TWO YEARS without NFL football????

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Plus just think about it, the owners want players to do an 18 game schedule but also take a pay cut. That's pretty ass-backwards. Not that players don't get plenty of money, but they deserve it for all the punishment they take. The median salary of an NFL player is not terribly high either; combine that with the short average career length and high likelihood of serious and long-term injuries and there's no way an average player makes enough money to pay for all their medical bills forever without help.

Besides, I think the 18 game thing is just dumb. It'll cause the last two games of the season to be just like preseason games. By the time game #18 rolls around, most teams won't have anything to play for.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
I was just going to post this. seems the NFL was planning on the lockout. they did the TV contract screwing over the players with the lockout in mind.

Yeah, it's pretty clear the owners have been scheming for a lockout for at least 2 years.

If you side with the owners, you are a fucking idiot.
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
How would you like to be in the draft this year with the prospect of your career (and your paychecks) not starting for 2 years.

And if the NFL was shut down for 2 full years, that would result in THREE rookie classes starting to play all at the same time. Wow.

I stopped watching pre-game shows a long time ago because they started doing too many interviews with players and owners. I realized that I do not care about them as people one bit. I want to watch the game being played. Period.

MotionMan

If the NFL cancels the upcoming season, there's a damn good chance I won't be back.
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
What kind of talent do you think is available? Outside of a few cases of finding diamonds in the rough, most of the best football players already play in the NFL. The product would be hugely inferior to what we've come to expect.

Isn't football in Texas a religion? I'm sure they can round up all of the best college players and then mix in a few players from where ever they get other players from to play for a season to break the union.

It won;t be as good, but it will be kind of exciting.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Isn't football in Texas a religion? I'm sure they can round up all of the best college players and then mix in a few players from where ever they get other players from to play for a season to break the union.

It won;t be as good, but it will be kind of exciting.

The scab games were kind of interesting for the first week or so. After that it just looked like bad football from scraped together teams.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
The scab games were kind of interesting for the first week or so. After that it just looked like bad football from scraped together teams.

It only took two games to break the union.

The third "scab" game was just extra punishment for the players.

MotionMan
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
Honestly, if they do look like an extended lockout is in order and a season(or more) is in jeopardy, then it's the prime time to look at a true playoff system for college ball to draw out their own season and milk those 6-8 weeks after most conference play wraps up and bowl games start. Get in at the ground level and with no competition from the big leagues stealing weekends/money.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,445
126
dude on the jim rome show yesterday thought that de-certifying wouldn't work very well for the union this time. the union had good experience de-certifying back in 1987, which led to them winning an anti-trust case against the league and making way for the 1993 labor agreement and free agency. but now the union is better put together and so de-certifying would be seen as a sham by the courts. and so if they de-certify and then the move is judge a sham, the union would lose a lot. at least, that's what i got from the convo.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
dude on the jim rome show yesterday thought that de-certifying wouldn't work very well for the union this time. the union had good experience de-certifying back in 1987, which led to them winning an anti-trust case against the league and making way for the 1993 labor agreement and free agency. but now the union is better put together and so de-certifying would be seen as a sham by the courts. and so if they de-certify and then the move is judge a sham, the union would lose a lot. at least, that's what i got from the convo.

I think the sentiment is right but the specifics are wrong. Basically, the union decertified in 1987. After the CBA was signed the players re-unionized. If the players attempt to decertify again the league would point to the fact that decertification in the past lasted only long enough to be used as leverage before the union was re-formed. They would contend that the current decertification was nothing more than a sham to increase leverage. Given the history of NFLPA union decertification they'd have a very strong case and a federal labor judge could easily rule the decertification invalid.

If the players had decertified in 1987 and stayed that way for an extended period of time, reunionizing again in response to some later labor issue, the owners' potential argument would have a lot less validity.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
BTW, the lock out will never last 2 years and, in fact, I believe that, if there is a lock out, it will not cause the loss of more than 3-4 games (if any).

Bet on it ;)

MotionMan
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
I don't think anyone commented on this.

That's a big win for the players and for the possibility of a season if the ruling holds up. I wonder how well the owners could weather a lockout if they don't get all that TV money?

S&P has revised their projection from the NFL being able to lock out for 2 years to the NFL being able to lock out for 1 year and remain solvent.

I still find that number questionable since it doesn't really account for the fact that the revenue streams used to fund the 1 year lockout are really just transfers from other periods (locked-in luxury box sales, etc) that would have to be "paid back" when football resumed and it also doesn't account for the fact that while the "average" or "wealthy" teams might be able to last that long other teams (Bills, Jaguars, etc) could easily go broke before 1 year.
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
There WILL be a superbowl this year. There is waaaaay too much money involved for everyone. They are all greedy, but in the end they know they need each other.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
There WILL be a superbowl this year. There is waaaaay too much money involved for everyone. They are all greedy, but in the end they know they need each other.


I agree. I think most of this is just posturing by each side to try and battle for leverage against each other and media/fan emotions.

I think adding 2 games is too much. Why not compromise with another bye week and one extra game? And both sides agree the rookie salaries need brought under control. Now how that pans out is anyone's guess.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
I agree. I think most of this is just posturing by each side to try and battle for leverage against each other and media/fan emotions.

I think adding 2 games is too much. Why not compromise with another bye week and one extra game? And both sides agree the rookie salaries need brought under control. Now how that pans out is anyone's guess.

I think a lot of it is that, posturing. I don't see how the owners can expect to cut the players' pie back to 50% from 60% and add more games, so there will likely be some level of compromise there.

Rookie salaries will definitely be looked at, but I don't think we're going to see inexpensive rookie deals any way shape or form. My best bet would be a limit on the length of the deal, which creates a smaller guaranteed chunk, and gives the team time to evaluate the value the player brings to the team. Take for instance a guy like Matt Stafford. Instead of a 6 year, 72 million dollar deal, he'd get a 3 year 36 million dollar deal. Still a huge chunk of cash, but it would likely work out to a 2 year, 20 million dollar deal with 16 on the last year (or thereabouts). Team has two solid years to evaluate, and cut at the beginning of the third year to have only invested 20 million into the player. It would work out much better than the 40 some odd million Stafford is guaranteed in his 6 year deal. I believe they've already said they're looking at making changes, but not to expect anything drastic.

As for the extra games, I don't know how that'll shake out. It makes sense from a business standpoint as more meaningful games = more revenue, but it definitely won't sit with the players if they make anything less than they do now. Personally, I'd like to see it as it gives me two more weeks of football. But I can see the downside to it as well.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
There WILL be a superbowl this year. There is waaaaay too much money involved for everyone. They are all greedy, but in the end they know they need each other.

But WILL there be an overweight, untalented "singer" forgetting the words to the national anthem? WILL there be an underwhelming half time show comprised of either an inoffensive band way past their prime or an overrated pop act that never should have been popular in the first place?

I want to know if they get Rod Stewart to mumble on stage and poop his pants this year or maybe the cast of Glee!
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Just as the Packers become THE premier team with a strong chance to compete for years to come? This is bullshit.

If they lockout, and its gone for TWO YEARS, fuck them all. They will lose A LOT of fans I think (not me though.... ugh, I will weep).

would suck to see Rodgers lose out on what would very well be his prime years.

:(
 

Imported

Lifer
Sep 2, 2000
14,679
23
81
I didn't renew my 49er season tickets this season.. Considering current trends, PSLs for the new stadium would be over 10k anyways.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
I didn't renew my 49er season tickets this season.. Considering current trends, PSLs for the new stadium would be over 10k anyways.

I got my dad to renew his tickets for at least one more year. I hope the 49ers do well so we can make some money on selling tickets and it seems a shame to give up the season tickets my grandfather first bought beginning in 1946.

(I live in L.A., so I cannot justify taking them over from my dad.)

MotionMan
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
I don't care about football at all...

What's this about though? Are they not making enough money already?
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
I don't care about football at all...

What's this about though? Are they not making enough money already?

Basically. The owners feel that the players are making too much money. The owners currently get $1 billion before revenue sharing and the major point of contention is that they want it increased to $2 billion. Then there's a few side issues like rookie salary pay, extending the regular season to 18 games (eliminating 2 preseason games to keep the length of the season the same), and extending health care coverage for retired players.