What Would Happen If . . . (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?

To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.

I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

 

[Jason Wood]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

The simple answer is because players love the game, and want to compete for a Championship.Those 12 teams would be asking themselves why they have to bite the bullet for the 20 teams' worth of the NFLPA that didn't have to make that sacrifice. Not to mention the financial incentives of playing out the playoffs.

 

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

The simple answer is because players love the game, and want to compete for a Championship.Those 12 teams would be asking themselves why they have to bite the bullet for the 20 teams' worth of the NFLPA that didn't have to make that sacrifice. Not to mention the financial incentives of playing out the playoffs.

You completely ignored the question. I realize it would never happen. The question was what would happen if it DID happen.

 

[njherdfan]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

I feel like the PR hit that the players would take by essentially breaching their contracts would give the owners more leverage.

 

[gandalas]

I think if this happened, then public sentiment would go even farther against the players.

People want their playoff football! I can't imagine the backlash if the players said "we aren't playing" in the most important weeks of the NFL season. I just think that it would hurt their case more than it would help.

In the offseason, we fans really don't have as much invested, so we can separate our emotions from the battles between players and owners. But during the playoffs? We would not care who is right or wrong, we would just care who is behind not getting our playoff games!

 

[JD8p]

Tough to say...on one side, there is the notion that the owners would jump and get something done ASAP.

On the other side, you could easily say that the owners would now have all the ammo they need to turn public opinion against the players 100%. By simply playing up the stigma of the greedy player who only wants money, not to win, and is more than happy to not fulfill their obligation to the organization and the fans, the owners could put the players in a difficult spot.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Baseball did this, suprised the union didnt think about it but again this union isnt that strong

 

[fruity pebbles]

I think the public would leave nfl football in droves

 

[phillyphan07]

Baseball did this, suprised the union didnt think about it but again this union isnt that strong

or they saw what it did to baseball....

 

[renesauz]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Baseball did this, suprised the union didnt think about it but again this union isnt that strong

or they saw what it did to baseball....

what did it do really? baseball was #2 sport then and still is. Sure it took people alittle while to come back around but Baseball is as strong as ever now

 

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

As already mentioned, baseball players did this. They didn't get sued. They were not bankrupted.As for fan dissent, what will happen if there is no football next year? Will the fans be happy?I realize this whole topic is theoretical, but if given the option would fans rather have playoffs this year and no football next year at all -- or -- would fans rather have the playoffs a month later this year and football all next year without interruption?

 

[netnalp]

It would be interesting seeing Jerry Jones response to this with the Superbowl at his stadium.

 

[The_Man]

The fans would go apoplectic and the owners would murder them in the court of public opinion, paving the way for grudging acceptance of scabs in training camp next summer - "We don't want to use replacement players, but after the regular players violated the CBA and left all of us without playoffs and a Super Bowl, we really didn't have any other choice."

The union would crack like it did back in 87, and the players would come straggling back into camp, ready for the 18-game season the owners force upon them and getting less than they could have had they stayed the course and waited for the lockout, which makes the owners look like the villains and crushes any support for scab football.

Would be a catastrophically bad decision.

 

[Sweet Love]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

The simple answer is because players love the game, and want to compete for a Championship.Those 12 teams would be asking themselves why they have to bite the bullet for the 20 teams' worth of the NFLPA that didn't have to make that sacrifice. Not to mention the financial incentives of playing out the playoffs.

You completely ignored the question. I realize it would never happen. The question was what would happen if it DID happen.

If I were part of the ownership group and could not sue (someone mentioned they could/did not sue the players in baseball above), I would invite the next 12 teams who did NOT make the playoffs to participate in the 2011 playoffs. Now, it would be somewhat wattered down (better than scabs though), but it could also jab a knife into the solidarity of the Union. If you are Ochocinco, Steve Smithor another vet who never had much of chance to make or do well in the playoffs (or just may not get there again), it would get you thinking as a player. As an owner, i would want to hit them right back, where it hurts...solidarity. Do that, and see how those player union meetings go moving forward.

 

[Jason Wood]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

As already mentioned, baseball players did this. They didn't get sued. They were not bankrupted.As for fan dissent, what will happen if there is no football next year? Will the fans be happy?I realize this whole topic is theoretical, but if given the option would fans rather have playoffs this year and no football next year at all -- or -- would fans rather have the playoffs a month later this year and football all next year without interruption?

Huge differences here. In baseball the labor strife was driven by player's unhappiness and they publicly threatened strike for some time before acting on their promises. They were preparing for a work stoppage to force their hand. In this instance, it's the owners setting the stage for a lockout. Owners are FAR more financially ready for a true work stoppage than the players. As to the question at hand, IF it happened? It would destroy a huge part of the goodwill the NFL currently has, and players would lose whatever goodwill they may have to those layman out there who somehow find it comforting to root for the mythical "millionaire" over "billionaire."

 

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

The simple answer is because players love the game, and want to compete for a Championship.Those 12 teams would be asking themselves why they have to bite the bullet for the 20 teams' worth of the NFLPA that didn't have to make that sacrifice. Not to mention the financial incentives of playing out the playoffs.

You completely ignored the question. I realize it would never happen. The question was what would happen if it DID happen.

If I were part of the ownership group and could not sue (someone mentioned they could/did not sue the players in baseball above), I would invite the next 12 teams who did NOT make the playoffs to participate in the 2011 playoffs. Now, it would be somewhat wattered down (better than scabs though), but it could also jab a knife into the solidarity of the Union. If you are Ochocinco, Steve Smithor another vet who never had much of chance to make or do well in the playoffs (or just may not get there again), it would get you thinking as a player. As an owner, i would want to hit them right back, where it hurts...solidarity. Do that, and see how those player union meetings go moving forward.

If the 12 playoff teams were willing to bite the bullet for the union, I think it would be safe to say the remaining 20 teams would also refuse to play. For the sake of argument, assume that no team would be willing to suit up for the playoffs and that there would be no playoffs at all this year until a new CBA was reached.If it was done quickly enough, they could still play the playoffs this year, albeit after a brief hiatus.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Considering that only 13 owners would care (the 12 teams and Jerry Jones, who will showcase his JerryWorld on Feb 6th), the other 19 would probably just laugh at the players.The owners are set thanks to the DirecTV and TV contracts locked up for 2011 even if there is no football. That plus the potential savings coming from both a rookie cap (Lower rookie signing bonuses) and less salaries for the players (they hope) has them more than ready for a lockout - even at the expense of the 2011 season.

 

[Sweet Love]

Another question here:

Would the fans be able to sue the players (or at least have a leg to stand on)?

I am not trained in Law, but I could see some validity in a suit where fans paid for things like tickets, transportation (flying in to see a game), NFL Sunday Ticket, maybe even merchandize pruchased between Week 17 and the playoffs?

Personally, I fly up from Raleigh for a Jets game each year. Between tickets, food and flight, it usually costs me about $500+. I understand if the stadium "breaks" or there is a flood and they have to cancel the game, that would fall under Act of God, but where would "they just decided not to show up" fall under?

 

[Jason Wood]

Another question here:Would the fans be able to sue the players (or at least have a leg to stand on)?I am not trained in Law, but I could see some validity in a suit where fans paid for things like tickets, transportation (flying in to see a game), NFL Sunday Ticket, maybe even merchandize pruchased between Week 17 and the playoffs? Personally, I fly up from Raleigh for a Jets game each year. Between tickets, food and flight, it usually costs me about $500+. I understand if the stadium "breaks" or there is a flood and they have to cancel the game, that would fall under Act of God, but where would "they just decided not to show up" fall under?

Not a lawyer either but fans' gripes would be with the teams. You're paying the teams for tickets and ancillary stuff. The owners would then need to sue the players to recoup whatever liability they had from the fans lawsuits. All in all, a tough road to really see play out in favor of the fans, no?

 

[Summer Wheat]

If it did happen I really think the owners would destroy the players union for good. The players would then be playing for much less money in the future.

Let face reality, 99% of NFL players would still be playing this game even if the max salary was 250K a year. There will never be a shortage of players willing to play for whatever the salary is.

 

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Considering that only 13 owners would care (the 12 teams and Jerry Jones, who will showcase his JerryWorld on Feb 6th), the other 19 would probably just laugh at the players.The owners are set thanks to the DirecTV and TV contracts locked up for 2011 even if there is no football. That plus the potential savings coming from both a rookie cap (Lower rookie signing bonuses) and less salaries for the players (they hope) has them more than ready for a lockout - even at the expense of the 2011 season.

This is part of what concerns me for next year. The owners are positioning things to be their way or the highway and the players will be forced to cowtail to the owners whims and fancies. Since they are not that strong a union in the first place, they are running out of leverage against the owners. Again in theory, refusing to finish out this year would likely be the most leverage and strongest statement they have in negotiating for next year.I know Goodell and the NFL have already been trying to put a PR spin on negotiations for next year and sounding very positive that they are close to a deal and promoting that there will be football in 2011. Of course, the league will try to spin doctor that the players would be the ones to mess things up if there is a work stoppage.I realize that both the owners and the players are both in a position to remain filthy rich while the rest of us are just average joes, so it's hard to feel sorry for either side. But at this point I don't see the players union with a lot of firepower.

 

[pantherclub]

In regards to the lock out the Players are really in a lose lose scenario. The Owners have every card in the deck right now.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

A lot of players would lose game checks and playoff appearance bonuses. And since the TV agreements are negotiated between the owners and the media, the media would rip the players.

 

[RUSF18]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Considering that only 13 owners would care (the 12 teams and Jerry Jones, who will showcase his JerryWorld on Feb 6th), the other 19 would probably just laugh at the players.The owners are set thanks to the DirecTV and TV contracts locked up for 2011 even if there is no football. That plus the potential savings coming from both a rookie cap (Lower rookie signing bonuses) and less salaries for the players (they hope) has them more than ready for a lockout - even at the expense of the 2011 season.

This is part of what concerns me for next year. The owners are positioning things to be their way or the highway and the players will be forced to cowtail to the owners whims and fancies. Since they are not that strong a union in the first place, they are running out of leverage against the owners. Again in theory, refusing to finish out this year would likely be the most leverage and strongest statement they have in negotiating for next year.I know Goodell and the NFL have already been trying to put a PR spin on negotiations for next year and sounding very positive that they are close to a deal and promoting that there will be football in 2011. Of course, the league will try to spin doctor that the players would be the ones to mess things up if there is a work stoppage.I realize that both the owners and the players are both in a position to remain filthy rich while the rest of us are just average joes, so it's hard to feel sorry for either side. But at this point I don't see the players union with a lot of firepower.

Okay, I'll ask...were you the one to call into the show to pitch this idea?

 

[David Yudkin]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Considering that only 13 owners would care (the 12 teams and Jerry Jones, who will showcase his JerryWorld on Feb 6th), the other 19 would probably just laugh at the players.The owners are set thanks to the DirecTV and TV contracts locked up for 2011 even if there is no football. That plus the potential savings coming from both a rookie cap (Lower rookie signing bonuses) and less salaries for the players (they hope) has them more than ready for a lockout - even at the expense of the 2011 season.

This is part of what concerns me for next year. The owners are positioning things to be their way or the highway and the players will be forced to cowtail to the owners whims and fancies. Since they are not that strong a union in the first place, they are running out of leverage against the owners. Again in theory, refusing to finish out this year would likely be the most leverage and strongest statement they have in negotiating for next year.I know Goodell and the NFL have already been trying to put a PR spin on negotiations for next year and sounding very positive that they are close to a deal and promoting that there will be football in 2011. Of course, the league will try to spin doctor that the players would be the ones to mess things up if there is a work stoppage.I realize that both the owners and the players are both in a position to remain filthy rich while the rest of us are just average joes, so it's hard to feel sorry for either side. But at this point I don't see the players union with a lot of firepower.

Okay, I'll ask...were you the one to call into the show to pitch this idea?

No. I don't think it's that a great of an idea, but I am curious as to what the owners response would be and if they would budge at all to try to get a new deal done ASAP.

 

[FantasyTrader]

We need to stop talking about the court of public opinion like it matters. Put yourself on the other side of this argument. You work for a Co. and you're part of a union negotiating an extended deal with ownership. The customers using the products your Co. makes are the fans...the "court of public opinion".

What are your thoughts about who the customer thinks is RIGHT, whether it's you or the owner? You could give rat's a** what they think! Sure, you empathize with the fact that they want their product and you're mildly concerned about them jumping ship to a competitor, but in the grand scheme it has zero impact on the timeline of your negotiations.

So please, let's stop talking about public opinion like it means anything.

 

[Phurfur]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

This would open the door for the owners to play with replacement players next year.

 

[Big_Russel]

We'd see something I never thought I would see in my lifetime...

JaMarcus Russell Throwing a bomb to Fred-Ex in the Superbowl.

 

[netnalp]

What would happen if the player boycotted the ProBowl?

Fans probably would forgive that.

 

[gianmarco]

The biggest problem with this is that it would be impossible to get any type of deal or agreement done in any reasonable amount of time. Thus, this move would essentially just cancel the playoffs. It's not as if pulling those bold maneuver would cause them to hammer out a deal in 72 hours so that the playoffs would go on as planned.

 

[The_Man]

What would happen if the player boycotted the ProBowl?

Fans probably would forgive wouldn't notice that.

fixed

 

[greenroom]

To me the public is not ever going to be on the player side. So to me this would hurt the owners where it hurts in the pocket book. Yes the media and fans would rip the players, but if this is not resolved by next fall the media and the fans are still going rip the players.

It would be a risky move by the players and one that I think would not be in the best interest. Baseball may be the 2nd sport, but it lost a lot of fans, by canceling the World Series.

 

[BassNBrew]

What would happen? About 700 players would be permanently fired/banned from the league and another 700 offered contracts. The quality of football would still be superior to the college bcs bowl games that are making people a lot of money. In two years I doubt we would notice the difference in the product on the field. The "bad play/players" you see now is defined by how good the "excellent players" perform.

eta: Close your eyes to PEDs and the caliber of replacement player play would match what we have today.

 

[TheChairman]

Scab players, lawsuits filed by the owners, formation of a different football players union, and a lot of 6'5" 350 lb. guys bagging groceries in the summer. No playoffs.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There might be some effort to get a deal done before week one, but the logistics of rescheduling the playoffs/Superbowl are so great that if it wasn't done before the wild card round games, then there would be no more playoffs and with no more playoffs, the players lose any leverage they once had and in fact put themselves in a worse bargaining position going into next season.

Simply not enough time for the players to make this powerplay.

Maybe....MAYBE...it works if they announce they will not play in the Superbowl unless something gets done. All 12 remaining team's players pledge that they won't play in the big game should their team make it unless a new CBA is in place. This gives them a month to get it done. Enough time to exert their influence and still enough leverage with the NFL's crown jewel on the line.

 

[jackdubl]

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.

To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)

Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

This is what I was thinking. Breach of contract lawsuit for consequential damages. I imagine the damages would be astronomical.

 

[David Yudkin]

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.

To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)

Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

This is what I was thinking. Breach of contract lawsuit for consequential damages. I imagine the damages would be astronomical.

I don't know where people are coming up with this. Players have gone on strike and wiped out entire sports seasons and post seasons before. Lockouts have taken place that have knocked out entire seasons and post seasons before. I don't recall seeing anything about any lawsuits or monetary awards involving any of those.Maybe they happened and I missed them all, but I think there may be already be contingencies and provisions embedded in the various contracts and agreements to account for potential labor stoppages.

 

[captain_amazing]

What would happen is President Obama would fly in, because of his love of sports, and negotiate a swift agreement between the union and owners, so us Americans can enjoy us some good 'ole postseason football.

 

[massraider]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

The simple answer is because players love the game, and want to compete for a Championship.

Cut off their paychecks, and see how much they love the game.

 

[Runningman]

What would happen is President Obama would fly in, because of his love of sports, and negotiate a swift agreement between the union and owners, so us Americans can enjoy us some good 'ole postseason football.

Monkeys would fly out my butt.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It would be interesting seeing Jerry Jones response to this with the Superbowl at his stadium.

That would be the single greatest meltdown in history.

 

[McBokonon]

It would violate the CBA

I was listening to sports radio on the way home and they talked about how Antonio Pierce was discussing this.

The current CBA, as the NFL pointed out, does have a provision in it preventing such an action. It states that "Neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement." In other words, no strike or lockout can legally take place until March 4 - long after the playoffs had ended.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

if that were to happen the owners would have to be completely ######ed to cave in overnight and rush any deal through just to put football on tv next week, and I don't think they're ######ed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Well, for starters, the lawsuit the NFL could bring would bankrupt every single player involved. More, those players would probably end up playing for free for the next 3-4 years to finish paying off the NFL's losses, and 1-2 more to pay off the losses of other affected entities.

To make things worse, they would garner intense ill-will of the fans, who would swing solidly and irrevocably in the owner's corners. They would also lose face/impact in front of any third party arbitrator later (should one be used.)

Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about this would quickly realize that the proposal is beyond ludicrous. What was the collective IQ of the idiots talking about it? 50?

This is what I was thinking. Breach of contract lawsuit for consequential damages. I imagine the damages would be astronomical.

I don't know where people are coming up with this. Players have gone on strike and wiped out entire sports seasons and post seasons before. Lockouts have taken place that have knocked out entire seasons and post seasons before. I don't recall seeing anything about any lawsuits or monetary awards involving any of those.

Strikes and lockouts are allowable when there's no current CBA prohibiting them. The NFL CBA (which does have a no-strike, no-lockout clause) ends March 1 of this year. If the players want to strike after that, they can. They can't strike now: it would be a breach of contract.If the players did strike now, the owners could promise them a zillion dollars at the conclusion of the Super Bowl to get them to play. Then after the Super Bowl, the owners could simply refuse to pay and be perfectly within their rights. The players are already obligated to play the rest of this season (including playoffs). The owners don't have to make any new promises to get the players to live up to their current obligations. There would be no consideration for those new promises; so any new promises that were made would be unenforceable.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The fans would go apoplectic and the owners would murder them in the court of public opinion, paving the way for grudging acceptance of scabs in training camp next summer - "We don't want to use replacement players, but after the regular players violated the CBA and left all of us without playoffs and a Super Bowl, we really didn't have any other choice."The union would crack like it did back in 87, and the players would come straggling back into camp, ready for the 18-game season the owners force upon them and getting less than they could have had they stayed the course and waited for the lockout, which makes the owners look like the villains and crushes any support for scab football.Would be a catastrophically bad decision.

Tatum Bell Superbowl MVP

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?

To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.

I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

Considering that only 13 owners would care (the 12 teams and Jerry Jones, who will showcase his JerryWorld on Feb 6th), the other 19 would probably just laugh at the players.The owners are set thanks to the DirecTV and TV contracts locked up for 2011 even if there is no football. That plus the potential savings coming from both a rookie cap (Lower rookie signing bonuses) and less salaries for the players (they hope) has them more than ready for a lockout - even at the expense of the 2011 season.

This is part of what concerns me for next year. The owners are positioning things to be their way or the highway and the players will be forced to cowtail to the owners whims and fancies. Since they are not that strong a union in the first place, they are running out of leverage against the owners. Again in theory, refusing to finish out this year would likely be the most leverage and strongest statement they have in negotiating for next year.I know Goodell and the NFL have already been trying to put a PR spin on negotiations for next year and sounding very positive that they are close to a deal and promoting that there will be football in 2011. Of course, the league will try to spin doctor that the players would be the ones to mess things up if there is a work stoppage.

I realize that both the owners and the players are both in a position to remain filthy rich while the rest of us are just average joes, so it's hard to feel sorry for either side. But at this point I don't see the players union with a lot of firepower.

Okay, I'll ask...were you the one to call into the show to pitch this idea?

No It was "woody"...

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

There was some banter about this this morning on sports talk radio. Basically, with the players very likely to be locked out after the season, why not take a preemptive strike against the owners by refusing to play in the playoffs until a new deal is reached. Would the owners jump and if so would they cave in and get a new CBA put together quickly in order to save the rest of this season?To put things in perspective, tv ratings for football here in New Engalnd have never been higher. The 10 highest rated tv shows for the year were all Patriots broadcasts (not just sports shows, this was for all shows in all time slots). They have had better ratings than their 2007 season and they are only getting higher.I realize it would never happen. But wouldn't refusing to finish the year hit the owners hard and move negotiations along at a much faster pace?

It would hand the owners the upper hand in the public domain for the rest of the negotiations. They'd let the playoffs die (and still collect the television money) and point to the shameful players who cancelled Christmas. The players would be painted as not caring about the fans at all and being selfish and greedy.I think if it actually happened you'd have some support for continuing with scab players in 2011. The casual football fan doesn't want the playoffs taken from them, especially if their team made it. If you can pin it on the players 100 percent, that's a win for the owners and they'd be given more leeway for how they treated the "spoiled" players in the negotiations.