NFL Lockout Lifted
Not a complete surpirse and SIAP didn't find anything on the search
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6427134
Although it seems its not written in stone just yet
There's no way they don't have a season. They wouldn't suffer like the NHL did but the players and the league couldn't do without the money that they make.
There will be a season. No matter what the case there will be a season. Jim Scwhartz is auctioning off MNF tickets yet Vanden Bosch is telling guys not to go into Allen Park just yet. What does all of this mean you ask? It means we still have some time before a final end to this. Right now the Owners are being forced to coincide which, cmon, wont happen. Theres going to be appeals but id bet there will be one, because if theres not, how will we ever know how good the Lions actually coulda been this year...thats enough to convince them alone. Its a big cluster cuss. At least its not ran by the NCAA
The application of some fundamental rules of English (apostrophies to start) would be appreciated
your not my english professor. Noted: Appease Late Night BTB
What are apostrophies?
It doesn't appear we are going to have a lockout, and this really turns the tables in favor of the players.
The circuit court in st louis, where the appeal will be filed, is notoriously pro business and pro conservative. while it initially seems that this would work out in favor of the owners, they are realistically pushing a case where they want individual competitors to be forced into a union so they may collude for their own benefit.
This could really be the beginning of the end for the salary cap. Help us all.
I don't think there's any reasonable scenario where the owners win in court. Even the Supreme Court shot them down 9-0 in the American Needle case last year. That's why Goodell's public statements have all been pushing for new negotiations. The players called the owners' bluff.
See what happens when you get a real union head in there and not an ex-player who just really wants the owners and players to get along?
What is so good about the salary cap?
Well, when you don't have a salary cap, you get something like the New York Yankees on one end of the spectrum, winning the World Series every few years...
...and the Kansas City Royals on the other end of the spectrum, a small market team that never (okay, rarely) wins anything.
You also get ridiculously huge salaries like Alex Rodriguez's 10-year, $250 million deal.
The salary cap is one of the biggest reasons you see such parity in the NFL. Any team has a chance in any given year if they use their draft picks and free agency wisely. Without one, it's going to be the Cowboys, Giants, and Jets fighting it out every year.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
The baseball example is the go-to one, but I don't think it's clear-cut evidence in favor of a salary cap. The Red Sox and Yankees have a clear advantage each year, but revenue sharing and the luxury tax help other teams as well. Since 2003, 7 different teams have won the World Series.
<br>Also, you can't have a salary cap without a salary floor, and there is no way you will get the Pirates and Royals of the world to commit to doubling their spending.
<br>Leagues with salary caps have not had more parity than leagues without. And certainly have not had less labor issues.
<br>It's a complicated issue, with arguments on both sides.
The NFL, a league with a hard salary cap unquestionably has the most parity of any of the four leagues. Baseball, which has the least salary restrictions, has the least. World Series winners isn't the best metric, because baseball in general has great variation from game to game. Look at playoff participants. The Yankees, Red Sox and Braves are in the postseason year after year, while a number of small-market teams have next to no shot even on Opening Day.
The MLB has the least competitive balance, but it's not as skewed as some people tend to think.
My argument was mainly that there are less upside and more downside than people may realize to a cap. Though competitive balance is the clear upside (and I agree with your European soccer argument, although the Europa Cup is a 100 times as big a deal as the NIT, which I would compare to the late Intertoto Cup), the restrictions it puts on small market teams can lead them to bad situations (Hornets, Coyotes). Although even without salary floor restrictions, owners do a fine job of mismanaging and bankrupting teams too (Dodgers, Mets).
I'm probably pro-Salary cap, but it's a many-layered problem that is thankfully left to people much smarter than me to try and solve.
The NHL has a fairly rigid salary cap system, and I would say they've had quite a lot of parity. Just this year, on the last day of the regular season, the Anaheim Ducks could have finished anywhere from 4th to 8th place in the conference. Up until the last week of the regular season, there was something like 12 teams fighting for 8 playoff spots, and the difference between 12th and 4th was only a few points.
That's not parity. The NHL never had a parity problem before the cap/lockout. Besides the Wings, which big market teams dominated in the 1990s? Devils, Stars, Avalanche, Hurricanes went to the finals, Caps. Maybe Philly. NHL teams were losing a shitton of money partly due to player costs, partly due to many people just not giving a shit about a lot of markets. There hasn't been any more parity in the NHL since the lockout. Anaheim was a team that had success before the lockout.
"There hasn't been any more parity in the NHL since the lockout. "
Sorry, but that's just not the case. As mentioned previously, regarding baseball, parity should be measured by who wins the championship and who plays for the championship. Hockey has by far more parity than it did before the lockout and the implementation of the salary can and salary floor. It's measurable in the turn over of playoff teams from year to year and it's measurable in terms of participation once teams get to the playoffs. Both of those areas have changed greatly in the post-lockout period. For example, the number of first round series that have gone five games or less has dropped after the lockout, and dramatically so in the last four years (i.e. after the first two post-lockout seasons when everyone was still trying to figure out the new style of play and adjust to the salary structure). Parity doesn't necessarily show up during the regular season, but the increased level of competition once the playoffs are reached, as exemplified by the length of the average series, is definitely an indication of a move toward competitive parity.
The Yankees have been in the playoffs every year from 1995-2010 with the sole exception of 2008, I believe. The Red Sox have been there something like 8 out of the last 12 years.
The Royals haven't been to the playoffs since 1985 and the Pirates haven't been there since 1992. Meanwhile, the Twins have a very low payroll and everyone recognizes that they're perhaps the best run organization in the entirety of baseball because they do so much with so little.
So, in other words, you can practically only have success with a low payroll if the people in charge are geniuses.
There are some poorly run organizations with big markets (Dodgers, Mets) and some well run organizations without big markets (Athletics, Twins), but year in and year out, you can bet that teams with high payrolls will be in the playoffs or near the playoffs.
Yeah, this is why MLB is not near as popular as the NFL. People love going to baseball games, but if you're not a fan of a top-half team, you have almost no chance of going to the playoffs. We could name 15 teams that realistically, don't ever have a shot to make the playoffs, and if they happen to have a great year one year, all of their good players will be bought away. If this happens in the NFL, it will be far less popular, the value of half the teams will go through the floor and they will never be competitive.
If this happens, look for college football to get even more popular than it already is.
For an even better example, look at European soccer. In virtually every league nowadays, there are just a handful of teams (sometimes no more than 2-3) that have a realistic shot at the championship. The rest are basically hoping for the Europa League (the pro soccer version of the NIT) and to avoid relegation.
The combination of a salary cap, a draft and revenue sharing is the best way to ensure good competitive balance.
The salary cap creates parody unlike in baseball where even if the Yankees and the Red Sox aren't in the playoffs, they damn well should be. The NFL has been raking in cash, so changing much of anything would be stupidity. I would like to see them implement a rookie salary cap though. Far too many unproven players have made millions that they should have never gotten,owners should have the right of more of a trial period before such a big investment. Isn't that right Bengals and Lions fans?
It creates Parity.
SNL creates Parody, and has done so increasingly poorly in recent years.
That said I agree with you about a rookie cap. Without one having the #1 overall pick can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing. You're basically forced to sign an unproven player and compensate him as if he's a star before he even hits the field.
Ah yes, the old parody and parity mistake. My bad and thanks for the correction.
Will be reinstated in about 15 min.
Yawn
Remind me, why should I have any sympathy for either side?
<br>
<br>They both are rich, one for playing a game and the other for building a stadium..
Here's my argument for each:
- Players: The long term care of these guys, who suffer serious injuries to both the body and the brain, is rather poor. They are essentially the modern day (American) Gladiator (NITRO! STORM!) and a lot of them suffer long term health issues from playing football. Sure your 20's and 30's might be great, but the rest of your life, even with the money, might not be so great.
- Owners: For teams worth high 9 figures (astronomical valuations if you ask me), their profit margins are rather slim. The Packers' operating income fell 71% over their last three fiscal years, while revenue increased 18%. That's not a trend that can continue, or else (in theory) they'll be broke. And that's the Packers. Not the Panthers.
NYT article on Packers: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html
I don't really have sympathy either. But this latest ruling has put me decidedly on the side of the owners. A salary cap is necessary to have a competitive league with parity. This ruling puts that in jeopardy.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
The athletes are not being forced to play football. They can always opt out of pro football and get a regular job. There are lots of dangerous professions and many more that can take their toll on the body over time.
Even if my playing career was 2.5 years, I'd use that money wisely and be thankful for it.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
It seems really hard to sympathize with either side.
<br>
<br>Digging into it, I understand the players' beef. The average NFL career lasts 2.5 seasons and if I recall correctly, the average salary is 1 million, but median salary is not even half that (I don't have the numbers right here, I could be off). So if you're not Ray Lewis or Peyton Manning, you may find yourself at 25 years old, with less than 1 million from your playing days, long term health problems and for most, not a lot of lucrative employment opportunities. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't switch my life for that one. If we're talking about Tom Brady, on the other hand, where do I sign for the life swap?
<br>
<br>As for owners, I understand that they don't get the same return or income as they would from other investments, but they get to own an NFL team, which has to be the most enviable corporate position in America, it's worth paying the premium.
<br>
<br>Count me on the players' side.
Chances are, you won't have any long term health problems from 2.5 years of pro football. If anything, you got 2.5 years of free athletic training and the opportunity to delay the real world for 2.5 years longer than a normal college student. Also, you got to meet famous people. rake in very good income for 2.5 years and get to say you played in the NFL. I'm not going to feel bad about that. I spent 0.0 years in the NFL, I have normal health problems, and all my cool stories involve beer pong.
And they don't have a lot of lucrative employment opportunities? So they're just like us? The fact that they'll need to get the same job they'd need to get if they didn't play in the NFL is not going to make me feel bad.
Actually, if you're a 300+ lb lineman, even after a short NFL career, chances are pretty good that you'll have health problems, especially if you're not exercising as much but still eating a lot.
You might have knee, shoulder or neck problems, excessive weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, head trauma and resultant psychological issues, or maybe some combination of them.
I'm not really rooting for either side, but I basically want them to keep what they've got: a salary cap, lots of revenue sharing, and a 16-game schedule. Beyond that they can nibble around the edges however they want.
I have no background in anti-trust, and I'm struggling to understand this whole deal.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
Not an Mgolawyer, but from what I understand, the judge ruled for an injunction because not doing so would cause harm that could not be made up by monetary damages later.
One reason for this was that players not playing and practicing means they would lose a year of on-job improvment they could not get back, considering the limit on career length.
Another was for rookies: by declaring for the NFL draft, they could no longer play college ball to work on their skills. But a locked out NFL leaves them with no options. They would be forced to compete against next year's rookie crop, which has had the ability to practice.
Esentially, this injunction is an indicator that the judge is ready to come down hard in favor of the players, ruling that the NFL is illegally colluding to keep labor costs down. The injunction and case will be appealed up to the circuit court.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
have planned for NFL lockout for 3 years yet they lost. They got caught with their pants down. I'm expecting a counter appeal, but overturning a federal ruling has been rare.
I would expect rookie cap(which both agree), NFL draft(both seems to be okay with it) and vets/retiree compensations. Salary cap is in jepordary.
"but overturning a federal ruling has been rare."
Rare? Most appeals are denied, but it's certainly not "rare" by any means.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
The way I see it the judge just took lockouts out of the hands of the owners forever. If even a two-month lockout causes "irreparable harm" then they will never be able to do it. But the players can still strike. There's a tremendous imbalance there.
All of this lockout talk and coverage is getting old IMO. I am a big NFL fan and can't wait for the draft this weekend but the coverage of the lockout stuff is really starting to annoy me. I still believe there will be football on Sunday's so all of this talk seems pointless to me.
Not that saying this post wasn't worthy of a thread because it is def news worthy. So here is a +1 for being the first to post it and here's to hoping they figure this out so we can all stop hearing about it.
oh yea and GO BLUE!
Ultimately Smith will not get as good as revenue split even if they win all the lawsuits. Most owners feel like Upshaw killed them in the last CBA. I guess Gene gets a bad rap because there hadn't been a work stoppage since '87 and the lack of guaranteed money. This whole decertify and sue, the NFLPA did it first under his watch. They have won free agency, and seen the NFL thrive under his watch. Yes outside of the signing bonus there isn't guaranteed money but when there is a guaranteed split between owners and players, when someone like say Ben Gordon signs a 50 million dollar and plays like a 5 million dollar player thats 45 million that isn't going to other deserving union members. Its a zero sum game in that respect, and Upshaw got that. Let the NFL have their hard cap but collectively they will have a bigger slice of the biggest pie.
Because the January 1st falls on a Sunday, all the bowl games are being moved to make way for the NFL. As a college football junkie I find that unacceptable. http://www.stubhub.com/rose-bowl-tickets/2012-rose-bowl-1-2-2012-1047560/
Instead of seeing Michigan kick someone's ass on January 1st, I'll be treated to some meaningless game of week 17 of the NFL season.