Bill Simmon's take on the NFL labor situation.

[mdrake34]

(03-04-2011 04:56 PM)Paulitik Wrote:  Or your college team is UGA.

Basketball is just tedious. Not enough D, and only 8 different teams have won a championship in the NBA in the last what 40 years? It's garbage. It's like watching competitive masturbation, but there are no chicks. Just a bunch of big ugly dudes playing for their own amusement. I can say the same thing about going to see a Jam Band. Yeah the 15 minute guitar solo was impressive, but where did the song go?

I guess I just hate show offs.

They play D in the playoffs. And I like jam bands. Yup.

[Paulitik]

(03-04-2011 05:00 PM)mdrake34 Wrote:  They play D in the playoffs. And I like jam bands. Yup.

That's the problem. No one tries until the playoffs. And the fact that each playoff round is a series makes it worse. The playoffs feel as long as the regular season. It needs to be tightened up and make each game matter more.

As far a jam bands go, my friends are all into Panic. I like the talent, but since I don't partake in certain substances anymore, they bore me. My Morning Jacket is about the only thing close to jam I can actually concentrate on lately.

[papachaz]

nice read, and yeah point on what i think about the owners as well. BUT i tend to agree with BEEF, the players are not blameless in this. every year the #1 pick who has not proven anything gets more than the year before. it's greed from both sides all the way around....

and it keeps a lot of fans who would occasionally like to go to game from being unable to do so

[Nuccah]

Well thought out article, he just was way too biased against the Owners in this argument.

The 'OCS' argument is a funny one, in my opinion. Every year the NFL has been going out of their way to try to pass rules to better protect the players, meanwhile the players themselves don't give two shits (wearing old, stylish helmets) and complaining about these new rules (Harrison, I'm looking at you!) that were made to protect them.

Regardless, he is also making the Owners seem a lot greedier than they actually are. All you have to do is look at the Packers. The Packers made an operating profit of 34 million back 4 years ago, and that has slid down gradually to 9.8 million last year.

In my mind, the Owners were damned smart to insure themselves against what would happen in the case of a lockout. If these Owners are as bad as this guy is making them out to be, why not just close up shop? Who in their right mind would work to lose money or for (comparatively to their value) peanuts?

Its been said many times before, you don't join in an ownership group in the NFL to make money. You do it because once you have the kind of money that these guys have, you run out of things to do with it and so do something you enjoy. In the end, their still businessmen and taking a loss is never acceptable.

[ChrisD]

That is quite possibly the best piece I have have ever read. Definitely on the labor situation. Possibly ever. Probably the only way anyone could get the owners point of view across. Great post, fantastic read. Loved it!

[hitwriter]

Very entertaining read...

But he leaves out the variable that he is in a decision making process with 31 other "internet sports sites" who have power to control his revenue stream as well.

It's a league, not a single enterprise.

But we get the point.

[Paulitik]

(03-04-2011 07:19 PM)Nuccah Wrote:  Well thought out article, he just was way too biased against the Owners in this argument.

The 'OCS' argument is a funny one, in my opinion. Every year the NFL has been going out of their way to try to pass rules to better protect the players, meanwhile the players themselves don't give two shits (wearing old, stylish helmets) and complaining about these new rules (Harrison, I'm looking at you!) that were made to protect them.

Regardless, he is also making the Owners seem a lot greedier than they actually are. All you have to do is look at the Packers. The Packers made an operating profit of 34 million back 4 years ago, and that has slid down gradually to 9.8 million last year.

In my mind, the Owners were damned smart to insure themselves against what would happen in the case of a lockout. If these Owners are as bad as this guy is making them out to be, why not just close up shop? Who in their right mind would work to lose money or for (comparatively to their value) peanuts?

Its been said many times before, you don't join in an ownership group in the NFL to make money. You do it because once you have the kind of money that these guys have, you run out of things to do with it and so do something you enjoy. In the end, their still businessmen and taking a loss is never acceptable.

Packers are a bad example. They aren't owned by anyone but the city of Green Bay.

[mdrake34]

(03-04-2011 07:19 PM)Nuccah Wrote:  Well thought out article, he just was way too biased against the Owners in this argument.

The 'OCS' argument is a funny one, in my opinion. Every year the NFL has been going out of their way to try to pass rules to better protect the players, meanwhile the players themselves don't give two shits (wearing old, stylish helmets) and complaining about these new rules (Harrison, I'm looking at you!) that were made to protect them.

Regardless, he is also making the Owners seem a lot greedier than they actually are. All you have to do is look at the Packers. The Packers made an operating profit of 34 million back 4 years ago, and that has slid down gradually to 9.8 million last year.

In my mind, the Owners were damned smart to insure themselves against what would happen in the case of a lockout. If these Owners are as bad as this guy is making them out to be, why not just close up shop? Who in their right mind would work to lose money or for (comparatively to their value) peanuts?

Its been said many times before, you don't join in an ownership group in the NFL to make money. You do it because once you have the kind of money that these guys have, you run out of things to do with it and so do something you enjoy. In the end, their still businessmen and taking a loss is never acceptable.

I'm with you on the player safety and helmets/pads. Gooddell is a hypocrite for not mandating or outlawing certain helmets. The NFL has an agreement with Riddell that the NFL logo can only appear on their helmets. It's all about money.

The players are fucking retarded. They want to look cool, but their brains are going to be german potato salad by the time they are 50.

[harveybirdman]

I would like to post Craig Lyndall's Response to this... Which I agree with whole-heartedly
Lyndall Article

Quote:It's as old as politics.

Instead of talking about issues, we end up running attack-laced advertisements. Really, that's all that is left here with regard to the NFL labor negotiations. Either you are on "Team Player" or "Team Owner." You must choose! No sense in talking about issues when you can just pick a side and lambaste the other, right?

If everyone is being totally honest, I think we can all agree on some things. For instance, I think the players do need some additional help with their retirement, health plans and disability. I think the players should pony up some financial stake to meet those ends. They are, after all, benefits. As bigwig corporate people will tell you, an overall package of benefits is considered compensation.

On the owners' side, I think we can all agree that when the game needs innovation, it won't come from the players' union. When it comes to splitting the profits, those who are driving innovation, infrastructure and business strategy need to have the majority stake, in my mind. Obviously the players on the field need to be well-compensated for doing the dirty work. What I do not know is whether or not we will ever agree on what it means to actually be "well compensated."

But do you see what I did there? I took two sides and pulled out the issues where both have a leg to stand on; I didn't have to pick the owners or the players. The truth always lies in the middle and, unlike our political system, there is no Republican versus Democrat or Red versus Blue scenario. At the end of this "election," both the owners and players will be drinking at the same bar - with the fans' money - in Washington.

However, some of the nation's most high-profile sportswriters prefer to just attack the owners. In his article about the owners, Rick Reilly finds it necessary to attack Paul Allen for his Microsoft-earned excesses.

... Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

You're really worried about his wallet?

Bill Simmons piles on. He went on and on about a hypothetical business model where greedy business people have an insatiable lust for cash and abuse fans along the way. His only relevant point was about the player safety concerns like head injuries. Other than that, as despicable as PSLs might be, they aren't a feather in the cap of the players in this debate.

In the tug-of-war battle between the players and the owners, PSLs and stadiums built with tax dollars have almost no bearing, except in Simmons' contrived moralistic scenario.

That is a different debate for a different day.

This issue that we are talking about right now is Players versus Owners. If fans had a seat at the bargaining table, Simmons’ issues would be relevant. Now? Not so much. But Simmons has found an opening, no matter how minuscule, to show his hatred for what owners have done to fans in the NFL.

Meanwhile, even if some of the owners’ tactics leave a bad taste in our mouths, how is the NFL doing? I don’t just mean financially. I mean as an entertainment entity. People complain about the stadiums and how they are funded, but ultimately the product on the field seems worth the money more often than not. How else can you explain the righteous TV money and stadium revenue?

There is no other sport where people flock to the draft, free agency, the playoffs and league championship the way they do for the NFL.

Owners and league executives exert a ton of control over the league, and there they sit at the top of the heap on the American sports landscape. Yet, because owners are “too rich” with their multiple yachts, that means – at least according to Simmons and Reilly – that we should root for the millionaires against the billionaires in this power struggle over who will control the NFL in the future.

Apparently being rich and looking to get richer is the biggest crime of all.

It is such a crime that we shouldn’t look at what is best for the game as an entertainment entity. Instead, we should use anecdotal evidence of owners acting like the obscenely rich guys they are, and somehow turn that into an argument that voids their right to negotiate aggressively. Let’s ignore the fact that these are people who have succeeded so wildly in business (on average) that they were able to buy NFL teams.

Somehow, that success is now irrelevant in the debate about who is better fit to hold the rudder of the S.S. NFL because we are envious and jealous of some old guy’s money. Somehow our own judgements about what someone “needs” financially is relevant in the debate of who is best qualified to keep the NFL as the top entertainment entity competing for fans’ disposable income.

We have seen what happens when players take their max contracts for granted in the NBA. Carmelo Anthony held his team hostage this entire season and told them exactly where he wanted to go and made it happen. There was never a question that Carmelo would get all his money and then some. In the end, there was never an option for the Denver Nuggets.

So Stan Kroenke, owner of the Denver Nuggets, who owns an NBA franchise that was reportedly worth $321 million in 2007 (according to Forbes) gets held hostage by a contracted employee making about $15 million per season? I know Kroenke is “evil incarnate” because he has a lot of money, but what about this picture makes sense to you? Beyond whether you like Stan Kroenke or not, isn’t it logical that the franchise owner who signs the paychecks deserves more control than the employee under contract?

Do you want the NFL to ever even approximate the NBA in terms of player movement? Do you really want NFL players knowing, for a fact, that they will get their money and then determining which franchise they want to go to based on geography? Kiss the Packers, Colts, Browns, Steelers, Bengals and Chiefs goodbye. Do you know what the nightlife is like in Green Bay? I am guessing it isn’t enough to make anyone want to play there.

All things being equal, do you think NFL players would rather live in Cleveland or New York? Thankfully in the NFL - except in a few rare cases - players play wherever they can get their paychecks signed, whether it be Cincinnati, San Diego or New York City.

Even knowing this, when it comes time for the NFL to get its business in order someone like Simmons expects us to side with players. Then again, he is the one who was defending super-teams and all the crazy player movement in the NBA by telling us how many times it has happened in history. No comment from him yet on the NBA having to own one of its own teams with league funds, by the way.

I don’t want this to come off like a rant equal and opposite of Simmons’ - I know the owners aren’t 100% right. The player’s association is right about a lot of things. They make a lot of good points, and deserve to fight for their share.

Imagine that? Both parties have some standing in the negotiation. Just don’t try and paint it as a black and white issue where there is no gray area. And certainly don’t let your favorite sportswriter convince you that the owners are wrong for reasons irrelevant to the actual argument at hand. There are enough moving targets without introducing blatant misdirection.

In the end, I just hope the players and owners find some common ground where everyone can continue to get rich while also creating a product that continues to be the best on the American sports landscape.

[/quote]

[Drathdon]

Lyndall's points are spot on.