World's Most Boring Thread: The CBA

[Patler]

It's all relative. The NCAA plays exciting football with QBs that never make the NFL. If QB play declined in the NFL and scoring suffered more than the league could bear, they would do as they have done in the past, change the rules to accommodate it.

Abrupt change is always difficult, but it buffers over time.

My second point is they don't have to pay $10-20 million per year for the best QBs to play. I bet most, if not all would play for a lot less. Decreasing or freezing salaries isn't going to change the game.

[pbmax]

...My second point is they don't have to pay $10-20 million per year for the best QBs to play. I bet most, if not all would play for a lot less. Decreasing or freezing salaries isn't going to change the game.

Perhaps not immediately. But there are alternatives for younger players, other sports. And lowering or freezing salaries will increase the likelihood of labor strife if revenues continue to climb. That will hurt the game.

And the farther the needle goes down on player costs, the more likely you will see competition.

The NFL would of course to exist if the alternate QBs were used, they might even then have room for Tebow. But it would affect the popularity and marketability of the league in a way that it does not in college. College fans and alumni will truly go to watch their team. There are fewer such diehards in pro football.

[sharpe1027]

To grow to what it is, the NFL needed and still needs very rich, very ambitious owners who can afford to and will take financial risks in the hope of mega returns. The Packers can keep up, but I doubt they would ever have led the way for the growth of the NFL. Their story in the '60s certainly helped, but they weren't the visionaries.

Sure, quality players improve the product. But without the right types of owners, the ones who could and did sustain losses in its infancy, the NFL might have ended up being pro soccer or the NHL in fan interest.

Players come and go. The NFL (the product) has continued to grow, replacing parts as necessary, just like other new products get a foothold, get better and eventually become something society thinks it can't do without.

Patler, I think your points are valid, however, what would you say to the following parallel?

Players will continue to play and produce a quality product even if they get a smaller percentage. Player's come and go. Locking out/squabbling with the owners will hurt the players in the short term.

Owner's will continue to try to grow their business and make more money even if they get a smaller percentage. Owner's come and go. Striking/squabbling with the players will hurt the owners in the short term.

IMHO, it all comes down to the precise numbers and where the line should be drawn. There are incentives to reward each side, and perhaps more incentive on the owner side then the player side. However, do any of us know enough to even pretend to know where the line/percentage should come out?

[Patler]

The NFL rose to prominence on the running backs and linebackers who epitomized the violence of the sport, which the fans became addicted to. The QBs and pretty boy wide receivers simply became the rock stars. In my opinion, the league will not suffer without a few of them.

College football is a huge feeder system. The NFL will be fine even if a few more top athletes take up golf.

[Patler]

Patler, I think your points are valid, however, what would you say to the following parallel?

Players will continue to play and produce a quality product even if they get a smaller percentage. Player's come and go. Locking out/squabbling with the owners will hurt the players in the short term.

Owner's will continue to try to grow their business and make more money even if they get a smaller percentage. Owner's come and go. Striking/squabbling with the players will hurt the owners in the short term.

IMHO, it all comes down to the precise numbers and where the line should be drawn. There are incentives to reward each side, and perhaps more incentive on the owner side then the player side. However, do any of us know enough to even pretend to know where the line/percentage should come out?

The big conflict arises because current players only have a short term interest. The owners might be hurt short term, but their outlook is much more long term. Owners don't come and go all that frequently. Players drink from the trough only a short time. The owners will accept a short term hit for long term gains.

[MJZiggy]

Otherwise Ziggy would not have brought 4 West. And the Packers were lucky to have a quality replacement. Past history has shown that does not happen often. And I think we can agree that a run of mediocrity will impact the income of a franchise.

Watch who you're blaming, there, buddy!!

I can't help it is your screen name and Triple Word Score Wilf are nearly the same.

[pbmax]

The NFL rose to prominence on the running backs and linebackers who epitomized the violence of the sport, which the fans became addicted to. The QBs and pretty boy wide receivers simply became the rock stars. In my opinion, the league will not suffer without a few of them.

College football is a huge feeder system. The NFL will be fine even if a few more top athletes take up golf.

There is a difference between rose to prominence and revenue generating. The TV contracts that drove pro football to the stratosphere happened after the AFL and the Super Bowl. Shortly after Monday Night Football and immediately during the change to the passing friendly rules. As I said, it would survive, but probably not at its present ratings nor at the same rights fees.

[Patler]

The NFL rose to prominence on the running backs and linebackers who epitomized the violence of the sport, which the fans became addicted to. The QBs and pretty boy wide receivers simply became the rock stars. In my opinion, the league will not suffer without a few of them.

College football is a huge feeder system. The NFL will be fine even if a few more top athletes take up golf.

There is a difference between rose to prominence and revenue generating. The TV contracts that drove pro football to the stratosphere happened after the AFL and the Super Bowl. Shortly after Monday Night Football and immediately during the change to the passing friendly rules. As I said, it would survive, but probably not at its present ratings nor at the same rights fees.

I disagree. Monday night football grew when teams ran consistently, when linebackers made huge hits, when mayhem was part of the game.

We disagree about the impact from the rock stars of the NFL. I can leave it at that!

[sharpe1027]

The big conflict arises because current players only have a short term interest. The owners might be hurt short term, but their outlook is much more long term. Owners don't come and go all that frequently. Players drink from the trough only a short time. The owners will accept a short term hit for long term gains.

Couldn't the same be said for most businesses? The average time for an employee to stay at one job in the US is only 4 years.

Are you suggesting that the owner's need a bigger cut so they more incentive to grow their business? Under the current system, how many teams run into problems with the salary floor? It seems that unless that is the norm, the owners see more value in spending money on their players than trying to grow the league through other means. Maybe with more profit they would seek to reinvest, but I bet plenty of them would just keep the money and spend it elsewhere.

[Patler]

Couldn't the same be said for most businesses? The average time for an employee to stay at one job in the US is only 4 years.

Are you suggesting that the owner's need a bigger cut so they more incentive to grow their business? Under the current system, how many teams run into problems with the salary floor? It seems that unless that is the norm, the owners see more value in spending money on their players than trying to grow the league through other means. Maybe with more profit they would seek to reinvest, but I bet plenty of them would just keep the money and spend it elsewhere.

The difference, of course, is that a great many "regular" employees who leave jobs after only a short time do so as their own decision (until the last year or two at least). Many could stay at their jobs if they wanted to, if they saw long term reasons to do so. Many leave for similar jobs, but for different employers, often because of the future prospects with the new employer. NFL jobs are short duration because the players get fired. They couldn't stay no matter how much they wanted to, no matter how good the future looked. A little different mindset.

The recent stadium expansions, surrounding lands developments and plans for both by other teams would suggest that owners will and see the need to reinvest in their operations by making their facilities revenue generating 12 months/year and increasing their take on destination spending by the fans. Just look at what the Packers have done and have plans to do, just to keep up. They aren't buying up land around the stadium just for the heck of it.

[sharpe1027]

The difference, of course, is that a great many "regular" employees who leave jobs after only a short time do so as their own decision (until the last year or two at least). Many could stay at their jobs if they wanted to, if they saw long term reasons to do so. Many leave for similar jobs, but for different employers, often because of the future prospects with the new employer. NFL jobs are short duration because the players get fired. They couldn't stay no matter how much they wanted to, no matter how good the future looked. A little different mindset.

The recent stadium expansions, surrounding lands developments and plans for both by other teams would suggest that owners will and see the need to reinvest in their operations by making their facilities revenue generating 12 months/year and increasing their take on destination spending by the fans. Just look at what the Packers have done and have plans to do, just to keep up. They aren't buying up land around the stadium just for the heck of it.

Yeah, there are differences, but the dynamic still has similarities between owners and employees. The owner wants what is best long-term for the company (or at least until they want to sell) and the employee wants to get paid the most. Some employees can be maintained by the allure of future potential of the company, but that's often in the form of them being made part owners through stock incentives.

The question that remains, for me at least, is whether or not those investments you mentioned would in fact be encouraged by shifting the revenue percentages. I think that the incentive for the investments you mentioned are driven more by the revenue sharing models between teams. Destination spending type investments offer a way for a team to get an advantage over other teams in terms of revenue because they are not shared (I think that's how the revenue sharing works). For instance, most of the stadium expansions include a lot of new luxury boxes. Why? Probably because income from them is not shared.

[get louder at lambeau]

Wow. This thread is all over the place. It went from arguing over the correct application of percentages to what the NFL is as a business, to college football being exciting (Which it isn't. ), to I don't even know what you guys are arguing about now. Not sure if some of you do either.

One thing I think is important, that someone (pb?) brought up, is that the NFL is NOT a typical business. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It is a strange and complex conglomeration of individual large, high profile businesses that in some ways acts as a legal monopoly, in other ways like a non-profit industry trade group. There is nothing clear cut about this. This is not the same as a mom and pop shop and how they interact with labor, the NFLPA clearly more than just plain labor, and Peyton Manning has more in common with Hannah Montana than he does Joe the Plumber.

[pbmax]

Here is a hint of what non-salary cap football may look like, and one probable reason for the current CBA unrest. Its obviously early and not all teams have their full roster set. I also think that in the offseason, the teams count the most expensive fifty players under contract for cap purposes. So the final numbers for 2010 are obviously not in. With that said:

PFT[/b]]We've obtained the salary cap numbers that would apply if the cap were still in place. Based on the numbers, the following franchises are, to date, taking full advantage of the lack of a salary floor: the Chiefs ($79 million), the Buccaneers ($79 million), the Jaguars ($81 million), the Bengals ($85 million), the Cardinals ($91 million), the Rams ($92 million), the Bills ($98 million).

The salary floor in 2009 was $107 million.

The Cap Numbers so far

[get louder at lambeau]

The Cap Numbers so far

Interestingly, 3 of the 7 highest "salary cap" teams are in the NFC North.

[Guiness]

I wonder where those numbers come from?

Vikings are matched up with Skins is interesting. Flat out funny is Oakland being tied for fifth.

at Dallas's number. Think Jones and Steinbrener ever talk?