PatsWickedPissah

I love the way the self appointed assess the precise amount that those who risk their capital shall be rewarded, and no more.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

BradyBranch39

I'm not sure which I'd hate more: A lockout or an 18-game season. The former, I guess... but not by much.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coolworx

I love the way capital seems to think it can move a mountain without the sweat of labor.

Sit on your capital, and watch it waste away without the effort and skill of the commoner.

patsfan13

I don't want an 18 game season.

I think there will be an 18 game season however.

Tradeoff's I would like to see:

Larger Roster, regular and PS, (ie more jobs for players)

Flexable injury policy, no hard IR something more like Baseball where a player can get time to heal and then become active.

2 bye weeks during the season.


I heard an interview with Kraft He made a point about a disproportionate number of injuries occurring during camp and preseason, that did seem to fit with what I saw this season.

I like the schedule balance of the 16 game schedule and would hate to lose that. I also think a reason for the 18 game sch is more games overseas. I hate the burden that travel places on a team.

Hopefully there will not be a lockout. We are loaded for next year hopefully this will motivate B Kraft since he is considered an influential owner.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

PatriotsInGA

Capitalism - It ******ing works. It's been working for over 200 years here.

Communism - It sucked for Soviets. It worked for..69 years?


Do the math. I would like to see an 18 game season, but then again I am ok with the current system. I'll be ok with the 18 games until we lose a key component to our team

mgteich

For me, it is a package deal: an 18-game season, expanded rosters and expanded Practice Squad. The players' union would be getting more jobs. More money would be added to the revenue pot. To say that the added monies will go the owners is misleading. The players will get both a percentage of the new monies as well as additional jobs.

If the players have chosen to make this a make or break issue, then an 18 game season won't happen. The players will end up with fewer jobs and in the end will need to accept a lower percentage of revenue since they do not want to increase the revenue pot.

The base case is a zero sum game where the players and ownership gains and losses are offset by losses or gains of the other party. To move out of the base case, there must be an increase in revenue. Increase in the number of games is one idea for such an increease.

BTW, if this is the major issue, this is very good news. It means that the players have received adequate information regarding team finances. This was the major sticking point a fdew months ago. In the end, 18 vs. 16 games is a money issue for the owners. The players can win this issue if they want to. They just need to give an equal amount on some other compensation issue.

DaBruinz

I'm going to be honest. I think that the players are making more of this than it is.. Now, before some of you go off blazing, lets review some things.

There used to be 6 pre-seasons games. With the 14 game schedule. It was changed to a 4+16 schedule when the league re-aligned before the 1978 season.

Currently, players play in 16 regular season games and about 1.5 pre-season games if you are a vet and as many as 4 pre-season games if you are a rookie or JAG.

Now, from a fan's standpoint, 18 regular season games sounds like a great idea. On the surface. But once you factor in an increased amount of injuries, you have to take a step back. What would you rather have? 4 games in the beginning of the year where you get to see mostly young talent fighting for a roster spot OR a multitude of games later in the season where there is significantly more young talent playing than in the pre-season games. Personally, I think that 4 preaseason games is fine. Especially when the teams scrimmage and practice against one another during the week.

Now, let me also say this. There is no guarantee that more games will equal more injuries. But, in all likelihood, it will. Also, there is no guarantee that an expanded active roster, game day roster, and practice squad will lower the number of injuries.

The reality is that the owners think that eliminating 2 pre-season games and making those games into 2 regular season games, that they'll get more revenue. That is not necessarily the case. They'll only get more revenue if the Sponsors are willing to shell out for it. And there is no guarantee of that. Especially after the last few years of down economy. They also want to reduce the share of the revenue that the players get from the 59.5% of "total revenue". I can understand this because many of these owners have put in tens to hundreds of millions of their own money and would like to see a better return on their investment.

The owners also want a rookie cap. They claim it's so they can give the veterans a larger share of the yearly revenues. I also believe it's to reign in some of the owners like Dan Snyder.

The Players, on the other hand, do not want to change from the 4+16 to the 2+18 format because it would, essentially, mean that there would be fewer games to get the team ready for the regular season and could result in more injuries. The claim that they would have to play in more games rings very hollow with me since the total is still the same. What the players fail to acknowledge is that the owners are willing to expand the rosters and expand the practice squads.. That means that the NFLPA would get BIGGER.

The players also want their retirees to be taken care of. Personally, this should be a UNION issue and not an NFL issue. Let the Union invest in setting up a post-retirement plan. I'm sure that with tens of thousands of potential members, they should be able to get a very good plan for themselves. Probably one that is even better than the people in Government get. However, if the owners are forced to set this up, then this should be seen as an extended benefit and should count towards the amount of money the players get as a whole. It should not be an "in addition to" item.

I can understand the player balking at taking a "pay cut". But they really aren't. From what I have read, the owners do not want to cut the veteran minimum pay scales. They want to cut the amount of money available. I don't believe that a 20% cut is realistic. But I do believe that 5-10% would be more than fair.. In fact, I see no reason why the players should get more than 50% of the total amount. Not when they are not the ones who have put up the initial capital. In fact, I would challenge any one of the players who also have a business of their own as to whether or not they pay out OVER 50% of their revenue in wages and benefits. I bet most of them don't.


Back during 2006, I said that BOTH sides need to realize that they need one another. One can't be successful without the other. The owners would not continue to have the outstanding product without the players. The players would not be so well paid without the owners. That's fact.

The problems that the players face is that there is, in fact, 3 other leagues they can now play in. The CFL, Arena league and the UFL. But, rest assured that NONE of those 3 pay as well as the NFL. But pay is not a consideration when it comes to whether or not there are other avenues of employment in the same field.

Chupacabra

Can we leave the freshman-level political discourse for the politics forum? The adults are talking.

mgteich

You really believe that over the life of the new CBA, that sponsors, TV, cable and fans will be willing to pay the same amount of money for 4 preseason games as for 2 preseason and 2 regular season games? If we are being "honest", then at least let us admit that there would be more revenue with 18 RS games than qwith 16.

With regard to injuries, the underlying assumption is that there are more injuries in a regular season game than in a pre-season game. Has anyone documented this assertion? Or is it really that we believe that preseason injuries will happen to scrubs who don't matter as much?

coolworx

Why don't you address the one who initiated the convo.