Players not caving on 18-game schedule, major reason for potential lockout - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 01-11-2011, 09:59 PM

Good for the players. I hope they stick to their guns on this.

VJCPatriot · 01-12-2011, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice_Ice_Brady

NFL players say owners' 18-game schedule the major sticking point - ESPN

I'm glad the players are drawing a line in the sand. Although I would hate to see a lockout, I would 100% support the players. In my opinion, the owners are going down a slippery slope; first it becomes an 18-game schedule because they "need" the extra money. Then it becomes 20, and the all-star game decides home field advantage.

Seriously, don't let them turn this league into MLB, which has basically ruined our favorite past time by turning everything into a way to generate revenue, from the "Spider Man" bases to the stupid advertising behind home plate.

The NFL is perfect right now. 16 games. 4 months. 4 quarters of a season. The scheduling is just right. The records remain on an equal playing field. Every game is meaningful.

I have to agree. I think the owners are just being greedy. Does any FAN actually think that an 18 game schedule is a good idea? I'm surprised they haven't done a sports nation poll on this topic yet.

***rjw*** · 01-12-2011, 01:20 AM

I kind of like it the way it is. I like the preseason games, not as fun as the regular season games but you get to see the younger players playing for a roster spot.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 01-12-2011, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly, for once we are in agreement. Fact is players could have negotiated for health and safety at any point over the last many decades and always opted not to in favor of the $$$ now approach. Now they want it but they don't want to share the cost. Fujita is even totally out of touch with the rank and file who have no issue with the rookie cap, just the matter of how it too is reapportioned. The league needs a portion of that money to flow back to management to offset the % of revenue split that no longer accounts for captial expansion and debt service and growing the pie while the rest goes to veteran players and retirees. The players union wants it all to go into the revenue pool, the old cash in hand model that results in retirees with no medical coverage despite all the millions the elite players bank over the course of even short careers. And at the end of the day the rank and file feel similarly about the 18 game schedule sadly, provided they get a proportional increase in contract value - which would again make it a moot point. Greed is the great equalizer.

Fencer · 01-12-2011, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice_Ice_Brady

NFL players say owners' 18-game schedule the major sticking point - ESPN

I'm glad the players are drawing a line in the sand. Although I would hate to see a lockout, I would 100% support the players. In my opinion, the owners are going down a slippery slope; first it becomes an 18-game schedule because they "need" the extra money. Then it becomes 20, and the all-star game decides home field advantage.

Seriously, don't let them turn this league into MLB, which has basically ruined our favorite past time by turning everything into a way to generate revenue, from the "Spider Man" bases to the stupid advertising behind home plate.

The NFL is perfect right now. 16 games. 4 months. 4 quarters of a season. The scheduling is just right. The records remain on an equal playing field. Every game is meaningful.

Late to the thread here, but I read the article the other way. The players are saying "If you want an 18 game season so badly, you're going to have to give us a lot of other stuff to make up for it."

It sounds like the players' biggest issue is health care for retired players (both current and future retirees). That sounds more than fair, but I can't help noting that multi-decade contractual entitlement programs have proved problematic in other parts of society.

***TruthSeeker*** · 01-12-2011, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolworx

Most aren't millionares.
Most have 3 seasons of relative obscurity, at best.

And as much as the hype machine may be "driven" by the NFL, make NO MISTAKE, that it's the effort by the players that puts meat on that bone.

I think the owners should make a return of no more than 7% - and everything else should be divied up by the WORKERS.

From an economics perspective, your philosophy of maximizing return on investment at around 7% means that people with money will (typically) not invest (although some will in the area of sports because making money there is just a secondary goal). The lack of investment means that jobs won't happen in the first place so the (non) workers will make 0.

The U.S. is currently at an all-time high of money sitting on the sidelines severely hurting the job market (for reasons best not discussed in a football forum) but limiting ROI is one of the best ways to insure that money will *never* be invested in a potentially risky business when there are much safer ways to make more than the 7% you posit.

sarge · 01-12-2011, 08:56 AM

With the players 100% on this. I do not want to see an 18 game season. Injuries are already bad enough with 16 games.

The Commish is trying to put his thumb print all over this league and of the things he has done I can remember at the moment, I agree with basically none of them.

This guy needs to be replaced.

aluminum seats · 01-12-2011, 09:25 AM

The players and the vast majority of fans don't want a longer season, but the owners don't care. Unfortunately, the players will eventually cave, because this is their livelihood, and it doesn't last long.

The owners have their money, so they'll wait. It sucks and it stinks and it sucks, but there you go.

***mgteich*** · 01-12-2011, 10:43 AM

It would be great if the players' biggest issue were health care and pensions for retired players. If they had EVER made this issue a key issue in past negotiations, there would not be the terrible situation with retirees that now exists.

In the end, the players are at least as greedy as the owners. They have no long-term perspective. As with many young workers in the general population, they want to maximize current salary. Thus, in every negotiations the key issue for the players is increasing the categories of revenues in the revenue pot, and then increasing the percentages.

The players are using the 18 game issue as a smokescreen to increase their percentage of revenue.
============================================
BOTTOMM LINE

If a 1st round rookie cap and an 18 game schedule were passed, there would be money for increased health and retirement benefits, and also for more jobs (more players on the roster).

In the end, the players should want the total pot of money to increase. The 18 game schedule is the single best way to increase revenue. Decreasing how much is paid to the top 10 rookies (the rest is a wash), will also free up money. The expanded roster will allow for players to be rested longer when injuries occur during the year.
=================

BTW, I still haven't seen any documentation of the increased percentage of injuries in regular season games compared to preseason games. Also, an increased roster would allow players to recover longer while still on the roster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fencer

Late to the thread here, but I read the article the other way. The players are saying "If you want an 18 game season so badly, you're going to have to give us a lot of other stuff to make up for it."

It sounds like the players' biggest issue is health care for retired players (both current and future retirees). That sounds more than fair, but I can't help noting that multi-decade contractual entitlement programs have proved problematic in other parts of society.

BrianPat · 01-12-2011, 11:00 AM

I'm not so sure the owners are willing to allow a lockout over the 18 game schedule ! I honestly think their pushing this hard and will act like their conceding their life savings when they give in to the players who will actually concede to what the owners really want bad, whatever that is.

That's 101 of hard line negotiating, think of something that you know the other side really doesn't want, act as if there's no deal without it, really play it up and then give it up only if they agree to the smaller requests which are really what you wanted in the first place !

JMTC