Can you smell it? The NFL season is upon us. Yeah baby!

Well, the thing about the Browns and Cards is that they might not be able to pay a set amount, like if you look at other sports, you get teams like the Brewers and the Pirates who, really, NOBODY likes and almost nobody goes to see, and not that many watch on TV. But yeah, there does need to be a salary cap, otherwise the big sports cities (which are consistently Boston in New York) will just scoop up players on a whim, so we'd see the Giants and Pats just buying out everyone.

Looking at the Cards, though, does anybody else foresee a big season for them in the future? Or will it just end up like every other year?
 
I don't know, with the TV deal alone I would think they could spend more than they do. But obviously I don't have any numbers to back that up. I just know that when the other teams in your division mark you down as a win every year, you have a problem. I'm not saying it's all about money because you have two of the richest owners in the league (Daniel Snider & Jerry Jones) and their teams are pretty average (when you factor in both offense and defense), but clearly spending money has a lot to do with it.
 
Well, all sports are very money-driven. For the most part, each player is a mercenary who goes to the highest bidder. That isn't to say that all players are like that, but 90% are. But some cities just simply aren't sports towns, while others are really big ones (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, all come to mind), and if you're unlucky enough to be in one of the non-sports towns, then the "class gap" becomes too big, and the teams just might not be up to spending too much money.
 
Well why are some places non-sports towns? Why don't people from Pittsburgh care about the Pirates but live and die with the Steelers? Why don't people fron Arizona care about the Cardinals? I say it's because they know their teams won't compete. If you know your team sucks and will continue to suck, then why care? If the owners spent more, and spent more wisely, then their fan base would grow and they would make more money in most cases. In turn they could be more competitive with the larger markets even though they'll never be as big as the New Yorks & Bostons.

I am aware that you could turn my agrument around and it could make the same amount of sense. If teams like the Pirates, Cardinals, Jaguars, Devil Rays, etc. has more dedicated fans then maybe the owners would spend more. The problem with that is the owners are too greedy. They'll just pocket the extra money like they already do in baseball. Case-in-point: Didn't either Florida or Arizona spend their money on a big World Series party instead of on the team a few years ago?
 
Maverick said:
Well why are some places non-sports towns? Why don't people from Pittsburgh care about the Pirates but live and die with the Steelers? Why don't people fron Arizona care about the Cardinals? I say it's because they know their teams won't compete. If you know your team sucks and will continue to suck, then why care? If the owners spent more, and spent more wisely, then their fan base would grow in most cases.

I am aware that you could turn my agrument around and it could make the same amount of sense. If teams like the Pirates, Cardinals, Jaguars, Devil Rays, etc. has more dedicated fans then maybe the owners would spend more. The problem with that is the owners are too greedy. They'll just pocket the extra money like they already do in baseball. Case-in-point: Didn't either Florida or Arizona spend their money on a big World Series party instead of on the team a few years ago?
Click to expand...

That isn't always the case, though. If you look at some teams like the Angels, when they won the world series, they didn't even have sellout crowds until the actual World Series, while the nearby Raiders are pretty well-known for their insane fans. Cities like Los Angeles chew through teams, successful or not. They had the LA Kings in hockey, who even had Wayne Gretzky, and the locals didn't react. They went through the Raiders, Rams, Chargers, and they all left. On the other hand, you have teams like the Boston Red Sox, and the Celtics, who have their streaks of crappy seasons where they aren't even in the postseason contention, but always manage to sell out.

But I don't think that all the owners are really insanely money-grubbing and stingy. Sure, there'll always be the occasional Devil Rays, where the team fought their way to the top, won the World Series, then had all their contracts sold off, but that's pretty rare because they really can't anger the fans by doing something like that, they'll draw bad press, and they'll have a difficult time signing players if they keep scalping them to other teams. But just because you spend money on the team is no sure-fire way to win, or make money. This is a pretty big destroyer of teams. If you look at the Pittsbugh Penguins, they were a top-tier team in the early 90s, then in the mid 90s they spent loads on picking up great players like Peter Nedved, and withholding their guys like Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr. But the fans simply didn't respond, and the team didn't win, and because of that, the owners ended up owing tens of millions of dollars to players, as well as the league, and other people. And even now, they're still monstrously in debt, and I can't tell you how many time Lemieux (who now owns the team, because the team was so far behind on his salary) has had money troubles because of the team.
 
I don't pretend to know why LA goes through teams like it's nothing, other than the fact that California has too many teams already. You could put Florida on the list of having too many teams as well. So maybe too many options is why fans don't care as much. Also, in places like CA & FL there are a lot of people who live there who aren't from there so they really have no allegiance to the teams.

And I agree, sometimes no matter what a team does they're just not going to be very successful with the public. But if you take the Pirates for example (since I live in Pittsburgh), I know that if the owner actually tried to get and keep talent, fans would eventually come back to them. I'm not so sure about hockey because I watch so little of it, but I know if the Pirates had a respectable salary floor, fans would come back. I just really think if the public sees their teams trying, they will support them. The problem is a lot of teams have to be forced to actually try. Which is why I believe so many people are in favor of salary caps.
 
I'm sure that the owners know that, as well, though. That if they had a competitive team they would be in a better position to make more money, but the thing is they still might not be able to generate the revenue to cover the difference between the sucky Pirates and the potentially good Pirates.
 
Well, I definitely don't see something like a full-season walkout like in Hockey, but I'd have to say that there'll be some more namecalling and tension between the owners and the union that'll make it so a quick resolution isn't reached, but I think they'll get a resolution sooner or later.
 
The owners own the stadiums, hence they own the NFL.....I can't wait to see how many players have to pick up lower contracts from other teams, just to be able to play.....HAHA....This whole NFL dispute is great and all, but seriously, they should just leave it like it is....I don't think i could take the NFL going on strike
 
Money talks. They waited until the post-season to really start into this crap. Not a single one of them is willing to lose a dime of those millions they make. Whether they like it or not, the players know that the owners are just that: owners. They own the whole show. The people on the NFL board of directors? Owners. They hold the purse strings. The players are overpaid anyways. Salary caps are great for keeping teams a little more even. Put a cap on how much each individual player makes. See how they like that. Players are easily replaced. Owners are forever.

The players need to read my signature and realize that they are NOT dragons.
 
You know who really owns the teams? The fans. Yes owners can move a team, but it is the fans that own the teams. Everything is an extention of us, tickets, TV deals, apparel, etc.

I don't think players are overpaid at all. If anything I think they're underpaid. Most players, excluding maybe the quarterback, don't get to the end of their contracts anyway. They put themselves through brutal workouts and play almost all year long. It's the most dangerous professional sport there is besides racing sports and they can't even get guaranteed contracts? If I had to side with the owners or players I'd go with the players. I guess I can't totally blame the owners about the contracts though, for some reason the players agreed to it so one could argue they got what they wanted.
 
Well, the thing is the owners are the ones who really control the team. Really, if they're the ones who control the game, because they sign the front of the paychecks (or stamp). The players would not work themselves like that for free, and if they weren't giving out the millions for a single player, there wouldn't be an NFL, or an MLB, NHL or NBA for that matter.
 
Yes, they control the teams, but where do they get the money to give to the players? The bottom line is it's really about us. The owners think it's about them, but without us they have nothing (as far as sports go anyway). Obviously the owners make the decisions and such, but I think fans loose sight of the fact that we are a giant part of what makes sports work.

I'm interested to see what you guys think about if players are over or underpaid.
 
I think the over/underpaid thing depends on the player, on the market and if there's a salary cap. As a whole, though, I don't think they're overpaid, or underpaid (except for some of the guys who work their way up from the minors early on, and are on contract for only thousands, and David Ortiz and Bronson Arroyo).
 
Concerning the players, as i understand it, the players get a percentage of what the stadium makes overall....The percentage that they wanted, i think, is just unheard of, in my opinion.....I would say they can easily be replaced...Take, for example, the rookie receiver from Jacksonville(Matt Jones)....He was a quarterback in college, and took the receiver position because his speeds kicked A** in camp.....Now, if i was an owner, i'd take him over a say, Steve Smith, anyday......:fire::fire::fire:
 
I think that not only the players are overpaid, but the owners. Ticket prices are killer. Who can afford season tickets or even to attend multiple games? They make a fortune by selling the rights to air the games to the highest bidder and get a cut of advertising revenue. Lower the prices. I should also clarify that not all of the players are overpaid. The problem comes about when the newer or not-as-shining-of-a-star players have to settle for less so a Brett Favre or Troy Aikman can rake in the bucks.

There are a few that deserve to get what they make and more. But most of them make enough to buy a few Italian cars, a mansion, and maybe a yacht. I have little sympathy for them that want more. There are plenty of good players out there that would love the opportunity to play in the NFL. Ever see the movie "The Replacements"?
 
asylum_boy said:
Take, for example, the rookie receiver from Jacksonville(Matt Jones)....He was a quarterback in college, and took the receiver position because his speeds kicked A** in camp.....Now, if i was an owner, i'd take him over a say, Steve Smith, anyday......:fire::fire::fire:
Click to expand...

The only thing Jones has over Smith is height. He's good, but he ain't Steve Smith good!

So it looks like a new deal has been reached. I think most people thought they would come to an agreement eventually, and I don't think anyone thought there would be a strike. So all is good in the NFL it would seem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom