Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Plenty of other factors in play of course, but the MLS is a capped league with rules designed to encourage parity. It pales in comparision to La Liga, the Premiership, the Bundesleagua, or really any number of other soccer leagues throughout the world.

And in fact the league (which owns all player contracts for all 18 teams and determines total salaries) has apparently had enough of parity and gotten tired of waiting for its big market teams, New York and LA, to win enough hardware to help promote the sport in the country's biggest cities. So the salaries for New York and LA are roughly three times bigger than any other team in the league this year.Would they be lining up to buy Fulham kits in Singapore if the Cottagers pulled down a single Premier League title? No chance. Would Seville would be an international marketing force like Barca or Real if they found a way to win it all in La Liga? No one wrote a Broadway musical about the Kansas City Royals last time I checked, but the Damn Yankees have one. Was the casual fan was more interested in the NFL when Baltimore and Tampa were winning lone titles than when the 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots had their heydays in the 80s/90s/00s? Jordan's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Detroit's Bad Boys? Or the '77 Trailblazers? (Holy #### - don't look now, but the NBA has zero parity!)Yeah. That's what I thought. Dynasties sell.

 

[Cripster]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I am thinking this way though I don't think the owners are completly are above board. For those is this thread that think all the players want is what they had, I have some property I would like to sell you. D Smith is bad for the NFL. He was asked point blank the night of the draft if the players really wanted to do away with the draft and wanted the other things the Goodell mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. He would not answer the question and become teasty when asked why he would not answer the question. I think he will be representing his membership poorly if he doesn't come back to the table and negotiate as soon as the 8th circuit rules. I think the lockout will be upheld. I believe its its appealed to the full 8th circuit, the owners will prevail (8 of 11 republican appointees I believe. As soon as the creditors show up, lets hope De gets his pink slip.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward. The NFLPA decertified because Goodell couldn't even get many owners to the negotiations. The owners were mailing in their negotiation so the players said screw it. They decided their best chance at a fair deal was to go to court where other people will decide how this goes. From Day 1 the players have wanted an explanation why the owners NEED more money. This will never get settled until some kind of presentation explaining this need happens. And the fact this case has never been made sits solely on the Commish's lap. He has had multiple years to get his ducks in line to show this exact thing. It's not about opening up all expenses, etc. It's about presenting your case. They have hinted at stadiums costing more money (with less public financing), most of us are pretty sure the NFL Network is bleeding money, etc. Make your case. I don't doubt that the owners margins are worse now than a few years ago. But you need to make that case. That's a PR battle I can get behind. But constantly blaming the other side when they were happy with the status quo while your side wants an extra billion a year with no justification is lame. And this is all I keep seeing from the Commish. He has time to talk to all the season ticket holders to continue the PR battle, but no time to spell out WHY THE OWNERS NEED THE MONEY? It's beyond lame and speaks volumes of how little control this guy has in this process.

 

[RaiderBones]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward. The NFLPA decertified because Goodell couldn't even get many owners to the negotiations. The owners were mailing in their negotiation so the players said screw it. They decided their best chance at a fair deal was to go to court where other people will decide how this goes. From Day 1 the players have wanted an explanation why the owners NEED more money. This will never get settled until some kind of presentation explaining this need happens. And the fact this case has never been made sits solely on the Commish's lap. He has had multiple years to get his ducks in line to show this exact thing. It's not about opening up all expenses, etc. It's about presenting your case. They have hinted at stadiums costing more money (with less public financing), most of us are pretty sure the NFL Network is bleeding money, etc. Make your case. I don't doubt that the owners margins are worse now than a few years ago. But you need to make that case. That's a PR battle I can get behind. But constantly blaming the other side when they were happy with the status quo while your side wants an extra billion a year with no justification is lame. And this is all I keep seeing from the Commish. He has time to talk to all the season ticket holders to continue the PR battle, but no time to spell out WHY THE OWNERS NEED THE MONEY? It's beyond lame and speaks volumes of how little control this guy has in this process.

I couldn't disagree more. It has been stated that the status quo is hurting the bottom line of the nfl. Screw the players and them wanting to see proof. This lockout is hurting the lower level player more so then any of the nfl stars and the owners. That is what D. Smith is not thinking about.

 

[dparker713]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward. The NFLPA decertified because Goodell couldn't even get many owners to the negotiations. The owners were mailing in their negotiation so the players said screw it. They decided their best chance at a fair deal was to go to court where other people will decide how this goes. From Day 1 the players have wanted an explanation why the owners NEED more money. This will never get settled until some kind of presentation explaining this need happens. And the fact this case has never been made sits solely on the Commish's lap. He has had multiple years to get his ducks in line to show this exact thing. It's not about opening up all expenses, etc. It's about presenting your case. They have hinted at stadiums costing more money (with less public financing), most of us are pretty sure the NFL Network is bleeding money, etc. Make your case. I don't doubt that the owners margins are worse now than a few years ago. But you need to make that case. That's a PR battle I can get behind. But constantly blaming the other side when they were happy with the status quo while your side wants an extra billion a year with no justification is lame. And this is all I keep seeing from the Commish. He has time to talk to all the season ticket holders to continue the PR battle, but no time to spell out WHY THE OWNERS NEED THE MONEY? It's beyond lame and speaks volumes of how little control this guy has in this process.

First off, everyone needs to stop saying 'fair'. Fair has nothing to do with anything here - this is an arms-length negotiation.And Goodell can no more force the owners to disclose their finances than he can force them to negotiate in good faith. So he talks in broad strokes, because that is all he's authorized to do.

 

[cobalt_27]

De Smith:

“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

Can someone from the pro-player side please decode this for me? It makes no sense.

 

[Rockchild]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc.

This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.

Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.

To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I found the dissenting view much more rational and focused than the majority view which I found more abstract in its interpretation but I fully admit my bias towards the players. As long as the players are decertified there is no labour dispute. How can a court 'force' a group that chose to not be a union into one? I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

 

[jbobbett]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc.

This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.

Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.

To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward. The NFLPA decertified because Goodell couldn't even get many owners to the negotiations. The owners were mailing in their negotiation so the players said screw it. They decided their best chance at a fair deal was to go to court where other people will decide how this goes. From Day 1 the players have wanted an explanation why the owners NEED more money. This will never get settled until some kind of presentation explaining this need happens. And the fact this case has never been made sits solely on the Commish's lap. He has had multiple years to get his ducks in line to show this exact thing. It's not about opening up all expenses, etc. It's about presenting your case. They have hinted at stadiums costing more money (with less public financing), most of us are pretty sure the NFL Network is bleeding money, etc. Make your case. I don't doubt that the owners margins are worse now than a few years ago. But you need to make that case. That's a PR battle I can get behind.

But constantly blaming the other side when they were happy with the status quo while your side wants an extra billion a year with no justification is lame. And this is all I keep seeing from the Commish. He has time to talk to all the season ticket holders to continue the PR battle, but no time to spell out WHY THE OWNERS NEED THE MONEY? It's beyond lame and speaks volumes of how little control this guy has in this process.

How do you know how strong or weak their case was? I didn't think that info was public. The owners presented 3rd party audited financials, claiming they made their case. The players said it wasn't good enough. Too bad we'll never know what the mediator thinks about it.And seriously, they have hinted at stadiums costing more money??? Public financing for stadiums is a huge political issue, every dollar is debated. No need to hint about anything there.

 

[cobalt_27]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

 

[Rockchild]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

Never said it was cool just that I liked the line. Is it factually correct? No, but the sentiment is that it is the owners who are, by their actions, keeping football from happening right now.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL.

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Why isn't making the playoffs a reasonable metric? You think that bottom feeder teams like KC and Montreal/Washington can be said to have ANY measure of success in the past 20 years? In the last 15 years the Royals have finished last in their division 8 times, 4th 6 times and 3rd once.

In the last 15 years the Wash/Mon franchise finished last 7 times, 4th 7 times and 2nd once.

In the last 15 years Pitt has finished last 8 times, 5th 4 times and fourth twice and third once.

If making the playoffs is not a reasonable metric,what about the amount of times you finish LAST in your division?

How about finishing with a .500 record?

Pitt last time finished .500 or better - 1992

KC - once in the last 15 years - 2003

Washington(never)/MON - 3 times in last 15 years

So not to be too arguementative but please give me a reasonable metric of success where the Royals or the Pirates can be deemed successful (on the field).

Edited becasue I appartently can't read.

As I said, you can't use making the playoffs as a metric because 50% more teams make the playoffs each year in the NFL compared to MLB. Adding four more playoff spots wouldn't increase MLB parity.If you want examples of NFL futility:

Detroit Lions: Last in division 5 years in a row and counting, 9 times in last 15 years. .500 or better record 3 times in that time frame (never better than 9-7). Proud owners of a winless season.

Cleveland Browns: Last in division 8 times in the 12 years since they've come back into existence. .500 or better record 2 times in that time frame. Before that, six losing seasons in a row.

Arizona Cardinals: Had two years of decent play in 2008-2009--before that had only one winning season between 1985 and 2007.

Surely you could have come up with those on your own.

OK so forgive me if my math isn't so good.The three NFL teams you added have 9 seasons of .500 or better (since you didn't care to list Arizona's 4 years) while the 3 franchises I listed has a total 4 and one of those teams had zero.

Your arguement was that even the bottom dwelling teams in MLB could be considered successful by "a reasonable measure".

The Browns tied for a division crown in that time.

The Cards went to a Superbowl in that time.

Are these not reasonable measures of success?

Go ahead and point out again where that success is in the Royals, Nats and Pirates again.

 

[dparker713]

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL.

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Why isn't making the playoffs a reasonable metric? You think that bottom feeder teams like KC and Montreal/Washington can be said to have ANY measure of success in the past 20 years? In the last 15 years the Royals have finished last in their division 8 times, 4th 6 times and 3rd once.

In the last 15 years the Wash/Mon franchise finished last 7 times, 4th 7 times and 2nd once.

In the last 15 years Pitt has finished last 8 times, 5th 4 times and fourth twice and third once.

If making the playoffs is not a reasonable metric,what about the amount of times you finish LAST in your division?

How about finishing with a .500 record?

Pitt last time finished .500 or better - 1992

KC - once in the last 15 years - 2003

Washington(never)/MON - 3 times in last 15 years

So not to be too arguementative but please give me a reasonable metric of success where the Royals or the Pirates can be deemed successful (on the field).

Edited becasue I appartently can't read.

As I said, you can't use making the playoffs as a metric because 50% more teams make the playoffs each year in the NFL compared to MLB. Adding four more playoff spots wouldn't increase MLB parity.If you want examples of NFL futility:

Detroit Lions: Last in division 5 years in a row and counting, 9 times in last 15 years. .500 or better record 3 times in that time frame (never better than 9-7). Proud owners of a winless season.

Cleveland Browns: Last in division 8 times in the 12 years since they've come back into existence. .500 or better record 2 times in that time frame. Before that, six losing seasons in a row.

Arizona Cardinals: Had two years of decent play in 2008-2009--before that had only one winning season between 1985 and 2007.

Surely you could have come up with those on your own.

OK so forgive me if my math isn't so good.The three NFL teams you added have 9 seasons of .500 or better (since you didn't care to list Arizona's 4 years) while the 3 franchises I listed has a total 4 and one of those teams had zero.

Your arguement was that even the bottom dwelling teams in MLB could be considered successful by "a reasonable measure".

The Browns tied for a division crown in that time.

The Cards went to a Superbowl in that time.

Are these not reasonable measures of success?

Go ahead and point out again where that success is in the Royals, Nats and Pirates again.

The MLB system has only been in place since 2002. Your period of 15 years is entirely arbitrary. Plus, its fairly easy to lay the worst franchise of the past 50 years in either sport at the feet of the Lions.

 

[Joe Summer]

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward.

It seems like you believe Goodell has an obligation to reach some sort of compromise with Smith. He doesn't. He works for the owners and their goal is to win.And why do the owners need to "make the case" that they need the extra money? It's their league. Since when do business owners have to justify profits?

 

[Mello]

I see it quite a bit differently. I agree that the owners have wanted out for multiple years. So why is it so hard for Goodell and the owners to make the case that they need the extra money? They have made no effort at showing this need at all. This is what I am saying a good Commish would have done. His job is to understand D. Smith's position well enough to keep this thing moving forward.

It seems like you believe Goodell has an obligation to reach some sort of compromise with Smith. He doesn't. He works for the owners and their goal is to win.And why do the owners need to "make the case" that they need the extra money? It's their league. Since when do business owners have to justify profits?

Because us fans actually enjoy watching football and want this next season to happy. I expect business owners to justify their NEED for increased profits when they are running an anti-competitive monopoly. People would be up in arms if every owner of an industry outside of sports collectively tried to cap all employees wages and decided to lockout their employees when they didn't agree. For some reason many people are convinced that just because the players make more money than most of us, it's OK now. It's hypocrisy.

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it?

Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?

Sound familiar?

- GM

 

[cobalt_27]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

Never said it was cool just that I liked the line. Is it factually correct? No, but the sentiment is that it is the owners who are, by their actions, keeping football from happening right now.

Well, I think in this case, how you use your words is more important than ever and to say that the NFL is suing, when in fact it's the exact opposite, is irresponsible. The sentiment you described could be said even more now about the players being the obstructionists. The Eighth Circuit's decision better be a huge splash of cold water in the players' face that they need to start taking these negotiations seriously. They've been flippant and dismissive about the process up until now, and that's fine. They had a lawsuit going to change the game for the worse, and that's fine because you've all assured me it's just a tactic. But, it's time for them to get their #### together and negotiate.Otherwise, they won't be collecting paychecks for the next year, and we're going to be some pretty pissed off football fans, many of whom who'll start wondering if we should give a #### anymore.

 

[Mello]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

 

[Cripster]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

Never said it was cool just that I liked the line. Is it factually correct? No, but the sentiment is that it is the owners who are, by their actions, keeping football from happening right now.

Yes the owners are keeping football from happening. But if it's the draft less , baseball styled free agency football they are preventing , then I fully support them. I would rather have a short or cancelled season that give the players these things. I firmly believe the anti trust suit was leverage to get some of these things. The game is what it is because it includes many things the players suit says are illegal.

 

[Cripster]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

So if an employee files a lawsuit against an employer in lieu of talking about his salary, the employer should do nothing.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/n...le=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

Never said it was cool just that I liked the line. Is it factually correct? No, but the sentiment is that it is the owners who are, by their actions, keeping football from happening right now.

Yes the owners are keeping football from happening. But if it's the draft less , baseball styled free agency football they are preventing , then I fully support them. I would rather have a short or cancelled season that give the players these things. I firmly believe the anti trust suit was leverage to get some of these things. The game is what it is because it includes many things the players suit says are illegal.

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

 

[Mello]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

So if an employee files a lawsuit against an employer in lieu of talking about his salary, the employer should do nothing.

I don't get how that has anything to do with the quote you responded to. Companies retaliating against employees is typically not allowed though.

 

[VAColt]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

What? Sure they do there are other Football leagues and most of these guys have some form of a college degree so they have choices. Just because you have a unique talent or skill does not mean your entitled to make millions.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

If the owners ask me to take a large pay cut when the extraordinarily profitable company I work for seems to be fine, I'd expect an explanation. 'We're just not making money' doesn't work - 'we're notmaking money because of A, B & W' does.On the other hand, Joe and David wouldn't be cutting me out of several hundred million dollars either.As I have said many times - this is not you and me. your boss isn't the owners you are not the players. Apples and oranges. The NFL is a unique business. Very few industries are comparable.

 

[Mello]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

What? Sure they do there are other Football leagues and most of these guys have some form of a college degree so they have choices. Just because you have a unique talent or skill does not mean your entitled to make millions.

There are not any other competing football leagues. If FBG went and bought out 99% of the fantasy football sites on the web and then tried to gouge customers for their services or force their employees to take less money they would be sued for anti-competitive practices. Owners of businesses in an industry are required to allow their employees to earn whatever the market can bare. In the case the owners are rigging the market.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

If you had a valid comparison group in any of the major sports (one professional sport that had parity versus one that did not), then you could make this a legitimate argument or at least directly answer whether it's true or not. However, anyone involved in research design would say to you that, in the absence of a valid comparison group, then it's just your opinion. Just as valid as mine, just as valid as anyone else's.But, I can understand as a fan of the players, you pretend to think otherwise.

Do your own homework. Most leagues in the world don't have parity (in fact, they have anti-parity) and are enormously popular.

First your argument is that parity is "irrelevant." You get challenged on that and then backpedal and claim that a lot of leagues that don't have parity are "popular." Nobody would disagree that leagues that have limited/anti-parity are popular. The point you raised was that parity was irrelevant, which doesn't make any sense. I don't think it logically holds that fans will support a league where only a few teams are competitive over a league with the same players distributed evenly and enjoy parity. Anyway, in the absence of a side-by-side comparison group, your opinion is just that--an opinion. Thanks for playing.

Plenty of other factors in play of course, but the MLS is a capped league with rules designed to encourage parity. It pales in comparision to La Liga, the Premiership, the Bundesleagua, or really any number of other soccer leagues throughout the world.

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It's interesting that so much was made about Judge Nelson's decision. It was deacribed as a total beatdown of the owners with many experts saying it was "appeal proof."

And yet, here we are and it seems as if not only was it not appeal proof, but that the Appeals Court is poised to hand HER a major beatdown.

Just from a legal standpoint, if this keeps going on it's new current course and Judge Nelson's ruling gets blown up, I wonder what that does to her career? Obviously plenty of judges are overturned all the time, but to have written such a scathing opinion on such a public issue and then to get potentially overturned in a scathing rebuke, I would think any possibility of advancement would seem to be a lot more doubtful.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Plenty of other factors in play of course, but the MLS is a capped league with rules designed to encourage parity. It pales in comparision to La Liga, the Premiership, the Bundesleagua, or really any number of other soccer leagues throughout the world.

And in fact the league (which owns all player contracts for all 18 teams and determines total salaries) has apparently had enough of parity and gotten tired of waiting for its big market teams, New York and LA, to win enough hardware to help promote the sport in the country's biggest cities. So the salaries for New York and LA are roughly three times bigger than any other team in the league this year.Would they be lining up to buy Fulham kits in Singapore if the Cottagers pulled down a single Premier League title? No chance. Would Seville would be an international marketing force like Barca or Real if they found a way to win it all in La Liga? No one wrote a Broadway musical about the Kansas City Royals last time I checked, but the Damn Yankees have one. Was the casual fan was more interested in the NFL when Baltimore and Tampa were winning lone titles than when the 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots had their heydays in the 80s/90s/00s? Jordan's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Detroit's Bad Boys? Or the '77 Trailblazers? (Holy #### - don't look now, but the NBA has zero parity!)

Yeah. That's what I thought. Dynasties sell.

I agree. I mean, that's why Hulk Hogan is still around. People love a good dynasty. Look at what the Rock was able to do. Everyone remembers the great Randy Savage vs. Rick Steamboat match in WrestleMania, 1987. But who remembers Nathan Jones or Scott Vick. Nobody.

Dynasties sell. Let's move that way.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

 

[jbobbett]

Plenty of other factors in play of course, but the MLS is a capped league with rules designed to encourage parity. It pales in comparision to La Liga, the Premiership, the Bundesleagua, or really any number of other soccer leagues throughout the world.

And in fact the league (which owns all player contracts for all 18 teams and determines total salaries) has apparently had enough of parity and gotten tired of waiting for its big market teams, New York and LA, to win enough hardware to help promote the sport in the country's biggest cities. So the salaries for New York and LA are roughly three times bigger than any other team in the league this year.Would they be lining up to buy Fulham kits in Singapore if the Cottagers pulled down a single Premier League title? No chance. Would Seville would be an international marketing force like Barca or Real if they found a way to win it all in La Liga? No one wrote a Broadway musical about the Kansas City Royals last time I checked, but the Damn Yankees have one. Was the casual fan was more interested in the NFL when Baltimore and Tampa were winning lone titles than when the 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots had their heydays in the 80s/90s/00s? Jordan's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Detroit's Bad Boys? Or the '77 Trailblazers? (Holy #### - don't look now, but the NBA has zero parity!)

Yeah. That's what I thought. Dynasties sell.

This is the best statement yet of the anti-parity side of the pro-players side . I disagree that it follows that the parity system is not important for the NFL.There are two reasons that parity is more important for the NFL than it is for the other leagues.

1) In the NFL every year there are teams at 14-2 or better and 2-14 or worse. 14-2 is .875 winning percentage. If a baseball team did that they would be 142-20. The losing teams would be 20-142. An NBA team would be 72-10 ('95 Bulls!). Football is just a different game, it has more extreme outcomes with parity than baseball or basketball without! What would the NFL see without parity? Many games whose outcomes were in no doubt whatsoever. Games would regularly be decided by 60-70 points. Yes when the Giants played the Cowboys it would epic, but how many 64-0 games would you watch with backups playing the whole 2nd half?

2) The NFL needs fans to watch games other than their home team. The NFL can only profit 16 times a year off a fan who only watches one team. Those other games need to have interest too. MLB, NBA, NHL don't need that to succeed. They only need fans to have passion for one team.

I personally think the other leagues would be more popular on the whole with parity systems in place but I can see the arguments against that point. For football I think it is critical.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

OK, stand corrected. But Smith's meaning was clear. Appeal or sue, the owners have filed in court to prevent football. After the earlier ruling we would have had a season starting in only a few days. Due to the owners legal filing we do not have football.

 

[scoobygang]

Just from a legal standpoint, if this keeps going on it's new current course and Judge Nelson's ruling gets blown up, I wonder what that does to her career? Obviously plenty of judges are overturned all the time, but to have written such a scathing opinion on such a public issue and then to get potentially overturned in a scathing rebuke, I would think any possibility of advancement would seem to be a lot more doubtful.

It does nothing to her career. She's appointed for life. Even if we're assuming that she'd be considered for a position on the appeals court or the Supreme Court, it's hardly the most contentious issue for her to have been benchslapped on. It's not an abortion or gay marriage or affirmative action decision. It's not even really an antitrust decision. It's a question of whether a federal statute limits her jurisdicition in these specific factual circumstances. Sotomayor and Alito were confirmed to the Supreme Court with much more controversial decisions in their records.

 

[jbobbett]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

That's a weird interpretation of what is going on. The league is just defending themselves against the players suit. I don't think De Smith helps his cause with statements like that. No unbiased person is going to see it like that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.

I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.

Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

OK, stand corrected. But Smith's meaning was clear. Appeal or sue, the owners have filed in court to prevent football. After the earlier ruling we would have had a season starting in only a few days. Due to the owners legal filing we do not have football.

And this is a good thing because football without a CBA is pretty chaotic and football the way that D Smith, the players and the agents want it sucks. So no football under those two circumstances is a win in my book.

 

[scoobygang]

This is the best statement yet of the anti-parity side of the pro-players side . I disagree that it follows that the parity system is not important for the NFL.

There are two reasons that parity is more important for the NFL than it is for the other leagues.

1) In the NFL every year there are teams at 14-2 or better and 2-14 or worse. 14-2 is .875 winning percentage. If a baseball team did that they would be 142-20. The losing teams would be 20-142. An NBA team would be 72-10 ('95 Bulls!). Football is just a different game, it has more extreme outcomes with parity than baseball or basketball without! What would the NFL see without parity? Many games whose outcomes were in no doubt whatsoever. Games would regularly be decided by 60-70 points. Yes when the Giants played the Cowboys it would epic, but how many 64-0 games would you watch with backups playing the whole 2nd half?

2) The NFL needs fans to watch games other than their home team. The NFL can only profit 16 times a year off a fan who only watches one team. Those other games need to have interest too. MLB, NBA, NHL don't need that to succeed. They only need fans to have passion for one team.

I personally think the other leagues would be more popular on the whole with parity systems in place but I can see the arguments against that point. For football I think it is critical.

In the English Premiere League, Arsenal once won the title by going all 38 games without a defeat. The league continued to grow. In fact, the Premiere League's growth has been largest in foreign markets, such as Asia. I've never spoken to Roger Goodell, but I once had lunch with Paul Tagliabue, and the guy was obsessed with expansion into Asia. If I'm expanding into a foreign market, I want to sell dynsasties and rivalries. I want Manchester United/Liverpool. I want Yankees/Red Sox. I want Lakers/Celtics. I don't want parity. As has been pointed out, college football makes a ton of money by feeding the good teams a bunch of sacrificial lambs for 80% of their games. Whatever we think of the platonic ideal of athletic competition and fairness, the data doesn't lie. The NFL hasn't grown faster than baseball in the past decade (I was somewhat surprised to learn how well baseball has done financially as we've all pronounced it dead). It hasn't grown faster than the European soccer leagues. And, of course, it hasn't even had all that much parity. What parity it does have, I would argue, is more a function of small sample size than anything else.

 

[dparker713]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

OK, stand corrected. But Smith's meaning was clear. Appeal or sue, the owners have filed in court to prevent football. After the earlier ruling we would have had a season starting in only a few days. Due to the owners legal filing we do not have football.

Smith is a lawyer. He knows full well that his statement was false.

 

[renesauz]

I'm not sure English/Spanish/etc soccer could be more popular. But I'll grant that it's not impossible.

Will you grant that anyone asserting lack of parity will kill a sport is talking out their ### with no evidence anywhere on the planet to support the claim?

I do grant that "Kill" may be too strong a term.My point is that there are many fans who do not follow sports leagues which lack parity, EXCEPT when the local team is doing well. Others not at all. Your claim seems to suggest that the NFL wouldn't miss a beat because there are successful leagues in the world without it. That's not just conjecture, but illogical conjecture since we have multiple examples just in this thread of individuals who demand some sort of parity.

 

[dparker713]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

I don't see how that statement contradicts my own. I'd like to suggest a new thread for the parity discussion as it is quite distant tangent of the topic for this thread, however.

 

[jbobbett]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

I don't see how that statement contradicts my own. I'd like to suggest a new thread for the parity discussion as it is quite distant tangent of the topic for this thread, however.

For me the parity issue is the most important part of the Labor Dispute.

 

[Bushead]

can anyone offer if I have the basic premise of the 2 previaling judges in very simple terms - they are not sure they believe the courts have jurisdiction (vs the NRLB taking this up) and they are esentially accepting the "can't unscramble the eggs" arguement on the irreputable harm question.

 

[renesauz]

There are not any other competing football leagues. If FBG went and bought out 99% of the fantasy football sites on the web and then tried to gouge customers for their services or force their employees to take less money they would be sued for anti-competitive practices. Owners of businesses in an industry are required to allow their employees to earn whatever the market can bare. In the case the owners are rigging the market.

AND?Trust laws are designed to protect the public interest. The PUBLIC INTEREST. The NFL, as you've rightly pointed out, is a monopoly...but, in general, it's policies have served the public interest and brought us a great game we all love. UNlike the FFB example, the NFL is made BETTER by acting as one unit, as a trust. FFB websites would not....that would NOT serve the public interest.It's time to start applying the trust laws the way they were meant and designed to be applied. If you're worried about "rigging the market" (which is a legit conern when any trust exists), you counter that with federal law, with mediators (with powers), or with regulators (paid for out of the BUSINESSES pockets, not the taxpayers)...not by breaking up the trust which has served the public interests.Just because something's a monopoly doesn't mean the right answer is to blow it up.

 

[Ksquared]

This is the best statement yet of the anti-parity side of the pro-players side . I disagree that it follows that the parity system is not important for the NFL.

There are two reasons that parity is more important for the NFL than it is for the other leagues.

1) In the NFL every year there are teams at 14-2 or better and 2-14 or worse. 14-2 is .875 winning percentage. If a baseball team did that they would be 142-20. The losing teams would be 20-142. An NBA team would be 72-10 ('95 Bulls!). Football is just a different game, it has more extreme outcomes with parity than baseball or basketball without! What would the NFL see without parity? Many games whose outcomes were in no doubt whatsoever. Games would regularly be decided by 60-70 points. Yes when the Giants played the Cowboys it would epic, but how many 64-0 games would you watch with backups playing the whole 2nd half?

2) The NFL needs fans to watch games other than their home team. The NFL can only profit 16 times a year off a fan who only watches one team. Those other games need to have interest too. MLB, NBA, NHL don't need that to succeed. They only need fans to have passion for one team.

I personally think the other leagues would be more popular on the whole with parity systems in place but I can see the arguments against that point. For football I think it is critical.

In the English Premiere League, Arsenal once won the title by going all 38 games without a defeat. The league continued to grow. In fact, the Premiere League's growth has been largest in foreign markets, such as Asia. I've never spoken to Roger Goodell, but I once had lunch with Paul Tagliabue, and the guy was obsessed with expansion into Asia. If I'm expanding into a foreign market, I want to sell dynsasties and rivalries. I want Manchester United/Liverpool. I want Yankees/Red Sox. I want Lakers/Celtics. I don't want parity. As has been pointed out, college football makes a ton of money by feeding the good teams a bunch of sacrificial lambs for 80% of their games. Whatever we think of the platonic ideal of athletic competition and fairness, the data doesn't lie. The NFL hasn't grown faster than baseball in the past decade (I was somewhat surprised to learn how well baseball has done financially as we've all pronounced it dead). It hasn't grown faster than the European soccer leagues. And, of course, it hasn't even had all that much parity. What parity it does have, I would argue, is more a function of small sample size than anything else.

I really don't want to go into an in depth argument about parity. The NFL by most experts accounts is the most popular sport in the world per capita in the country when you consider the possible competing options. All of you soccer fans realize there is nothing else entertainment wise that comes close to competing with soccer abroad. So you watch what you get - as was said in a great line in a movie "it is not a choice, it is a lack of options". Due to the wide range of sports alone in the USA, for the NFL to have over 50% of the population being at least casual fans indicates the real popularity of this sport. I remember the 70's & 80's where there was not the parity we have today and if the NFL was the most popular it was not by much over baseball and basketball was not far behind. I know a lot of ex baseball fans that quit watching after the strike and MLB became a battle of who could spend the most vs a small market team that would hope to have a "miracle" year once a decade.I am to the point where I hope we lose the season if it means we can get a 10+yr agreement. Otherwise all of you that just want football, we will be repeating this same crap every year. And for those that don't feel the old NFL business model is broken, have you noticed the large number of stadiums struggling to keep from having blackouts. On the NFL radio, the announcers were just talking about the TB/NYG playoff game where a day before the deadline there were still 10,000 seats not sold. The economic changes are obvious everywhere, the only question I have is how much should be "given" back to the owner's side. But at this point the NFLPA is just stonewalling until they see all item by item financials - which is a nice political move just not very realistic or helpful for an agreement.

 

[Wadsworth]

I think that it's important to keep perspective as to the "winners' and "losers" in this dispute. The loser is not going to lose their house and start eating government cheese. No matter how the courts rules or whatever deal ends up being signed, both sides are going to end up reaping huge amounts of money from the fans and continue living their lives in a manner most of us can't even imagine. So regardless of outcome, I'm not going to bemoan the poor luck for the "loser". They are really just the second place winner.

 

[scoobygang]

can anyone offer if I have the basic premise of the 2 previaling judges in very simple terms - they are not sure they believe the courts have jurisdiction (vs the NRLB taking this up) and they are esentially accepting the "can't unscramble the eggs" arguement on the irreputable harm question.

The decision is probably premised 85% on the idea that they doubt that the district court had jurisdiction to order an injunction (due to the Norris/LaGuardia Act), and thus the the owners had a significant chance to succeed on the merits. All they essentially said about irreparable harm was that both sides could present evidence of harm (so to that extent, they accepted the owners' arguments that the denial of a stay would harm them) and that any decision would harm one of the parties. This is true, of course, but it kind of ducks the question of which side would be harmed in a way that could not be compensated with damages. I don't think either the majority or the dissent treat the issue very well, but I mostly agree that the issue really comes down to the liklihood of success on the merits. The dissent probably could have taken the majority to task for treating the analysis of the public interest in such a cursory fashion.

 

[renesauz]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

OK, stand corrected. But Smith's meaning was clear. Appeal or sue, the owners have filed in court to prevent football. After the earlier ruling we would have had a season starting in only a few days. Due to the owners legal filing we do not have football.

This is, IMHO, a short-sighted and illogical conclusion. Football being forced to be played without a CBA of any kind is not the same thing as "normal" football. The issue is far bigger than one season, and to throw your support behind whatever answer gives football the quickest, no matter the circumstances, is, well....short-sighted and illogical. Forcing football that way was a quick fix, and could have led to much bigger problems. Please, let's focus on the actual issues and reasons for the stances each side has taken....not on the "quick fix" once offered by Nelson's ruling.

 

[dparker713]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

I don't see how that statement contradicts my own. I'd like to suggest a new thread for the parity discussion as it is quite distant tangent of the topic for this thread, however.

Because a team like Fulham doesn't have anywhere near the revenue streams of a team like Man U. More money if soccer means the ability to purchase players from other teams throughout the world and the ability to resign the best players you have as well. To this point, Man U has finished first in the Premiership in 93, 94, 96, 97, 99-01, 03, 07-09, 11. In that time Man U has never finished worse than third and the gap between the top teams and the rest of the league has never been wider as the top clubs continue to purchase the best players from around the world and the smaller clubs lag further behind as revenues for the top teams grow.

 

[scoobygang]

AND?Trust laws are designed to protect the public interest. The PUBLIC INTEREST. The NFL, as you've rightly pointed out, is a monopoly...but, in general, it's policies have served the public interest and brought us a great game we all love. UNlike the FFB example, the NFL is made BETTER by acting as one unit, as a trust. FFB websites would not....that would NOT serve the public interest.It's time to start applying the trust laws the way they were meant and designed to be applied. If you're worried about "rigging the market" (which is a legit conern when any trust exists), you counter that with federal law, with mediators (with powers), or with regulators (paid for out of the BUSINESSES pockets, not the taxpayers)...not by breaking up the trust which has served the public interests.Just because something's a monopoly doesn't mean the right answer is to blow it up.

All laws were meant to serve the public interest. I don't even know what it means to say that the antitrust laws were meant to serve the public interest. In any case, your argument seems to have it exactly backwards. The Sherman Act says nothing about exempting contracts or conspiracies that restrain trade in the public interest. So it's hard to see how courts could read that provision in. Congress, of course, absolutely has the power to pass a new law or to amend the Sherman Act so that it does so. So I don't understand the argument that the courts, who are not invested with the power to rewrite the law, should do so when Congress, who does have that power, chooses not to do so.Listen, one thing that's really annoying in this thread is to see people who don't know a thing about antitrust law opining on the subject. The NFL's status as a monopoly has absolutely nothing to do with the antitrust issues in this case. The issues would be exactly the same if the NFL had the market share of the UFL or the Arena League. This isn't a Section 2 case. It's a Section 1 case. If you want to argue about what the fair result would be, or what's best for football, or who's the bad guy in this dispute, be my guest. But if you want to argue about how to interpret the law, please take a little time to try to understand what you're talking about.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

I don't see how that statement contradicts my own. I'd like to suggest a new thread for the parity discussion as it is quite distant tangent of the topic for this thread, however.

Would it be appropriate for me to drop by said thread with some opinions about how the absence of a draft would not adversely affect parity or is everybody sick of hearing me talk about this?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

can anyone offer if I have the basic premise of the 2 previaling judges in very simple terms - they are not sure they believe the courts have jurisdiction (vs the NRLB taking this up) and they are esentially accepting the "can't unscramble the eggs" arguement on the irreputable harm question.

The decision is probably premised 85% on the idea that they doubt that the district court had jurisdiction to order an injunction (due to the Norris/LaGuardia Act), and thus the the owners had a significant chance to succeed on the merits. All they essentially said about irreparable harm was that both sides could present evidence of harm (so to that extent, they accepted the owners' arguments that the denial of a stay would harm them) and that any decision would harm one of the parties. This is true, of course, but it kind of ducks the question of which side would be harmed in a way that could not be compensated with damages. I don't think either the majority or the dissent treat the issue very well, but I mostly agree that the issue really comes down to the liklihood of success on the merits. The dissent probably could have taken the majority to task for treating the analysis of the public interest in such a cursory fashion.

There were some not-so-subtle smackdowns on Judge Nelson's failure to even consider the owners' argument re: harm to the owners while accepting the players' harm contentions without so much as a blink. In short, the court of appeals said that the question of harm was fairly balanced between the two parties, where Nelson found this issue overwhelmingly in favor of the players. By balancing that issue, finding the public interest question moot, the court of appeals largely decided this issue on the question of likelihood of success on the merits - which they found in favor of the owners.