch it evolve if I wasn't frozen to my seat at every game.

[bitonti]

Weren't you bitching just last week about someone else playing semantics with you and missing the overall point?

the owners are more replaceable than the players

there are 400 billionaires in the world, there aren't even 32 legitimate starting Qbs.

sitting around and signing checks... there are plenty who can do that

they could replace all 31 owners tomorrow with 31 richard branson types and the product wouldn't suffer one bit

[Sperm Edwards]

I think it's a matter of relative greed. Who's greedier?

The owners were making money hand over fist, exercised their God given right to terminate the existing CBA, demanded a significant salary cap reduction, sought an 18 game season (more revenue!), and locked the players out in an attempt to get it.

The players, while certainly doing decently themselves (though not nearly as good as any owner), are pretty much just trying to hold onto what they've already got. They've been taking in roughly 52% of the total revenue, and reports are that their willing to drop that to 48% - and even 46.5% if the league exceeds expectations. If that's the case, and a deal isn't done yet, which party is really being greedy?

Not really, but we just don't agree on it. There will be an increase, not a decrease, in the salary cap. The owners were seeking a decrease in the amount of the increase and it is not splitting hairs. The players were not satisfied with a mere increase in player dollars; they wanted an even bigger increase in dollars.

The owners feel they gamed the revenue to increase in a way greater than the mere increase in a level of play (assuming there is one anyway). From their point of view, the players shouldn't make more for work done by someone else. From the players' point of view, that's all the owners do anyway is make money off their labor. The reality is in between. If left only to the players' devices without owners & management, the league would be far less profitable and they would have a larger (if not a 100%) stake in something worth far less than ~50% of what it's worth today.

Who is greedier? Depends on one's point of view, but I don't even care which is greedier in the first place.

I don't "side" with the owners. I just don't feel it's so obviously one-sided, particularly when someone brings in slanted average salary stuff as though that makes a difference in all of this. Owners, like players, are in this for the money. I have no problem with that. Each side wants more of what the other side makes. I just don't take the hypocritical view that because the individuals on one side make less than the other that it somehow makes them less about the money than the other side.

By not backing out of the CBA the owners, from their standpoint, are making less than they feel they're entitled to. The players don't play harder than they did 5-10 years ago but feel by taking a lower percentage of deals someone else negotiated - even though it will be a net increase in revenue - that they would be making less than they're entitled to. They both want more. It's easy to point to who did what first when it isn't our wallets, unless you're someone who just realized in 2011 that owners do not continue to own football teams for the purpose of (financially or personally) enriching their fellow man.

Let's say I had a lease that was negotiated 5 years ago for $2000/month rent with 18 months left on it. If I found an equivalent place to rent, with a new 5-year lease, that's only $500/month I'm going to exercise the clause that allows me to break my lease early even if my income was sufficient enough that the difference isn't doing to significantly affect my lifestyle (if it affects it at all). I would tell the landlord to give me a new lease, starting today, with less than half what I'm paying now or I'm leaving. The argument being made on the players' behalf is I should just continue to overpay for my rent and deal with renegotiating a new lease in 18 months when something could be had for less. I don't know too many people who would do that.

Plus I just like to debate stuff. How long have you been here that you don't know that yet?

[RutgersJetFan]

the owners are more replaceable than the players

there are 400 billionaires in the world, there aren't even 32 legitimate starting Qbs.

sitting around and signing checks... there are plenty who can do that

they could replace all 31 owners tomorrow with 31 richard branson types and the product wouldn't suffer one bit

So no, you weren't?

[bitonti]

So no, you weren't?

we use words on a message board. It's all semantics. I don't remember if i complained about it. It's possible. I never promised consistency.

[flgreen]

the owners are more replaceable than the players

there are 400 billionaires in the world, there aren't even 32 legitimate starting Qbs.

sitting around and signing checks... there are plenty who can do that

they could replace all 31 owners tomorrow with 31 richard branson types and the product wouldn't suffer one bit

Assuming that your number of 400 billionaires in the world is correct (which it's not. There are more) How many of them are willing to make a billion dollar plus investment in a sport? According to Forbes there are 130 billionaires in China. Not many of them are willing to invest such a large proportion of their wealth in a sport, when there are much more profitable ventures for their wealth.

Most of the NFL owners are passionate about the NFL. It has been a life long dream for them to own an NFL team. The vast majority of billionaires don't feel that way.

The situation with the Hess family is a perfect example when Woody bought the team.

His daughter loved the Jets, and wanted to keep the team in the family. His son, not so much. Between the taxes, and the fact that a billion dollars in oil makes much more money, forced the team to be sold.

Your second point about the players being not replaceable just isn't true. Players have very short careers, and they are all replaced in a very short time. When Brady and Manning retire there will be some young guys who jump right into the lime light. We can debate if they are as good, but the game will continue at a high level.

To say that the owners do nothing except write checks is silly. What has made the NFL this 9 billion dollar industry has been the fact that it is perfect for TV.

It has been marketed by the owners flawlessly. The rules have been skilfully adjusted over the years to perfectly fit TV. The Super Bowl has almost become a National holiday. That's great marketing

The players will come and go, but as long as the greed of both the players, and owners, doesn't alienate the fan, it will continue to grow