PDA

View Full Version : The Lockout Will Have Some Potentially........


CloakNNNdagger
01-12-2011, 09:02 AM
........devastating effects that are not being taken into account. While Jerry Jones is on record that he doesn't feel that this move will be "disastrous for the game," what will it do to the economies of the cities that support the games and expectations of massive civic revenues that are generated for each game? If the revenues go down, who will make up for the city/county tax monies lost. Can you take a wild guess?

So if the Lockout proceeds, amongst the owners and players, there will potentially be winners AND losers. But amongst the "regular man-on-the street" which includes the loyal fans, there will only be losers.

GP
01-12-2011, 09:47 AM
I think I have finally decided to support the players.

They shouldn't have to play an 18-game season. That's a major tweak to the sacredness of the game, IMO. It affects the history books. I know that there are those who say otherwise, but 16 games is enough.

If the owners want extra revenue, they're going to have to come up with creative solutions instead of just tacking on two games. That's bogus.

The only thing I disagree with, on the players side, is that I think there SHOULD be a rookie wage scale. Period. It's time to stop the madness on rookie contracts. Other than that, I'm behind those guys on the other issues they are desiring.

I'm prepared for no football in 2011, even embracing it. I need a break from the jackholes known as the Texans anyways. A good, healthy and prolonged "timeout" might just be what the doctor ordered for a lot of us fans who are tired of the status quo. It let's Andre Johnson truly heal up, as well as others on our team who need a prolonged break. Everyone gets healthy. It's a win-win.

If the owners decide to play reindeer games when the clock strikes midnight, then so be it. I think they will flinch, though. The 18-game issue is a major sticking point.

TD
01-12-2011, 09:58 AM
They shouldn't have to play an 18-game season. That's a major tweak to the sacredness of the game, IMO. It affects the history books. I know that there are those who say otherwise, but 16 games is enough.

The sacredness of the games and the history books?!?! The only undefeated team in history went 17-0. Think about it.

The NFL season has been 10 games, 11 games, 12 games, 14 games, and 16 games. From a historical or "sacredness of the game" perspective, expanding the schedule is irrelevant.

I am curious how the players feel about trading 2 preseason games for 2 real ones. I suspect they would rather play games that count.

Stemp
01-12-2011, 10:03 AM
I am curious how the players feel about trading 2 preseason games for 2 real ones. I suspect they would rather play games that count.

You forget the other side of that where the owners want to cut the revenue percentage that the players get. So they play 2 more games and get less of the money. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:06 AM
The only thing I disagree with, on the players side, is that I think there SHOULD be a rookie wage scale. Period. It's time to stop the madness on rookie contracts.

I agree that rookie contracts have gotten out of hand, but whose fault is it that rookie contracts have escalated? The owners. There's nothing in the CBA that says rookies have to be paid XX% of the payroll or anything similar. Basically, the players ask for whatever they want and the owners can't control themselves. Why should the players bail out the owners? There is nothing in the current CBA that would stop the owners from paying reasonable rookie contracts right now. The only thing stopping them is themselves.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:09 AM
I am curious how the players feel about trading 2 preseason games for 2 real ones. I suspect they would rather play games that count.

Well, players go harder in a real game, especially at the end of the reg season, than they do in preseason.

Plus, you have your scrubs playing a lot of the preseason (while veteran players are held out).

So it really is a bigger issue than you're making it. Add in Stemp's comments, and it's obvious that an 18-game season is not healthy for all involved.

The league started fining helmet-to-helmet hits this year, This signals that the league understands it has to get on the right side of the line, in terms of players' health (long-term health). Expanding the reg season by 2 games is a step backward in this regard.

Owners are making money. What NFL team has declared bankruptcy in the past, oh....20 years? They're fine. They need to find other ways of creating extra revenue if they want it that badly. Instead of grinding it out of the players. You can only squeeze so much blood out of them.

TD
01-12-2011, 10:14 AM
You forget the other side of that where the owners want to cut the revenue percentage that the players get. So they play 2 more games and get less of the money. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

Not forgetting...just wasn't relevant to my point about increasing the schedule. The financial side is a whole different matter.

Personally I think a few of the more powerful owners are trying to "Steinbrenner" their way to NFL success by busting the current system and don't care if they @#$% the league in the process. I am far more sympathetic to the players than the owners right now.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:18 AM
I agree that rookie contracts have gotten out of hand, but whose fault is it that rookie contracts have escalated? The owners. There's nothing in the CBA that says rookies have to be paid XX% of the payroll or anything similar. Basically, the players ask for whatever they want and the owners can't control themselves. Why should the players bail out the owners? There is nothing in the current CBA that would stop the owners from paying reasonable rookie contracts right now. The only thing stopping them is themselves.

The problem is opportunity and greed. If 30 owners decided they were not going to pay the extravagant salaries of a rookie sensation...there wold be that one or two owners who WOULD. They would capitalize off the opportunity and say "Screw you, 30 owners! We just got ahead in this race! HA-HA-HA!!!!"

Therefore, you put out some speed bumps. When you are driving in the parking lot of the grocery store, and you gotta' slow down to go over those irritating speed bumps out in front of the store, do you ever wonder why? I'll tell you why: Those speed bumps were not placed there because of YOU, they were placed there for the 5% of the driving population that doesn't comprehend driving safely in highly congested areas of foot traffic.

There needs to be some speed bumps placed in the NFL, in terms of limiting what rookies make. Hey, I'm all for being generous. Make the #1 pick a healthy number (and add a % increase each year for inflation and all that jazz). Make pick #2 less, pick #3 less, until you get to picks 6-through-10. Then you lower the range. Picks 11-through-15 has its own range. Picks 16-through-remainder of 1st round has its own range.

It can be done. And it would make the situation better.

The other alternative is to say to the owners, "OK, you can give $100 million to the #1 pick. Give him $60 million guaranteed. But now you have to automatically deduct a certain percentage of that guaranteed money and have it go into OUR war chest--The player/union war chest."

One way or another, the bloated rookie contracts have to stop. JeMarcus Russell (and others before him) will be filthy rich for the rest of their lives (barring a serious meltdown in how they handle their finances). Why should this be acceptable? This is what is wrong with America: Get rich fast.

The veterans who are still in the league after years of working hard, IMO, are being slapped in the face by this nonsense. This idea of giving rookies a huge chunk of change is absurdly and patently and inherently flawed.

In addition, it's going to SAVE the owners some money! LOL.

Corrosion
01-12-2011, 10:19 AM
You forget the other side of that where the owners want to cut the revenue percentage that the players get. So they play 2 more games and get less of the money. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

They already play those two games .... they just dont count twards the standings.

Many teams sell out those preseason games at the same prices as the regular season games ..... other than the games counting twards the standings I dont see much financial difference for either side.


As for who deserves more or less of said revenue - The players dont risk a single cent where the owners risk hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure the players assume some physical risk but they are paid handsomely in return.
They make a minimum of 15x the wage of an average American and many make hundreds of times that in a seven month span.
In 2010 the Rookie minimum salary is $325,000 with that number going up for each season under their belts ....
I cant feel sorry for the players when we pay our teaches , police , firefighters and the men and women who protect our rights in the military pennies on the dollar for services that are much more important to the fabric of society.

TD
01-12-2011, 10:22 AM
Well, players go harder in a real game, especially at the end of the reg season, than they do in preseason.

Plus, you have your scrubs playing a lot of the preseason (while veteran players are held out).

So it really is a bigger issue than you're making it. Add in Stemp's comments, and it's obvious that an 18-game season is not healthy for all involved.

The league started fining helmet-to-helmet hits this year, This signals that the league understands it has to get on the right side of the line, in terms of players' health (long-term health). Expanding the reg season by 2 games is a step backward in this regard.

Owners are making money. What NFL team has declared bankruptcy in the past, oh....20 years? They're fine. They need to find other ways of creating extra revenue if they want it that badly. Instead of grinding it out of the players. You can only squeeze so much blood out of them.

All that was valid when there was a 14 game schedule. Do you support reverting to that? The number of games played is an arbitrary number; 12, 14, 16, 18.....I don't know how big a deal is.

Plus IF the players make more money per season (as they should) are they ahead or behind? I don't know if there is empirical evidence comparing the average length of a career when we went from 14 - 16 games. With medical and equipment advances, I'm not sure you could get valid data.

Anyway, my point was only in relation to messing up the history books and "sacredness of the game". It really wasn't a valid point. The other stuff is though.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:24 AM
The problem is opportunity and greed. If 30 owners decided they were not going to pay the extravagant salaries of a rookie sensation...there wold be that one or two owners who WOULD. They would capitalize off the opportunity and say "Screw you, 30 owners! We just got ahead in this race! HA-HA-HA!!!!"

So what you're saying is the owners can't even control themselves, so the players have to bend over and take it to save the owners from themselves.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:29 AM
As for who deserves more or less of said revenue - The players dont risk a single cent where the owners risk hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure the players assume some physical risk but they are paid handsomely in return.

False. First of all, the players have actual bodily risk, as you noted. That outweighs financial risk anyway, in my book. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything. But most importantly, there's no risk for the owners. People like to say that the owners risk millions of dollars. No they don't. There's ZERO risk in the NFL. When's the last time an NFL team lost money or went bankrupt? Not since I've been watching football. The owners just have to come up with the buy-in and then they get to rake pots until they die. There is no risk. They get taxpayer-subsidized stadiums and then they get to hold communities hostage if they feel like the pot they raked isn't as big as some other owners' pot. There's no risk.

I can see both sides of the argument in this lockout, but people need to recognize that the myth of owners risking millions is BS. It's not like real business, where they made their initial millions to buy into the game. There's no risk in the NFL for those guys. Actually, I take that back. There's one risk for the owners - that they'll kill the goose that laid the golden egg. That's the only risk.

TD
01-12-2011, 10:32 AM
So what you're saying is the owners can't even control themselves, so the players have to bend over and take it to save the owners from themselves.

Technically that's been the case the entire salary cap era. A rookie wage scale is a further tweak that has proven fairly successful in the NBA.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:33 AM
They already play those two games .... they just dont count twards the standings.

Many teams sell out those preseason games at the same prices as the regular season games ..... other than the games counting twards the standings I dont see much financial difference for either side.


As for who deserves more or less of said revenue - The players dont risk a single cent where the owners risk hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure the players assume some physical risk but they are paid handsomely in return.
They make a minimum of 15x the wage of an average American and many make hundreds of times that in a seven month span.
In 2010 the Rookie minimum salary is $325,000 with that number going up for each season under their belts ....
I cant feel sorry for the players when we pay our teaches , police , firefighters and the men and women who protect our rights in the military pennies on the dollar for services that are much more important to the fabric of society.

I don't care for your final argument because you and I are part of that problem. We are paying to watch it, so we are supporting it, which means we have only ourselves to blame. It's like blaming Coors for a family member's alcohol addiction. Football is here, it was here in the early 1900s and it isn't going anywhere. It's here.

Therefore, let's be sensible about it. These players are playing at an insane level, corrosion. I mean...every year they get bigger, faster, stronger, and push the limits of what we think is the norm. It's becoming the human equivalent of NASCAR out there. They get paid handsomely, I agree, but they are people too. Foxworth (the player for the Vikings) says they have a small window of time to be compensated for their efforts on the field before their bodies start breaking down. I agree with that.

When was the last time an NFL owner could say the same thing? They can't. They keep rolling along, as players come and go, and their revenue stream keeps flowing into their bank accounts. Those who do the work, IMO, should be rewarded handsomely. "The laborer is worthy of his wages" is a Biblical look at how it is unjust to withhold payment to those who have earned it. I'm a healthy tipper when we eat out. Now, if the service awful...I might leave a $1 tip. But 98% of the time, I am tipping waiters at least 20% and even more if it was out-of-this-world service. I learned, from growing up on a poor cotton farm near Lubbock TX, and watching my dad squeeze every penny out of people that he could, that you just don't get ahead in life by operating that way,

The players should be rewarded, but the rookie contracts have skewed everything. If the owners, over the past two decades, had donated HALF of what they gave rookies (especially the top 5 or so draft picks each year) can you imagine what this would do? What if it had been put in a special investment fund that accumulates and earns a return-on-investment, and then a portion of those funds are used to help retired NFL players who have serious health issues as a result of their playing days? THAT is a story that would be fascinating.

As it stands, there is some real absurdity, IMO, and most of it lies with the owners. They don't need two extra games. And the players don't need outrageous paydays on draft day when they haven't earned it yet. Money isn't evil, it's the love of money that is evil (and humans are the ones doing the "loving"). Wouldn't it be awesome if logic ruled the day in the NFL? So much good could be done, while us also having a great time as fans of the game.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:33 AM
I cant feel sorry for the players when we pay our teaches , police , firefighters and the men and women who protect our rights in the military pennies on the dollar for services that are much more important to the fabric of society.

I can't feel sorry for the owners that can't control their own checkbook when they make ten times what the players make while we pay our teachers, police, firefighters, and the men and women who protect our rights in the military pennies on the dollar for services that are much more important to the fabric of society.

It's millionaires vs. billionaires, and you essentially feel sorry for the billionaires?

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Technically that's been the case the entire salary cap era. A rookie wage scale is a further tweak that has proven fairly successful in the NBA.

I'm not even necessarily against a rookie wage scale, but I just want people to recognize it for what it is. It's the short end of the stick (granted, a big, long stick) agreeing to take a shorter position on that stick because the people with the long end of the stick have been fiscally irresponsible. There ought to be a hell of a lot of venom toward that, IMO. These owners kind of make politicians look like Dave Ramsey.

TD
01-12-2011, 10:40 AM
False. First of all, the players have actual bodily risk, as you noted. That outweighs financial risk anyway, in my book. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything. But most importantly, there's no risk for the owners. People like to say that the owners risk millions of dollars. No they don't. There's ZERO risk in the NFL. When's the last time an NFL team lost money or went bankrupt? Not since I've been watching football. The owners just have to come up with the buy-in and then they get to rake pots until they die. There is no risk. They get taxpayer-subsidized stadiums and then they get to hold communities hostage if they feel like the pot they raked isn't as big as some other owners' pot. There's no risk.

Seahawks and Raiders both lost money last year. Many teams net income on investment was less than could have gotten from CDs. LINK (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html)

Plus you are forgetting the value of the investment. There's no guarantee that the $1B McNair paid for a franchise will be worth that (especially adjusted for inflation) 20 years from now.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:44 AM
So what you're saying is the owners can't even control themselves, so the players have to bend over and take it to save the owners from themselves.

I cuss like a sailor when I have to slow down and go over those speed bumps in a parking lot. Especially if it's like midnight and I'm cutting across a parking lot and there's not a soul around.

BUT...those speed bumps weren't meant for me. They keep kids and little old ladies safe from the jackholes who think they're Mario Andretti out there. So it's a trade-off. I can't do anything but accept it, grit my teeth, and move on.

NOTE: I am pretty much a "less federal government" type of guy. I do not think that people by-and-large must be saved for themselves by well-meaning legislators who sit in a leather chair and dream up ways to make life better. Just need to get that out there, so you know that I am not coming at this from a liberal angle.

Yeah, I think players and owners have lost touch with the value of money. They treat $1 million like I treat $1. Because the amounts of money they deal with on a daily basis is so large, they don't understand what it takes to eek out a bare minimum existence. They're insulated from it. So in that regard, I think it would be wise if the rookie contracts were held to a standard. I'm not talking about all-out socialism or anything. Just some basic wisdom-crafted logic about it all.

Sadly, I have a feeling that owners will get the 18-game season and the players will somehow get some extra cash out of the deal too. But it won't be as good of a payoff as the players are led to believe it is. I think the players are just not going to ever be sitting at the same table as the owners are. Players come and go. Owners are there for the rest of their natural lives, and then it can get passed down to family members. It's a business. And I just wish that there cold be a way that there is more fiscal responsibility on both sides. But that's assuming that someone, somewhere, is willing to really "play ball" instead of thinking "gee, how I can get ahead on this deal here???"

It's the nature of the beast.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:47 AM
All that was valid when there was a 14 game schedule. Do you support reverting to that? The number of games played is an arbitrary number; 12, 14, 16, 18.....I don't know how big a deal is.

Plus IF the players make more money per season (as they should) are they ahead or behind? I don't know if there is empirical evidence comparing the average length of a career when we went from 14 - 16 games. With medical and equipment advances, I'm not sure you could get valid data.

Anyway, my point was only in relation to messing up the history books and "sacredness of the game". It really wasn't a valid point. The other stuff is though.

OK, I take it back. The "sacredness of the game" is not a good argument.

I like the 16-game season. More or less, IMO, isn't good. Preseason games are a unique thing, because players who are long-term guys aren't in there the whole time, and are often just going through the motion rather than flying around with reckless abandon trying to win a preseason game. Two more games in the reg season will increase odds of injury--It's just a numbers game, and it's true that 2 more games will mean more injuries.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:50 AM
Plus you are forgetting the value of the investment. There's no guarantee that the $1B McNair paid for a franchise will be worth that (especially adjusted for inflation) 20 years from now.

Of all the investments in the world, the Texans being worth $1BN 20 years from now is about as close to a lead pipe cinch as there is.

Thorn
01-12-2011, 10:50 AM
Players, owners, and the NFL league office all suck as far as this situation is concerned to me. I will hate them all equally if next season is affected.

eriadoc
01-12-2011, 10:55 AM
I cuss like a sailor when I have to slow down and go over those speed bumps in a parking lot. Especially if it's like midnight and I'm cutting across a parking lot and there's not a soul around.

BUT...those speed bumps weren't meant for me. They keep kids and little old ladies safe from the jackholes who think they're Mario Andretti out there. So it's a trade-off. I can't do anything but accept it, grit my teeth, and move on.

NOTE: I am pretty much a "less federal government" type of guy. I do not think that people by-and-large must be saved for themselves by well-meaning legislators who sit in a leather chair and dream up ways to make life better. Just need to get that out there, so you know that I am not coming at this from a liberal angle.

I know you aren't coming at this from a liberal angle, but I thinm people lose their frame of reference when talking about sports. If you're a parent and your child asks you for cookies and ice cream every day, and keeps increasing how much he's asking for, are you going to say "No" or are you going to sit down and beg your child to stop asking for sweets because you have no will power to say "No"? I mean, it's a silly analogy, but that's the essence of it. All they have to do is say "No", but they won't do it for fear that the player will hold out for a year and get paid from another owner. The thing is, if you leave things the way they are, the stupidest owners will break their team first because of the salary cap. If you have 90% of your salary cap tied up in a few rookies, your team is going to suck. The shrewdest owners will be the most successful. We've already seen that with teams like the Steelers, Patriots, and Eagles.

Left alone, the problem would fix itself one way or another because of the existence of the salary cap.

GP
01-12-2011, 10:56 AM
Of all the investments in the world, the Texans being worth $1BN 20 years from now is about as close to a lead pipe cinch as there is.

Undoubtedly, there will be "No trauma" to the fiscal health of Bob McNair's Texans franchise. This, we can agree upon. LOL.

GP
01-12-2011, 11:02 AM
I know you aren't coming at this from a liberal angle, but I thinm people lose their frame of reference when talking about sports. If you're a parent and your child asks you for cookies and ice cream every day, and keeps increasing how much he's asking for, are you going to say "No" or are you going to sit down and beg your child to stop asking for sweets because you have no will power to say "No"? I mean, it's a silly analogy, but that's the essence of it. All they have to do is say "No", but they won't do it for fear that the player will hold out for a year and get paid from another owner. The thing is, if you leave things the way they are, the stupidest owners will break their team first because of the salary cap. If you have 90% of your salary cap tied up in a few rookies, your team is going to suck. The shrewdest owners will be the most successful. We've already seen that with teams like the Steelers, Patriots, and Eagles.

Left alone, the problem would fix itself one way or another because of the existence of the salary cap.

As a parent of a 10-yr-old and a 6-yr-old, I have found that if I don't even have sweets in the house at all...it pretty much nips the problem in the bud. Or, I only have a small quantity of sweets in the house...which makes them ration it out, on their own, because they understand I'm the parent and I buy the groceries.

I used to be dense in that area (always swimming upstream), but I figured it out after a few years: Gee, I am the parent and I can remove a lot of temptation here. If it's not there, it's not a temptation. This becomes harder as the kid evolves into a teenager, which means I will begin to have less ability to limit them. I'm trying to love them when they're 0-to-5 years, limit them when they're 6-to-12 years old, and in essence "leave them" when they are 13-to-whatever--At that stage, science has proven that a child of 13-years-old is pretty much "made" and can't be altered much. This is a larger discussion than I have room for, though, but I digress....

Owners and players are in need of having someone limit them. I know it's not possible, because it's grown men here..but still. The idea is nice.

TD
01-12-2011, 11:12 AM
Of all the investments in the world, the Texans being worth $1BN 20 years from now is about as close to a lead pipe cinch as there is.

Assuming 3% inflation, anything less than $1.82B is losing money. Not saying an NFL Franchise isn't a good investment, but calling it "risk free" while you rake in piles of money is plain silly. The world's a funny place....I wouldn't bet on the value of anything 20 years out.

4Texans
01-12-2011, 11:25 AM
Players, owners, and the NFL league office all suck as far as this situation is concerned to me. I will hate them all equally if next season is affected.

I'll feel the same way.

Double Barrel
01-12-2011, 11:34 AM
I cant feel sorry for the players when we pay our teaches , police , firefighters and the men and women who protect our rights in the military pennies on the dollar for services that are much more important to the fabric of society.

My perspective is that the value we place on entertainers is a clear reflection of our priorities (or lack of) as a culture. I'm as guilty as the next guy, so I'm not exempt from my own criticism.

We build extravagant sports complexes and hand the reigns over to these owners to make millions in profit, and then we are supposed to be grateful to them? Many of these stadiums are built for 10 events a year (including pre-season).

I've always wondered why cities don't build manufacturing facilities for companies like IBM and other Fortune 500 companies, as these would provide tangible and solid benefits for a city's citizens.

But we collectively place a higher value on being entertained than we do economic stability and the value of folks like teachers, police, firefighters, and the men and women who protect our rights.

We have devolved into a very shallow culture, and we are much worse off as a result. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

GP
01-12-2011, 11:41 AM
My perspective is that the value we place on entertainers is a clear reflection of our priorities (or lack of) as a culture. I'm as guilty as the next guy, so I'm not exempt from my own criticism.

We build extravagant sports complexes and hand the reigns over to these owners to make millions in profit, and then we are supposed to be grateful to them? Many of these stadiums are built for 10 events a year (including pre-season).

I've always wondered why cities don't build manufacturing facilities for companies like IBM and other Fortune 500 companies, as these would provide tangible and solid benefits for a city's citizens.

But we collectively place a higher value on being entertained than we do economic stability and the value of folks like teachers, police, firefighters, and the men and women who protect our rights.

We have devolved into a very shallow culture, and we are much worse off as a result. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Our culture is an Entertainment Service Industry economy.

Ship off the mundane jobs, create and sustain jobs that are side-show carnival style jobs. Everybody wants to be a star. Escapism.

Ole Miss Texan
01-12-2011, 11:42 AM
A lockout would adversely effect local economies across the country. There's a ton of business profiting from having a local NFL team as well as watching NFL games in general. Hotels, Restaurants, Bars, Merchandis sales, Airports, car rentals, etc etc. That's just the business end of those, the city/county is effected by the loss in tax revenue for each dollar earned by those companies. Think about the additional economic benefit for those cities hosting playoff games, the pro bowl and the super bowl.

As far as the 18 game schedule is concerned. preseason games are not the same as regular season. Additionally, while we think preseason is worthless much of the time, it's actually a valuable tool in narrowing down your roster, learning about your players in game time situations, etc. There are players that make the squad because of the last preseason game. Plus, you'll have to expand the 53 man roster and carry more players on your active roster for the 2 additional regular season games.... and still have a practice squad.

All I know is this is really going to put a damper on the playoffs if they keep expanding the regular season. The number of injuries (or the potential for them)... just think about watching the Eagles without Vick, Steelers without Big Ben, etc. It opens up the playoffs to pretty much whoever is healthiest.

CloakNNNdagger
01-12-2011, 01:13 PM
A lockout would adversely effect local economies across the country. There's a ton of business profiting from having a local NFL team as well as watching NFL games in general. Hotels, Restaurants, Bars, Merchandis sales, Airports, car rentals, etc etc. That's just the business end of those, the city/county is effected by the loss in tax revenue for each dollar earned by those companies. Think about the additional economic benefit for those cities hosting playoff games, the pro bowl and the super bowl.

As far as the 18 game schedule is concerned. preseason games are not the same as regular season. Additionally, while we think preseason is worthless much of the time, it's actually a valuable tool in narrowing down your roster, learning about your players in game time situations, etc. There are players that make the squad because of the last preseason game. Plus, you'll have to expand the 53 man roster and carry more players on your active roster for the 2 additional regular season games.... and still have a practice squad.

All I know is this is really going to put a damper on the playoffs if they keep expanding the regular season. The number of injuries (or the potential for them)... just think about watching the Eagles without Vick, Steelers without Big Ben, etc. It opens up the playoffs to pretty much whoever is healthiest.

The preseason will see mostly 2nd, 3rd and 4th teamers playing. The beginning of the regular season will mostly see 1st and 2nd teamers if we're lucky. The last half of the regular season will see mostly 2nd and 3rd teamers. And the playoffs will see some 1st teamers and 2nd teamers with mostly 3rd teamers and possibly 4th teamers still standing.
:kubepalm::wadepalm:

scourge
01-12-2011, 01:19 PM
My main issue is the rookie contracts. I don't think there is any reason a player who has never played a down in the NFL should be paid as much as they are. Set a pay scale and stick with it. Make them earn the higher end contracts after they've shown they can actually perform in the league.

CloakNNNdagger
01-12-2011, 05:19 PM
My main issue is the rookie contracts. I don't think there is any reason a player who has never played a down in the NFL should be paid as much as they are. Set a pay scale and stick with it. Make them earn the higher end contracts after they've shown they can actually perform in the league.

.........and TIE THE CONTRACTS TO PERFORMANCE!!!!!!

scourge
01-12-2011, 06:43 PM
I agree with this. I think much of a players contract should be incentive based. I get my a yearly bonus or raises based on performance, and I don't think they should be any different.

Showtime100
01-12-2011, 06:47 PM
American sports fans, the most powerful "union" in the world without a voice.

Corrosion
01-12-2011, 06:52 PM
American sports fans, the most powerful "union" in the world without a voice.

Tell that to Bob & Gary ..... :texanbill:

Showtime100
01-12-2011, 06:56 PM
Tell that to Bob & Gary ..... :texanbill:

Phone number? Wait, got it.

1-8ME-LON-HEAD.

:wesmantexanfan: :phone:

Hagar
01-13-2011, 12:00 AM
........devastating effects that are not being taken into account. While Jerry Jones is on record that he doesn't feel that this move will be "disastrous for the game," what will it do to the economies of the cities that support the games and expectations of massive civic revenues that are generated for each game? If the revenues go down, who will make up for the city/county tax monies lost. Can you take a wild guess?

So if the Lockout proceeds, amongst the owners and players, there will potentially be winners AND losers. But amongst the "regular man-on-the street" which includes the loyal fans, there will only be losers.


I'm only going to address this particular part in that most sporting events don't really affect the local economy. Think of it this way, the money that we fans spend at the stadium is part of our entertainment budget. If we don't spend the money being entertained at the stadium, then we'll spend it at the movies, the tavern, or wherever you get your entertainment.

Also, remember that for something to be an economic boost to the area, it has to bring in new money from the outside. For instance, if a new refinery is built, the gas produced will be shipped nationally and sold. This money will be flow bank into the local economy via wages and taxes.

A stadium only exchange of money between local business and people. You buy a hotdog from a local vender who purchased it from a local wholesaler and who employs local workers. There's no new money coming in from outside. Yes there is an economic boost from the exchange of local money but as discussed earlier, you're still going to spend your entertainment budget somewhere.

Here's a nice piece about sporting venues and their economics by John Stossel called Top 10 Politicians' Promises Gone Wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUZkxyYJUk). The stadium segment starts at 17:10.

infantrycak
01-13-2011, 10:43 AM
I'm only going to address this particular part in that most sporting events don't really affect the local economy. Think of it this way, the money that we fans spend at the stadium is part of our entertainment budget. If we don't spend the money being entertained at the stadium, then we'll spend it at the movies, the tavern, or wherever you get your entertainment.

True to a degree but thousands of fans come in from out of town for each game as well whether it be fans of opposing teams or Texans fans like Hookem, Kaiser and NitroHonda that come in from Austin.