Your Thoughts On The Players Wanting More Money

#1
orangetaz

orangetaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
4,265
Likes
1,000
#1
I think their all greedy blank holes.We are all struggling to make ends meet,and they are complaining they dont make enough.It makes me sick.I cant afford my electric bill much less a car,and they have all this money,and want more.Makes me :banghead2::spank::gun:

:boxing2::moon2:
 
#2
#2
orangetaz said:
I think their all greedy blank holes.We are all struggling to make ends meet,and they are complaining they dont make enough.It makes me sick.I cant afford my electric bill much less a car,and they have all this money,and want more.Makes me :banghead2::spank::gun:

:boxing2::moon2:
Click to expand...

Is that what they're complaining about? A strike is when players hold out for more money, but this is a lockout; it's the owners. There does need to be a cap on rookie salaries, but the owners are the ones pushing an 18-game schedule, using the players for the sole purpose of making money for themselves. It's like the BCS or a 96-team NCAAT; they're pushing something that NO ONE wants to see, just so they can make money. That's on Goodell and the owners.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
I don't think it's about money on the players' end. They have said they'd like the CBA to remain the same. Besides, it's a lockout, not a strike.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
Not only that, but the previous agreement had a number for the percentage of money that is supposed to go to player salaries (something like 40 or 60%), but the owners wont make their books available to the players union.
 
#5
#5
Yep. This decision is coming from the owners.

Have the owners even gone so far as to up salaries and expand rosters with the 18 game schedule, or are they still just trying to make these guys play two extra games?

And besides, these guys are not overpaid crybabies. There are a handful of prima donnas, but the vast majority of guys who play in the league are some schmoe who gets on a roster, sees a little bit of game time, makes practice squads for a few years then leaves with a lifetime of injuries and soreness with only a few hundred grand to show for it. The NFL is not showing near as much care for their ex players as they should be.
 
#6
#6
milohimself said:
Yep. This decision is coming from the owners.

Have the owners even gone so far as to up salaries and expand rosters with the 18 game schedule, or are they still just trying to make these guys play two extra games?

And besides, these guys are not overpaid crybabies. There are a handful of prima donnas, but the vast majority of guys who play in the league are some schmoe who gets on a roster, sees a little bit of game time, makes practice squads for a few years then leaves with a lifetime of injuries and soreness with only a few hundred grand to show for it. The NFL is not showing near as much care for their ex players as they should be.
Click to expand...

Here's the issue behind it all. The healthcare of former players.
 
#7
#7
Healthcare and the rookie salary cap are the two main things. The 18 game schedule is a bad idea in my opinion but it looks like that will happen regardless.
 
#8
#8
Cartervol said:
Healthcare and the rookie salary cap are the two main things. The 18 game schedule is a bad idea in my opinion but it looks like that will happen regardless.
Click to expand...

The 18 game schedule is a big part of the "safety of players" issue. It's not just about former players.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
right now, i'm having a hard time believing there will be a season next year.
 
#11
#11
Cartervol said:
Healthcare and the rookie salary cap are the two main things. The 18 game schedule is a bad idea in my opinion but it looks like that will happen regardless.
Click to expand...

The NFLPA is still holding firm completely against 18 games, as I think they should. The owners are not budging on it either though.

If I had to bet I'd say it will happen but not without improved healthcare and bumped salaries.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
orangetaz said:
I think their all greedy blank holes.We are all struggling to make ends meet,and they are complaining they dont make enough.It makes me sick.I cant afford my electric bill much less a car,and they have all this money,and want more.Makes me :banghead2::spank::gun:

:boxing2::moon2:
Click to expand...

And this right here is why the owners know that they can basically impose whatever system they want, because they're guaranteed to win any labor dispute.
 
#13
#13
I might be the only one who thinks that an 18-game schedule would actually cause less of a physical toll than a 16-game schedule. I say this for the following reasons.

1) Hitting starts early and often in training camp and lasts the entire preseason for multiple practices per day

2) Most teams, during the season, do hitting either two or three days, with one of them being a minimal-contact day

3) Most teams, once a playoff spot has been secured, rest their starters

4) Most teams, as the season progresses, scale back on the hitting a bit so guys don't get hurt in practice

5) Ergo, if there are only two preseason games and a reduction in the length of training camp PLUS an increase in the number of games (and therefore in important moments), the hitting during the practice week would not only be scaled back further, but dropped down to a minimum very quickly
 
#14
#14
Sketchy logic at work there, but it guarantees a worse product.

The last week or maybe two of the regular season are already pretty worthless, why make it worse?
 
#15
#15
If the NFL expands to 18 games, rosters need to expand to around 65 with 54 or so guys active on gameday.

I'm against the 18 game schedule myself.
 
#16
#16
justingroves said:
If the NFL expands to 18 games, rosters need to expand to around 65 with 54 or so guys active on gameday.

I'm against the 18 game schedule myself.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time deciding myself.

If I was a running back in the NFL, I'd certainly require at least 30% more salary to play an extra two games a year. Their careers/peaks are already too short.
 
#17
#17
Lexvol said:
I'm having a hard time deciding myself.

If I was a running back in the NFL, I'd certainly require at least 30% more salary to play an extra two games a year. Their careers/peaks are already too short.
Click to expand...


The running backs would be screwed if they didn't get a significant pay raise.

One reason the NFL is so popular is because the season is short and efficient.

You keep adding games and there inevitably will be burnout and people stop watching.
 
#18
#18
justingroves said:
Yes and one reason the NFL is so popular is because the season is short and efficient.

You keep adding games and there inevitably will be burnout and people stop watching.
Click to expand...
I'm stuck between the burnout/diluted product and the TV revenue. If people will watch preseason football, they will watch anything. Hell, I start the college football season in July watching CBSC replays of the SEC season.

The NFL has done a remarkable job proactively improving their evolving television product. Burnout is a possibility...but I just don't know if two games will produce that effect. That is my quandry.

When I think about it...my biggest objection is that for years the NFL has struggled to achieve parity. It is closer now than it ever has been. Why tinker with it now? Of course the obvious answer is $$$$.
 
#19
#19
Lexvol said:
I'm stuck between the burnout/diluted product and the TV revenue. If people will watch preseason football, they will watch anything. Hell, I start the college football season in July watching CBSC replays of the SEC season.

The NFL has done a remarkable job proactively improving their evolving television product. Burnout is a possibility...but I just don't know if two games will produce that effect. That is my quandry.

When I think about it...my biggest objection is that for years the NFL has struggled to achieve parity. It is closer now than it ever has been. Why tinker with it now? Of course the obvious answer is $$$$.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way but I don't think we're normal :p

I don't know if burnout would be a factor but weeks 15-17 gives us some pretty crappy football at times. Why add another two weeks of meaningless games?

I'd just assume stick with 4 preseason games and watch undrafted free agents bust their ass for a roster spot.
 
#20
#20
cut out mandatory purchases of preseason games for season tix holders and i'm fine.
 
#21
#21
The fact that a majority of NFL players refuse to properly manage their money gives the owners a big advantage.
 
#22
#22
A few things I learned from a Sports Economics course:

Players strike at the end of the season (owners make more money at end of season and playoffs).

Owners lock out at the beginning of the season (when the players make their money).

All unions negotiate to set wages except sports unions, they negotiate to establish a free market.

Pro sports unions are 25 X more likely to strike than a normal union.
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
orangetaz said:
I think their all greedy blank holes.We are all struggling to make ends meet,and they are complaining they dont make enough.It makes me sick.I cant afford my electric bill much less a car,and they have all this money,and want more.Makes me :banghead2::spank::gun:

:boxing2::moon2:
Click to expand...

So you don't ever complain about what you make, or want more pay? Even without being able to afford your electric bill you are still wealthier than a large majority of the world. It's all relative. To us they are rich and you are poor, but to most of the world you are wealthy beyond wildest dreams and I'm sure you still complain. I wonder if the impoverished southern hemisphere thinks you are a "greedy blankhole".

I don't fault the players or owners for wanting more. Everyone wants more.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
Weezy said:
Not only that, but the previous agreement had a number for the percentage of money that is supposed to go to player salaries (something like 40 or 60%), but the owners wont make their books available to the players union.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the players offering 65% to get a deal done right now.

Why would they show their books? They get no gain and stand to lose a lot.
 
#25
#25
Ohio Vol said:
I might be the only one who thinks that an 18-game schedule would actually cause less of a physical toll than a 16-game schedule. I say this for the following reasons.

1) Hitting starts early and often in training camp and lasts the entire preseason for multiple practices per day

2) Most teams, during the season, do hitting either two or three days, with one of them being a minimal-contact day

3) Most teams, once a playoff spot has been secured, rest their starters

4) Most teams, as the season progresses, scale back on the hitting a bit so guys don't get hurt in practice

5) Ergo, if there are only two preseason games and a reduction in the length of training camp PLUS an increase in the number of games (and therefore in important moments), the hitting during the practice week would not only be scaled back further, but dropped down to a minimum very quickly
Click to expand...

...resulting in a diluted, poor quality product. Yes. Sign me up for some season tickets. The 18-game schedule is a stupid idea on many levels.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top