with Tagliabue, you didn't know what you had until it's now gone.

I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo. That's the most unbelievable part of the article... he's leaning on the players argument that would've avoided the whole thing in the first place. That is some grade A hypocrisy.

There is a whole lot of sense being made in this thread, and frankly it surprises me. **** Goodell and the owners for being douchenoozles. IF they had gone for something that made sense like dumping the rookie salary cap and doing something good with it, they would have a compliant group in the players agreeing with them.

Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

I don't think the owners would have signed the last CBA without the opt out clause because they weren't that comfortable with the deal. The players signed a CBA that gave the owners an opt out and if they thought that the owners wouldn't opt out at the 1st chance then they weren't thinking very well. I believe the players at that time new they would sue if the owners excersized their option. This whole mess was predestined since 2006. The owners shouldn't have ever signed that CBA. That was the screw up. The owners gave up more then they were comfortable with and if they thought the players would ever give back any ground they weren't thinking very clearly.

That says the players know they got a sweet deal and got one over on the owners. I'd still like to see what the players want in a new CBA. I've never seen or heard a word about what they'd want in a new CBA. That tells me that they never really negotiated. If they had they would have put something on the table.


PhilFree:arrow:

OK I take part of my statement back.

you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

Shut it down

Well if I have some stupids god help what you have. How hard is it to realize that with CBA and no age limit there will be no quality athletes at the college level. The notion of not being 'physically ready' is complete bullshit. They are only not physically ready because they don't have access to the same nutrition/training experience in that they have in college. Physically most of them have stopped growing etc(but there are always a few exceptions). If they have the capability to go pro post or even during high school they will join independent programs and become physically 'ready' sooner. Much like you have kids playing AAU ball pre-college for NBA level competition. For instance the NBA instituting the 1 year out of college rule had nothing to do with physical characteristics.

Remove the classes from school and they'd have plenty of time to dedicate. Would they? Well that's part of the scouting program. It would be the only way that the small teams would have a chance to compete. Take the really raw talent out of HS, sign him to a 7-10 year contract and spend 1-2 years getting them football ready.

Without the 3 years out of HS rule there would be no reason for most of those good to great athletes to even head to college. Better to get on a NFL training program and be ready to play/get paid sooner. It would likely be a hybrid between the NBA/MLB systems. You'd have people being signed for raw talent and then developed, rather than having more polished players come out of college. It's a huge risk that they would develop but that's why the small teams would have to do it, because they'd have no shot for a player that's developed and proved they can play. Only those that have potential but have proved very little. The ultimate developmental projects. With a really quality scouting system it could work to make the smaller teams competitive. But considering they can poach the scouting too it's not clear how long it would enable them to stay competitive.

Well, the players agreed to the inclusion of the opt-out term, didn't they? And for that, they got something in return (the process of negotiation).

It should have been well within the contemplation of the players that the owners may opt out.

This has lasted longer than I thought it would. I still think they'll get a deal done before opening day. Really though, complete free agency and no restraints of trade is really the only way to settle these arguments using the "market"

People don't purchase auto insurance because they know they'll have an accident. It's a transfer of risk. It makes sense include the same protection in a TV deal. It's not particularly compelling evidence that the owners knew there would be a lockout.

Alnorth is torching this thread.

I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

Godell is just pissed because this epic **** up is happening on his watch. I used to like him, but lately its making it harder and harder. He's turning into a big ole jackass.

The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

Yes they should. It's called bargaining in good faith.