PDA

View Full Version : Football NFLPA To Decertify By March 3rd


Mr. Flopnuts
02-26-2011, 03:17 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6161468

Absent a last-minute agreement that no one around football expects, the NFL Players Association plans to decertify by Thursday in an effort to pre-empt an owners-generated lockout, according to multiple league and union sources.

The collective bargaining agreement says the NFLPA in effect must wait six months to decertify if it does it after the collective bargaining agreement expires. It expires at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night.

If the union decertifies, it is no longer a union, and the National Labor Relations Board loses its hold over the NFLPA. The owners are expected to claim the decertification is a sham and challenge it in the NLRB.

But the NFLPA is poised to act this week before it is locked out. It already has obtained unanimous approval from players across the league to decertify, a process it undertook throughout last season and the union's executive committee reaffirmed that vote this past Tuesday to empower NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to take this action.

The primary reason for decertification would be to file for an injunction that, if granted, would prevent the owners from locking out the players. NFLPA officials and players believe that this could be the only hope to have a full NFL season next year. Furthermore, decertifying as a union prior to the expiration of the CBA would allow NFL players to seek injunctive relief and commence anti-trust action against owners in front of U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who has had jurisdiction over the current labor agreement since 1993. Owners have attempted unsuccessfully to have Doty removed from jurisdiction and strategically want the CBA to expire to effectively eliminate his authority, a source said.

The NFL and NFLPA are scheduled to meet with federal mediator George Cohen one more time on Tuesday, yet after seven days of meetings last week, Cohen said significant differences still remain.

Commissioner Roger Goodell met Friday morning with the majority of the league's ownership labor committee at the offices of the Indianapolis Colts, a league official has confirmed, briefing the 10-man group on labor negotiations.

Nine of the 10 members of the owners' labor committee were in attendance on Friday: co-chairman Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers; Mike Brown of the Cincinnati Bengals; Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs; Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys; Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots; Mark Murphy of the Green Bay Packers; John Mara of the New York Giants; Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers; and Dean Spanos of the San Diego Chargers.

Co-chairman Pat Bowlen of the Denver Broncos was absent but an official believed he participated via phone conference.

In addition to being updated by Goodell and his negotiating team, the committee was expected to honor Cohen's request to assess their positions on the "important core issues" following the past week of mediated negotiations.

Stinger
02-26-2011, 03:19 PM
.....

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v250/stinger871/Chief%20Planet/?action=view&amp;current=AndHereWeGo.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/stinger871/Chief%20Planet/AndHereWeGo.gif" border="0" alt="Here We Go"></a>

Chiefs Pantalones
02-26-2011, 03:20 PM
They are all greedy bastards. All of them.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-26-2011, 03:22 PM
They are all greedy bastards. All of them.

And that sums this whole situation up. My question is, will football come out of this unscathed? Baseball took a beating over this shit. Somehow, I think the real National pastime won't suffer so much. To me, that's unfortunate. We should make them pay by not going to games for 10 years. Ratings should drop, they should feel the effects of their greed IMHO, but I really don't think they will.

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 03:33 PM
One more successful union kill! PBJ PBJ

Donger
02-26-2011, 03:37 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?

Stinger
02-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?

Yes.... /NFL Agents

BillSelfsTrophycase
02-26-2011, 03:51 PM
Millionaires vs Billionaires

Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for either side

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 04:02 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?

Actually this is one union I have much less issue with. As long as the owners are acting as an oligarchy the players should act as a union. For competitive reasons I believe the owners need to act the way they do or we'd have Dallas spending 5X the money that the chiefs do and sharing no revenue.

tk13
02-26-2011, 04:19 PM
And that sums this whole situation up. My question is, will football come out of this unscathed? Baseball took a beating over this shit. Somehow, I think the real National pastime won't suffer so much. To me, that's unfortunate. We should make them pay by not going to games for 10 years. Ratings should drop, they should feel the effects of their greed IMHO, but I really don't think they will.

They won't. I think they could they could miss the whole season and people will come back. And probably still make more money.

Just look at the steroid problem. Baseball players are scorned... football players, nobody cares.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2011, 04:25 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?
Yes /Brock

alnorth
02-26-2011, 04:29 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?

sports are a little different. Unions are uniquely needed here, given that from the fan's perspective, we don't really want capitalism, we are more interested in some form of socialism for our entertainment.

Without a union, there is no CBA. Without a CBA, there is no salary cap, maybe less revenue sharing, perhaps no draft, and the large market teams rule the land.

Donger
02-26-2011, 04:36 PM
sports are a little different. Unions are uniquely needed here, given that from the fan's perspective, we don't really want capitalism, we are more interested in some form of socialism for our entertainment.

Without a union, there is no CBA. Without a CBA, there is no salary cap, maybe less revenue sharing, perhaps no draft, and the large market teams rule the land.

Actually this is one union I have much less issue with. As long as the owners are acting as an oligarchy the players should act as a union. For competitive reasons I believe the owners need to act the way they do or we'd have Dallas spending 5X the money that the chiefs do and sharing no revenue.

Just so I'm clear, the NFLPA called for a salary cap?

alnorth
02-26-2011, 04:39 PM
Just so I'm clear, the NFLPA called for a salary cap?

no, but the salary cap exists in the CBA. Without a union, the CBA is out the window.

Donger
02-26-2011, 04:44 PM
no, but the salary cap exists in the CBA. Without a union, the CBA is out the window.

Okay, but the main source of contention seems to be preventing the large market teams outspending the smaller market teams, and that is prevented from happening due to the CBA (and all that it brings).

If that is the case, did the large market teams outspend the smaller market teams before the CBA came into being, leading to domination based on spending?

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:04 PM
Okay, but the main source of contention seems to be preventing the large market teams outspending the smaller market teams, and that is prevented from happening due to the CBA (and all that it brings).

If that is the case, did the large market teams outspend the smaller market teams before the CBA came into being, leading to domination based on spending?

how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".

kstater
02-26-2011, 05:11 PM
Just so I'm clear, the NFLPA called for a salary cap?

It was a concession to get a salary floor.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:12 PM
Yes /Brock

Yes. /Brock

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:15 PM
how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".

Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

kstater
02-26-2011, 05:18 PM
Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:19 PM
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

Okay, and do people argue that those teams won because they out-spent the competition?

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:19 PM
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:20 PM
On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

That's a good point.

tk13
02-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Yes. /Brock

Why?

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:23 PM
Why?

To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:24 PM
Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.

good point. If there was no free agency and all teams still decided to honor the draft, then the large markets couldn't buy players.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:24 PM
To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.

Specifically what?

Mr. Laz
02-26-2011, 05:26 PM
On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.
you're insane

if the NFL loses the salary cap completely, for a long period of time, you will see teams from big markets start to take over.

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 05:27 PM
Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

Except one has to remember that there was no free agency from 87-89 from 89-93 there was 'Plan B free agency' from 93+ is what we have today. Even plan B was fairly restrictive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_B_Free_Agency

Effectively transition tags for every relevant player. The period is far too short and the lack of effective free agency to draw much in the way of conclusions on a salary cap.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:28 PM
you're insane

if the NFL loses the salary cap completely, for a long period of time, you will see teams from big markets start to take over.

The teams that spend the most don't necessarily win. Whether you have a cap or not, you're going to have teams that spend a lot more than others do, and it should be pretty obvious that you don't have to outspend anybody to win championships.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:29 PM
you're insane

if the NFL loses the salary cap completely, for a long period of time, you will see teams from big markets start to take over.

From my reading, the salary cap didn't even start until 1994. Did big market teams "take over" in the years prior to 1994?

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:31 PM
The teams that spend the most don't necessarily win. Whether you have a cap or not, you're going to have teams that spend a lot more than others do, and it should be pretty obvious that you don't have to outspend anybody to win championships.

You act as if this is a good thing. This sort of argument is better-suited for MLB. In the NFL, you had perfect parity where if you lose it is literally your fault and no one else's. Now, in a hypothetical without a salary cap, you are basically saying "well gee, we could still win. Sure, its not equal anymore and it will be harder, but we shouldn't suck every year!"

Why even compromise down from perfection?

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 05:31 PM
The teams that spend the most don't necessarily win. Whether you have a cap or not, you're going to have teams that spend a lot more than others do, and it should be pretty obvious that you don't have to outspend anybody to win championships.

You need to draft well to be consistently competitive. BUT the big key to super bowls are franchise QBs. No franchise QB would be able to stay with a small market team past their initial contract. That would likely substantially limit the ability of any small market team to win a super bowl.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:31 PM
Specifically what?

Pension benefits, medical benefits, any benefits gained through CBA. I dont' understand your question.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:32 PM
You need to draft well to be consistently competitive. BUT the big key to super bowls are franchise QBs. No franchise QB would be able to stay with a small market team post their initial contract. That would likely substantially limit the ability of any small market team to win a super bowl.

How has this ever been shown to be true? The NFL has restricted free agency. They can tie up a player for as long as they want, just franchise them year after year.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:33 PM
From my reading, the salary cap didn't even start until 1994. Did big market teams "take over" in the years prior to 1994?

You missed the part where free agency didn't exist. If there's no free agency and the draft is honored (ie, when you are drafted by the chiefs, you are a slave to the chiefs for life, until they decide they dont like you any more), then the large markets are powerless to do anything with their money.

If free agency doesn't exist and the draft is honored, we are pretty much not having this discussion and don't really care as much about the CBA. Have a union, don't have a union, whatever, we still own you if we draft you.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:35 PM
You act as if this is a good thing. This sort of argument is better-suited for MLB. In the NFL, you had perfect parity where if you lose it is literally your fault and no one else's. Now, in a hypothetical without a salary cap, you are basically saying "well gee, we could still win. Sure, its not equal anymore and it will be harder, but we shouldn't suck every year!"

Why even compromise down from perfection?

KC didn't sniff a SB with or without a salary cap. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh, with or without a salary cap, wins championships. It isn't the amount of money you spend.

tk13
02-26-2011, 05:35 PM
The sports landscape was way different in the 80's and early 90's than it is now. It's the same thing when people say Ewing Kauffman would've kept the Royals payroll at the top of the league if he was still alive. Back then the top baseball payrolls were like $15 million, now it's over $200 million.

The first NFL salary cap was $34 million. The last capped year two years ago, it was $128 million. I don't know if comparing 1990 to today holds water.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:35 PM
You missed the part where free agency didn't exist. If there's no free agency and the draft is honored (ie, when you are drafted by the chiefs, you are a slave to the chiefs for life, until they decide they dont like you any more), then the large markets are powerless to do anything with their money.

If free agency doesn't exist and the draft is honored, we are pretty much not having this discussion and don't really care as much about the CBA. Have a union, don't have a union, whatever, we still own you if we draft you.

Excellent explanation. Thank you. But, doesn't the "franchise tag" kind of negate free agency?

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 05:36 PM
How has this ever been shown to be true? The NFL has restricted free agency. They can tie up a player for as long as they want, just franchise them year after year.

Look at the winners of the past 18 or so SB, baring two defensive teams in the early 2000s all of them have been lead by a franchise QB. Considering how much the NFL favors offense and the passing game specifically it is unlikely, without a rule change, for a team to win a SB on defense alone.

As for the franchise tag...assuming it's kept without a salary cap...it's very easy to become irrelevant. It's still the average of the top 5 players at the position. I would not be surprised without a cap to see that number grow 20%+ a season. At that point while a small market COULD use a franchise tag, they simply couldn't afford to do so.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:37 PM
KC didn't sniff a SB with or without a salary cap. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh, with or without a salary cap, wins championships. It isn't the amount of money you spend.

This response is completely silly. KC didn't sniff a SB because they were morons. Without a salary cap, it becomes harder and there's an easy scapegoat if you fail. Right now, if you fail it is 100% your fault, not 95%, but 100% and we want your resignation as GM.

Are you somehow trying to argue that a salary cap hurt KC?

DTLB58
02-26-2011, 05:38 PM
Does anyone really think that players in the NFL need to be unionized in the present day?

Umm, Yes! As long as you have greedy owners like Jerry Jones you need to have your rights protected.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:38 PM
Excellent explanation. Thank you. But, doesn't the "franchise tag" kind of negate free agency?

maybe if it existed in the NBA. An NFL roster is rather huge, and trapping 1 player doesn't negate free agency.

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 05:39 PM
KC didn't sniff a SB with or without a salary cap. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh, with or without a salary cap, wins championships. It isn't the amount of money you spend.

And pittsburgh hadn't won a super bowl in 26 years until they drafted a franchise QB. Has KC done that?(you could argue that Montana was but ancient and also probably green), but a franchise QB doesn't guarantee a SB it's just the minimum price of admission.

JASONSAUTO
02-26-2011, 05:40 PM
This. Things have changed with the timesThe sports landscape was way different in the 80's and early 90's than it is now. It's the same thing when people say Ewing Kauffman would've kept the Royals payroll at the top of the league if he was still alive. Back then the top baseball payrolls were like $15 million, now it's over $200 million.

The first NFL salary cap was $34 million. The last capped year two years ago, it was $128 million. I don't know if comparing 1990 to today holds water.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:40 PM
This response is completely silly. KC didn't sniff a SB because they were morons. Without a salary cap, it becomes harder and there's an easy scapegoat if you fail. Right now, if you fail it is 100% your fault, not 95%, but 100% and we want your resignation as GM.

Are you somehow trying to argue that a salary cap hurt KC?

It didn't make any difference to KC. The salary cap never kept any team from signing any player they wanted to. Everybody thinks the salary cap is what introduced parity to the NFL, and that's false.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:41 PM
And pittsburgh hadn't won a super bowl in 26 years until they drafted a franchise QB. Has KC done that?(you could argue that Montana was but ancient and also probably green), but a franchise QB doesn't guarantee a SB it's just the minimum price of admission.

You keep making really obvious points as if it's something I don't already know.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:42 PM
maybe if it existed in the NBA. An NFL roster is rather huge, and trapping 1 player doesn't negate free agency.

But a team can franchise a team-changing player, right? As mentioned above, having a "franchise QB" seems to be of utmost importance to success.

CrazyPhuD
02-26-2011, 05:42 PM
It didn't make any difference to KC. The salary cap never kept any team from signing any player they wanted to. Everybody thinks the salary cap is what introduced parity to the NFL, and that's false.

No revenue sharing introduced parity. The salary cap helps reinforce it. You have to remember revenue disparity is significantly more than it used to be because only a limited amount of revenue is shared and there are now a lot more sources that are untouched. It used to be tickets and TV contracts were the lions share of revenue but that is lessening over time.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:44 PM
It didn't make any difference to KC. The salary cap never kept any team from signing any player they wanted to. Everybody thinks the salary cap is what introduced parity to the NFL, and that's false.

This is not the NBA. You could sign one player for a staggering contract a couple million under the salary cap and hand out minimums to arena league players. You might have one awesome player, but you'll go 0-16.

The salary cap prevents you from buying an entire team, it forces you to make sacrifices and be smart with your money in a league where everyone has the same resources. We aren't trying to prevent large markets from getting one player, we're preventing them from putting together half an all-star team.

Without a salary cap, the big markets have a big advantage, player salaries escalate, and it becomes tougher for KC to win.

Again, your "well, it wont be all bad, we shouldnt suck every year, we'll have our windows of opportunity if we are smart!" argument is fine in baseball. It is stupid in the NFL when you are stepping down from perfection.

tk13
02-26-2011, 05:45 PM
The one time the Chiefs were really hurt by the cap was at the beginning of Vermeil's term. We had a bunch of dead money left over from bonehead moves like Dan Williams. Tennessee was probably the only team that was really, really hurt by salary cap problems earlier this decade.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:46 PM
The salary cap prevents you from buying an entire team, it forces you to make sacrifices and be smart with your money in a league where everyone has the same resources. We aren't trying to prevent large markets from getting one player, we're preventing them from putting together half an all-star team.



That's utter bullcrap. It has never happened. The teams that put together dynasties have never done it by signing every all star free agent out there. At most, you're talking about a couple of players. The teams that did that built their teams through the draft, period.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:47 PM
But a team can franchise a team-changing player, right? As mentioned above, having a "franchise QB" seems to be of utmost importance to success.

Well first I dont buy into the "franchise QB is mandatory" theory myself, there have been super bowl teams who won in spite of their QB. A QB is important, but this isn't basketball where Kobe can lift your whole team from the depths. We've got 11 on offense, 11 on defense, a bunch for special teams, and important backups. Being able to keep Peyton Manning will not offset the impact of free agency.

Brock
02-26-2011, 05:48 PM
Well first I dont buy into the "franchise QB is mandatory" theory myself, there have been super bowl teams who won in spite of their QB. A QB is important, but this isn't basketball where Kobe can lift your whole team from the depths. We've got 11 on offense, 11 on defense, a bunch for special teams, and important backups. Being able to keep Peyton Manning will not offset the impact of free agency.

Well, there you go. "Hey, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl".

DTLB58
02-26-2011, 05:50 PM
One more successful union kill! PBJ PBJ

I think it would be just for the purpose of negotiations to avoid the lockout. After the new deal I would think the players would unionize again. I doubt they would give away their rights for collective bargaining forever.

Oh and btw, Unions Rock! :thumb:

tk13
02-26-2011, 05:53 PM
I think the NFL would probably fare better than MLB because of the way the TV money works... in baseball it's all about the local TV money.

I'm not sure it would translate to winning because Jones and Snyder are stupid with their money sometimes. Teams that draft well can draft well. But I'd have to say it would drive up salaries overall, even if they were stupid contracts. Eventually you get to the point where the St. Louis Cardinals are now. They either have to pay Albert Pujols an unbelievable amount of money because of what the Yankees pay their best players... or let him walk and gut their team.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 05:53 PM
That's utter bullcrap. It has never happened. The teams that put together dynasties have never done it by signing every all star free agent out there. At most, you're talking about a couple of players. The teams that did that built their teams through the draft, period.

You seem to think that if a team can outspend the chiefs by a factor of 4, they shouldn't have any problem at all problem competing anyway in a world where free agency exists. At no significant recent point in NFL history have we had free agency, a huge gap in revenue by team, and no cap, so you can't point out a lot of good examples where your illogical hair-brained theory is true. Look at baseball before revenue sharing was dramatically increased, and look at freaking english soccer. The impact to small markets is provably devastating.

Your argument (perhaps not you, but your argument) is utterly stupid.

Donger
02-26-2011, 05:56 PM
You seem to think that if a team can outspend the chiefs by a factor of 4, they shouldn't have any problem at all problem competing anyway in a world where free agency exists. At no significant recent point in NFL history have we had free agency, a huge gap in revenue by team, and no cap, so you can't point out a lot of good examples where your illogical hair-brained theory is true. Look at baseball before revenue sharing was dramatically increased, and look at freaking english soccer. The impact to small markets is provably devastating.

Your argument (perhaps not you, but your argument) is utterly stupid.

Would you argue that an individual player can have less, equal or greater impact on, say, an MLB team than an NFL team?

In other words, is the NFL more of a "team" sport than MLB?

Mr. Laz
02-26-2011, 06:02 PM
I think the NFL would probably fare better than MLB because of the way the TV money works... in baseball it's all about the local TV money.

I'm not sure it would translate to winning because Jones and Snyder are stupid with their money sometimes. Teams that draft well can draft well. But I'd have to say it would drive up salaries overall, even if they were stupid contracts. Eventually you get to the point where the St. Louis Cardinals are now. They either have to pay Albert Pujols an unbelievable amount of money because of what the Yankees pay their best players... or let him walk and gut their team.
If the salary cap disappears completely in the NFL you can bet that the even distribution of T.V. money will quickly follow.

alnorth
02-26-2011, 06:03 PM
Would you argue that an individual player can have less, equal or greater impact on, say, an MLB team than an NFL team?

In other words, is the NFL more of a "team" sport than MLB?

Some players have an outsized influence on their game. I would equate a good QB to a little more than having two good starting pitchers. (an ace, and maybe a solid #3) After taking those 3+ players out, the sports are comparable as an interchangable team game.

What some dont seem to realize is that in addition to holding back the large markets, the cap also depresses player salaries. You cant take the cap off and assume all those linemen, defensive backs, etc will make the same amount of money afterwards. The price of top talent would go way up. It would cost a whole hell of a lot of money in a post-cap world to build a defense and give your QB something to work with, perhaps to the point where you cant even say "just draft well" because maybe you wont be able to afford a good team under any circumstance.

Professional basketball by contrast is pretty close to an individual sport. You get two really good players and you are pretty well set, the spare parts don't cost much.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2011, 06:13 PM
Would you argue that an individual player can have less, equal or greater impact on, say, an MLB team than an NFL team?

In other words, is the NFL more of a "team" sport than MLB?
individual players clearly have a more dramatic impact in MLB

If for no other reason than just because of the sheer numbers. There are 5 players on the floor in MLB vrs 11 in football. But the game is completely different ... players in the NBA play both offense and defense. In the NBA having a couple great players is enough. In the NFL you need to be solid in every aspect of the game.

The Chargers have very good QB but still lost their season because of special teams. A great QB won't survive long with a crap offensive line. etc

a franchise tag in the NBA would be HUGE because it would lock up the 1 superstar you need to be competitive. In the NFL the franchise tag is helpful but still just a piece. Several NFL teams have used their franchise tag on Kickers.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2011, 06:19 PM
MLB World Series Winner
YR Team Payroll rank

00 Yankees - 01
01 Dbacks - 08
02 Angels - 15
03 Marlins - 25
04 Red Sox - 02
05 White Sox - 13
06 Cardinals - 11
07 Red Sox - 02
08 Phillies - 12
09 Yankees - 01
===========
Overall ------ 09

only the Marlins in 2003 were not in the top 15 in payroll ... overall average is 9.

chris
02-26-2011, 07:03 PM
I hope the NFL is successful in blocking the decertification via legal means. Every time the union doesn't get what it wants, it tries to decertify. (Comparable to WI Senators leaving town when they can't get what they want in the legislative process.)

If that fails, and If the union does decertify, I hope the owners break the union much as the NHL broke that union.

BossChief
02-26-2011, 07:27 PM
This is a disappointing conclusion.

All they need to do is keep things the same with the exception of a rookie cap IMO.

The overall competitiveness off the NFL is better than it has ever been during my lifetime. The way things are, any team could contend in 2-3 years no matter how bad they were...just look at our team 2008 and now...or many other examples.

Greed is gonna kill the owners in the long run over what they could have brought in by not being so greedy and being willing to compromise.

Just Passin' By
02-26-2011, 07:28 PM
Excellent explanation. Thank you. But, doesn't the "franchise tag" kind of negate free agency?

Only for one player, and only for one year at a time. The rules on the franchise tag make it very expensive to keep using it. Here's an article talking about what happens if you go to franchise a player for the third time in a row:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/14294/closer-look-at-the-franchise-tag

That can quickly make for an outlandish salary that puts a strain on a team's cap budget.

bowener
02-26-2011, 09:44 PM
If the salary cap disappears completely in the NFL you can bet that the even distribution of T.V. money will quickly follow.

This.

I can't imagine Jerry Jones saying that he is willing to share the ad revenue from the 5 Monday/Sunday night games his Cowboys seem to be given every season. They were awful this year, but I bet they have more night games than 80% of the league next year.

spida_man23
02-26-2011, 11:34 PM
so these people dont understand... if there is no football next yr...people are goin get very mad and angry... next thing u know people are disapearing and every bodys goin go crazy...yep....thats how its goin down