idle thoughts

[DaBruinz]

The NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry. There's profit being raked in hand-over-fist. The players are the "talent" that makes this profit possible. They are the best in the world at what they do. If there are billions of dollars coming in, why shouldn't they get a healthy piece of that?

They were getting a healthy piece of it PRIOR to the new CBA. Now, they can get up to 65% of the profit. If that's not a heathy piece, I don't know what is.

Whether you'd be happy with the money they'd make playing under the franchise tag is immaterial -- CBS isn't willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to follow you around while you do your job, whatever it is.

Also, I think you're the one out of touch with reality when it comes to money. These guys aren't, for the most part, just trying to provide a "lifetime's" security for themselves... they're trying to establish a foundation of money that will provide security for their family (and often extended family) for generations. $7 million sounds like a whole lot, but really, considering the whole-sale change in socio-economic group these guys are trying to enable for their family, it's really not.

Yes, it is when you take into consideration that sound investments can make that grow even larger.

You want to buy a nice house in the suburbs. Then there's private school education for all your kids, so they don't have to play ball to be able to go to college. Then there's college for all your kids, and since they went to good high schools, they've all gotten into good colleges, which get very pricey. Now, you're also want to buy your mom a small house in the 'burbs near you. You've also likely got a handful of brothers and sisters -- you want to help them out, too. Maybe you help pay for an apartment in a safe neighborhood for one, maybe you invest in the cell-phone store your brother-in-law wants to start as a favor for your sister. Maybe you want to help pay for college for all your nieces and nephews. Meanwhile, you also want to start up a boys/girls club or something similar, to help kids where you grew up. And, you also want to set up a trust for your kids, so they don't have to worry about paying for your grand-children's education.

Players' salaries might seem sufficient to you, but to guys who grew up dirt poor but blessed with the talent, that kind of socio-economic elevation for their family was what the hard work they put in was for.

So, basically what you are saying is that these guys view this as hitting the lottery and instead of actually trying to make a difference in their neighborhood, they'd rather move their family somewhere else where they don't have to actually participate in the neighborhood.

And they wonder why things aren't getting better for others in their situations.

Sorry, but they don't need to be spending 3.5 million on a house. If they took 2 million and invested the rest soundly, by the time their kids and their brother's and sister's kids were ready for college, there would be PLENTY of money around. Probably in the 10-12 million neighborhood. And that is if they earn NOTHING else during that time.

The problem is that we hear the excuse of wanting to provide for their family and such yet, it doesn't take 7 million a year to provide for a family and live modestly. And by modestly I mean in a 4 bedroom house with 2 cars, X-Box 360 and 60" TV.

That is why I believe that there should be a MANDATORY 100 hours of community service for ALL sports figures. To remind them of where they came from and to teach them some humility.

 

[DaBruinz]

I guess it's not enough that they already get 4-5 years of free college education ?

They're greedy bastards not grounded in reality. Even the Patriots.

Not all of them get scholarships. And there are plenty of players who don't finish school.

 

[BelichickFan]

Not all of them get scholarships.

That is true.

And there are plenty of players who don't finish school.

That is their own choice.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

...designed to provoke some middle of the off season discussion...and to make ME feel better.

1. Here's my problem: If $7.89 MILLION can't provide LIFETIME security, then how the f*ck will the rest of us manage...

It's not about us, ken, it's about them. Players are athlete entertainers. They deserve the opportunity to be paid as much as they believe they are worth in their marketplace, just as we do in ours - whatever it may be. If Asante blows 3 ligaments down the stretch next season, he'll have $7.8M in the bank (which would certainly work for me) but his career will potentially be over or he'll face a series of prove it deals as he works his way back and maybe he's approaching the dreaded 30 if he does regain his form and player contracts for CB's heading into their 30's is a far less lucrative market. If he signs a long term FA deal this offseason he could bank upwards of $15M+ of arguably close to $20M that could be guaranteed to him over the next 2-3 seasons even if should he in fact blow those 3 ligaments in 2007. And the fact remains had he blown 3 ligaments down the stretch this season we would be off the hook and he'd be on his own pending a small injury settlement. He absorbed the risk through college and for 4 years and as a 4th round draft pick he's barely made 7 figures total in that time.

2. Someone help me here, I can't decide which word best describes Michael Felger these days.

Greedy. Mike doesn't really care what we think of him any more as long as his radio show ratings don't tank and impact the rest of his burgeoning little multi-media empire. In the world of sports talk radio there is no such thing as bad publicity, just publicity.


3. He doesn't write those for stories for hard core Pat's fans, he writes those for the casual follower.

4. Agreed

5. On the negative side, I think next season presents a HUGE challenge. Our schedule is AWFULLY tough, and I HATE having face it PLUS having to have 5 exhibition games and going to China in August. I hate the exhaustion it will entail, I hate the distruption to the normal routine, and I will really get pissed if the league forces the Pats to go through that and THEN begin the season 2 day early to play Indy in the opener. BELIEVE ME, going 12-4 next season, will represent a MUCH BIGGER accomplishment than going 12-4 this past season

Which is why I don't see them wasting a mid season blockbuster matchup on opening night. I think we will open at home as a result of the Chinabowl thingy and I have a feeling it will be the rematch against SD before that potentially becomes less compelling with an all new staff.

6. RULES CHANGES: Since the league has been talking about potential rules changes, I thought I add my personal list to add to the discussion. Let me know what you think, pro or con on each

1. I'd just prefer to see PI reviewable and incidental contact not constitute a penalty at all.

2. Too much subjectivity and too much to think about in a split second.

3. LOL

4. No thanks - the old rule works fine for Tommy and me.

5. In the same vein, I see no reason why it should take 45 seconds for a professional team to get a play off, when colleges do just fine with 24 seconds.

Less complex plays and adjustments in the college game - I think it's fine the way it is.

6. I am against the universal use of instant replay to review ALL penalty calls. The game is played by humans and there are mistakes made by the players all the time. First you would emasculate the refs, and secondly the game would take much too long.

That being said, I would propose that ALL penalties are reviewable, but the team is the only one who can challenge a penalty, and I would now give the coaches 3 challenges That would put the onus on the team to challenge ONLY the "crutial" and/or the most eggregious mistakes. It would also add to the pleasre fans derive from second guessing coaches' decisions.

I agree but I think 2 challenges is just fine although perhaps winning a challenge should restore that challenge as well as the TO.

7. I propose that instant replay be done up in the booth instead of down on the field. It would shorten the time a challenge takes, and is a much more efficient way to resolve a call. The colleges have already developed the technology.

I think it needs to stay on the field with the referee if it's called on the field to so as not to emasculate the refs. But I think there should be ability for the replay official to weigh in/consult prior to the decision. But reviews in the final 2 minutes of each half should be automatic for major penalties, or plays/calls that result in change of posession, or scoring plays and those should be handled exclusively by the replay official in the booth without the need to involve on field personnel.

Finally the last two are probably quixotic, but they are my personal pet peeves so I'll offer them anyway.

8. I would eliminate the rule that states the ground can't cause a fumble. I have always wondered...WHY NOT? Isn't the "ground" part of the action. We don't give do overs when a player slips on the "ground". We don't call of games when the condition of the "ground" affects the outcome of a game. IMHO it is up to the player to be in control of the ball when the whistle blows, despite any contact from defensive players or the field. First it will eliminate the usual contraversy that that play generally causes. Second, fumbles are among the most exciting plays in football, we should welcome more of them. Thirdly, it would vastly speed up the pace of the game, by eliminating the usual challenges that are associated with this play.

No thanks

9. I would eliminate the "breaking the plane" section of what it takes to score a TD. It is one of the most infuriating aspects of THE most important part of the game. In order to score a TD the offensive team SHOULD be required to get the ball INTO the endzone, ergo TOUCH the ball down ACCROSS the GL. Merely reaching accross and being thrown back just WOULDN'T cut it any more. What this rule does is to force the offense to make a good play in order to score. Actually move the ball INTO the endzone...

No thanks - but goal line camera technology needs to be implemented.

I'd prefer my St. Patrick's day green but after landing Thomas and Welker and Stallworth and more i'm pretty mellow even though it was snything but.

 

[dhamz]

Why not just have a scale of salaries, depending on seniority? The franchise tag is a violation of anti-trust law, and the Congress needs to continue to pass special legislation so that the NFL owners can prevent a select group of players from being allowed to participate in the comptetive market. If the owners continue to use this clause to their advantage, their statutory exemption could be removed. There is asolutely no reason why the very best players in the very best (and profitable) sport cannot be free agents!!!

As others have stated, the NFL has no such anti-trust exemption. Only baseball has that.

And if it is the ideaology of the tag that bothers you so much, why is it you don't have a much bigger problem with the draft? Every year the NFL puts hundreds of players in the same spot as the franchise players but it also makes them go to unfamiliar parts of the country and doesn't pay them nearly as well as the franchise players.

The NFLPA has to look out for all it's members and I can't figure out how it is in the memberships best interest to give up a big % of gross revenue that the owners would demand in exchange just so Lance Briggs won't get tagged.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So, basically what you are saying is that these guys view this as hitting the lottery and instead of actually trying to make a difference in their neighborhood, they'd rather move their family somewhere else where they don't have to actually participate in the neighborhood.

And they wonder why things aren't getting better for others in their situations.

Sorry, but they don't need to be spending 3.5 million on a house. If they took 2 million and invested the rest soundly, by the time their kids and their brother's and sister's kids were ready for college, there would be PLENTY of money around. Probably in the 10-12 million neighborhood. And that is if they earn NOTHING else during that time.

The problem is that we hear the excuse of wanting to provide for their family and such yet, it doesn't take 7 million a year to provide for a family and live modestly. And by modestly I mean in a 4 bedroom house with 2 cars, X-Box 360 and 60" TV.

That is why I believe that there should be a MANDATORY 100 hours of community service for ALL sports figures. To remind them of where they came from and to teach them some humility.

I think you are forgetting they all also have an unrelated Uncle or two who take upwards of 50% of that windfall off the top. Just like they will when I win the lottery.

 

[primetime]

I think you are forgetting they all also have an unrelated Uncle or two who take upwards of 50% of that windfall off the top. Just like they will when I win the lottery.

As well as an agent who takes a further 10-20% cut, which you won't have to worry about with the lottery. Of that 8 million dollars Asante would potentially get, he's only looking at maybe 3 of it.

As for Dabruinz and his suggestion for community service so the "players remember where they came from," to be honest, I think they do. I bet alot of them give back to the communities where they grew up, and I think many are thankful just to be out of that hole. Be fair, most professional athletes grew up in far worse conditions than you (and most of us) likely did.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

As well as an agent who takes a further 10-20% cut, which you won't have to worry about with the lottery. Of that 8 million dollars Asante would potentially get, he's only looking at maybe 3 of it.

As for Dabruinz and his suggestion for community service so the "players remember where they came from," to be honest, I think they do. I bet alot of them give back to the communities where they grew up, and I think many are thankful just to be out of that hole. Be fair, most professional athletes grew up in far worse conditions than you (and most of us) likely did.

Exactly. In fact "where they came from" may be one factor directly contributing to some of their initial choices. One of the first things most seem to do is set their parent(s) up in a home (many of which are mansions). Some contribute heavily to urban schools and setting up scholarships for those kids. Community Service keeps them humble and gets the team out in the public eye. Typically the players support one another's charities,as well.

 

[patfanken]

He can use capitalism all he likes IMO. If the players don't like the deal they have negotiated with this league they are welcome to go and play for, or even start, another league. Just like if I work for a company and complain about this or that - if I don't like it I can go and work for someone else. If I'm already working the the Big Dog . . . I have to be happy with what I've got or do something else.

Fair enough BF, I can't argue that.

BTW- Fencer - you are also right on you point about tuition reimbursement. But He is right that perhaps the union should do more to encourage players (especially the vast majority who don't get big pay days), to go BACK to school

 

[patsox23]

think you're the one out of touch with reality when it comes to money. These guys aren't, for the most part, just trying to provide a "lifetime's" security for themselves... they're trying to establish a foundation of money that will provide security for their family (and often extended family) for generations. $7 million sounds like a whole lot, but really, considering the whole-sale change in socio-economic group these guys are trying to enable for their family, it's really not.

You want to buy a nice house in the suburbs. Then there's private school education for all your kids, so they don't have to play ball to be able to go to college. Then there's college for all your kids, and since they went to good high schools, they've all gotten into good colleges, which get very pricey. Now, you're also want to buy your mom a small house in the 'burbs near you. You've also likely got a handful of brothers and sisters -- you want to help them out, too. Maybe you help pay for an apartment in a safe neighborhood for one, maybe you invest in the cell-phone store your brother-in-law wants to start as a favor for your sister. Maybe you want to help pay for college for all your nieces and nephews. Meanwhile, you also want to start up a boys/girls club or something similar, to help kids where you grew up. And, you also want to set up a trust for your kids, so they don't have to worry about paying for your grand-children's education.

Players' salaries might seem sufficient to you, but to guys who grew up dirt poor but blessed with the talent, that kind of socio-economic elevation for their family was what the hard work they put in was for.

While I agree that pro athletes are looking to secure themselves AND their future generations, your suggestion that the money currently being earned (and discussed here) - 7+ mill - is somehow NOT sufficient to accomplish that simply BLOWS MY MIND. What world do you live in? Yes, safe neighborhoods, schools, health insurance, etc...add up, but 7 million dollars, properly and responsibly handled, is PLENTY. I think there's all kinds of perspective-less theorizing going on here, but it sure as Hell ain't comin' from Ken.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

That is why I believe that there should be a MANDATORY 100 hours of community service for ALL sports figures. To remind them of where they came from and to teach them some humility.

Before this moves to the Political Forum, I just want to say I'm not keen on forcing people to do charitable works. Charity begins at home, if Adam Jones wants to dump money on a stage and start stripped brawls, he takes the consequences for his poor money management and choice of entertainment. Forcing someone to go into the community because they are an athlete is best managed at a level below the NFL and Uncle Sugar - like during contract negotiations with a club whose owner wants the publicity or the team involvement for generating fan interest. Keep it on the enlightened self interest level and hope it grows into the personal interest level.

 

[patsox23]

As well as an agent who takes a further 10-20% cut, which you won't have to worry about with the lottery. Of that 8 million dollars Asante would potentially get, he's only looking at maybe 3 of it.

Primetime, FYI, sports agents generally get something b/w 1% and 3%. The 10-20% is what talent/literary agents and managers get - like in show business. Very different in sports.


Also, to some of the posters arguing against the "fairness" of the Franchise Tag. It was COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED by the NFLPA. If the players don't like it, they can address it the next time the CBA is up for renewal. At which point, they'll have to decide whether or not their membership reaches FA after, say, 7 or 8 years instead of the current situation.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Primetime, FYI, sports agents generally get something b/w 1% and 3%. The 10-20% is what talent/literary agents and managers get - like in show business. Very different in sports.

* And the player can negotiate any % he wants to pay out. It's not a set %.

 

[AzPatsFan]

In all this discussion the real issue is be ignored. What will the NFLPA do to cooperate in eliminating the "bad apples" who are in danger of killing the golden goose that is fan interest. That fan interest is what allows all the NFLPA members and the owners tot make their fortunes. Football is in a more precarious situation, IMO. The league is dependent on TV and can't operate at these levels on gate receipts. If interest falls off, the TV money will decline, and precipitously. How will the league and owners pay even the good guys, their contracts?

Don't say it can't happen either. The NBA did nothing about the dopers, ganstas, and assorted ass cavities that populated its teams. Eventually the fans lost interest. It still pays well, but the bloom is definitely off the rose there.

Look at Hockey. The daily gangster acts on the ice helped eliminate interest. Then the greedy players decided to call a year long strike even when the owners had no TV income, because the weren't "making enough". Now no one cares.

Both of those leagues need major cleanups and team shrinkage to maintain/regain interest, IMO.

 

[Miguel]

Primetime, FYI, sports agents generally get something b/w 1% and 3%. The 10-20% is what talent/literary agents and managers get - like in show business. Very different in sports.

FWIW - The max agent fee for a franchised player is less than the max fee for non-franchised player and it goes down if the player is franchised in consecutive years.

 

[The Gr8est]

Football is a rough tough "collision" sport. More plays mean more injuries and we have too many of those already. I say leave THIS aspect of the game alone.

 

[Patjew]

8. I would eliminate the rule that states the ground can't cause a fumble. I have always wondered...WHY NOT? Isn't the "ground" part of the action. We don't give do overs when a player slips on the "ground". We don't call of games when the condition of the "ground" affects the outcome of a game. IMHO it is up to the player to be in control of the ball when the whistle blows, despite any contact from defensive players or the field. First it will eliminate the usual contraversy that that play generally causes. Second, fumbles are among the most exciting plays in football, we should welcome more of them. Thirdly, it would vastly speed up the pace of the game, by eliminating the usual challenges that are associated with this play.

Nice post. I disagree with the above, however. If a player possesses the ball and is knocked down by a defender, then he is down the *moment* the ball touches the ground. Extending this somehow would make for some very tricky cases. What if the ball is on the ground for 1/2 a second and then squirts out? 2 or 3 seconds? Gets very subjective.

But if the player just falls on his own and then the ground causes a fumble, he's not down, so sure, that should be and IS a fumble.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

As well as an agent who takes a further 10-20% cut, which you won't have to worry about with the lottery. Of that 8 million dollars Asante would potentially get, he's only looking at maybe 3 of it.

No
What is the max tax rate? ... 37%
Then add the state tax rate of 5% and neglect the federal deduction for state taxes.
Agent gets closer to 5%. Miguel would have a better # here.

Asante gets well over $4M of any reputed $8M.
And that's for ONE year.
Which is all he'd get if he blew out his knees playing the game.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's disingenuous to remove the taxes they pay because we all pay taxes . . . really.

To get my position out there correctly, I have NO PROBLEM with the money they make . . . I just don't want to hear them complaining about it.

 

[BradyManny]

Here's my problem: If $7.89 MILLION can't provide LIFETIME security, then how the f*ck will the rest of us manage. Now of course anyone can blow through millions, but it ISN'T the responsibility of the NFL to guarantee a lifetime supply of money regardless of how one spends it.

LOL, I just realized it'd take me over 200 years to make that franchise tag salary.