# NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 7, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575 "2011-02-07T20:55:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/61 "2011-02-08T21:57:09Z")
> [@villa](#): > > For one, take the example of 18 vs 16 games. Ownership look at it terms of revenue. If every team suffers 12.5% more injuries, that doesn’t damage the interests of the owners - they may get lucky and be less injured, or unlucky and be more injured. But their relative position shouldn’t change. > > Players, on the other hand, see 12.5% more injuries as pretty much a bad thing. You oversimplify. Injuries cost owners a lot of money. Injured players get paid their full contract and cannot be cut. Teams must pay their replacements additional money, sometimes just the difference between a practice squad contract and a league minimum contract but that’s still $325k+ per injury, and in the case of the Bears backup QB situation it cost them $3M+ on Todd fucking Collins. Perhaps more pressing, injuries to premiere players lead to losing and loss of fan interest which costs the owners money at the gate and on TV. Owners hate paying guys on the IR millions of dollars for no production, and it does effect their bottom line. Players obviously don’t want to be injured but for some players injuries are financial windfalls for them. Players who are injured cannot be cut and as a result they get paid a salary they might not get if they are fringe players or older players who would normally be cap casualties. Back to the Bears example, an injury was pretty damn beneficial to Todd Collins. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/62 "2011-02-08T22:10:10Z")
And if a player got injured and as a result wasn’t able to drive himself home after the game, and his car being driven by a distant cousin of the owner as a favor was attacked by Palestinian terrorists and destroyed, then that injury would be good for the player and bad for the owner. But as I was pretty clear, in general an increase in injuries will affect the players more in a negative fashion than the owners. I don’t remember the last owner to end up in a wheel chair because of owning a football team. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/63 "2011-02-08T22:20:31Z")
> [@villa](#): > > What’s dumb is this naive little fanatasy that owners know what the market can bear, and that in a market as restricted as that for NFL tickets supply can be analyzed in that manner. Sure the players share the culpability - they are the ones setting ticket prices. It isn’t Snyder’s greed, or his willingness to cut the checks to players, it is the players who are sodomizing the fans, and jacking up the price of beer, and charging for parking at training camp, and probably the fucking players who are suing local journalists. You’re just pissed because you have to deal with Dan Snyder. In most NFL cities teams are in trouble because of ticket prices driven by player costs. Do you think all these broadcast blackouts are what owners want? Don’t you think that teams outside of New York, Washington, Dallas and Chicago pay very close attention to what the market will bear? You can’t see the forest for the trees. > [@](#): > > I never suggested they were. Just that the fans turn out better off if the players do better as opposed to the owners. And that also there is a bottom line fairness issue. Labor here isn’t altruistic, but the owners have all the power. NFL players are paid a damned sight better than coal miners, for example, but in both cases, it is the player and miner putting their lives on the line rather than the owner. > > Everyone is trying to get paid, but the owners are getting paid a crap load more, and for a crap load longer, and for doing a crap load less. So I’ll continue supporting the unions, while you continue believing every word that comes out of the owners’ mouths is gospel. Peyton Manning and Dwight Freeney are probably making more money than Jim Irsay. Aaron Rodgers and Charles Woodson are definitely making more money than the Green Bay Packers Trust. Jay Cutler and Julius Peppers earn more than each of the McCaskeys (though combined the McCaskeys earn marginally more). Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are making out like bandits because they are gouging their clueless fan bases and have the largest stadiums in the league. The Cowboys average ticket price is $160, the Bears are $88, the Colts are $82. They are the exception, not the rule. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/64 "2011-02-08T22:22:20Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I don’t think it’s an issue. A longer schedule will mean that teams have more opportunities to catch up. It also means that teams have more opportunities to pull away. You’d expect teams to pull away more often than they catch up, since most of the time the team trying to pull away is better than the team trying to catch up. Compare a 16 game season to some ridiculous number like a 1600 game season. After 15 games, you’d expect the Pats and Jets to be within a game of each other relatively often. After 1599 games, you’d expect this to essentially never happen. It’s more likely to have meaningless games at the end of longer seasons. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/65 "2011-02-08T22:23:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > But as I was pretty clear, in general an increase in injuries will affect the players more in a negative fashion than the owners. I don’t remember the last owner to end up in a wheel chair because of owning a football team. Financially the opposite it true. And that’s all these guys care about. Keep up with the propaganda. Yeah, a broken leg hurts. Getting paid $5M/year doesn’t. If they don’t want to break legs they can have my job. Boo fucking hoo. Keep equating NFL players to coal miners and dig your own grave in this debate. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/66 "2011-02-08T22:26:52Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > It also means that teams have more opportunities to pull away. You’d expect teams to pull away more often than they catch up, since most of the time the team trying to pull away is better than the team trying to catch up. > > Compare a 16 game season to some ridiculous number like a 1600 game season. After 15 games, you’d expect the Pats and Jets to be within a game of each other relatively often. After 1599 games, you’d expect this to essentially never happen. It’s more likely to have meaningless games at the end of longer seasons. Like I said. The 4 team divisions have a much bigger impact on this. For every team that pulls away there’s going to be a team that plays it’s way in. With a 16 game schedule the Packers were a cunt hair from being left out of the postseason all together. In an 18 game schedule they very likely would have won their division and had home field advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/67 "2011-02-08T22:27:58Z")
Peyton Manning’s skills are more valuable than Jim Irsay’s. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/68 "2011-02-08T22:33:56Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Peyton Manning’s skills are more valuable than Jim Irsay’s. Agreed, but that wasn’t the point. The issue is the characterization of the players as downtrodden “labor” and the owners as fat cats rolling in money. It’s fiction. The McCaskey’s are “billionaires”, collectively worth about $1.1B, only because they’ve been doing this for nearly a century. Year over year they’re earning about what their best players are. I’m not seeing the huge injustice here. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/69 "2011-02-08T22:46:30Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Like I said. The 4 team divisions have a much bigger impact on this. For every team that pulls away there’s going to be a team that plays it’s way in. With a 16 game schedule the Packers were a cunt hair from being left out of the postseason all together. In an 18 game schedule they very likely would have won their division and had home field advantage. I agree that the division realignment had a bigger impact. That doesn’t change the fact that extending the schedule has an impact as well. Green Bay this year is a relatively unusual case. More often, a very good team such as GB will be ahead late in the season, and their late wins will be them pulling away, rather than catching up. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/70 "2011-02-08T22:49:21Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The issue is the characterization of the players as downtrodden “labor” and the owners as fat cats rolling in money. Meh. It’s a useful correction to the “grown men saying millions of dollars to play a kids game isn’t enough” thing (cite: any sports talk radio show anywhere ever). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/71 "2011-02-08T23:01:32Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Agreed, but that wasn’t the point. The issue is the characterization of the players as downtrodden “labor” and the owners as fat cats rolling in money. It’s fiction. The McCaskey’s are “billionaires”, collectively worth about $1.1B, only because they’ve been doing this for nearly a century. Year over year they’re earning about what their best players are. I’m not seeing the huge injustice here. Because it’s a job they can do year over year. (If indeed you even want to refer to it as a job.) As opposed to an average of 4 years for players. The bottom line is the owners want to take more of the pie, and at the same time increase the amount of work done by the players. In any other industry, anyone but the most anti-worker right winger would be immediately on the side of the workforce. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/72 "2011-02-08T23:03:30Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Getting paid $5M/year doesn’t. If they don’t want to break legs they can have my job. Boo fucking hoo. And there we have what it comes down to. Jealousy. Why not save your jealousy for the mega-rich? It isn’t the players who are getting handouts from Joe Taxpayer, it’s the owners. Or is it that somehow they deserve their stupendous wealth, while the players don’t deserve their high wealth? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/73 "2011-02-08T23:36:29Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I HATE the 18 game schedule idea. An 18 game schedule would still start right after Labor Day so yesterday would have been the conference championships with still 2 weeks to go until the Super Bowl. Dragging the season out until the end of February is just too long. Plus that means a lot more games in bad weather. Wouldn’t the season actually begin in the middle of August, the approximate date of the current 3rd preseason game? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/74 "2011-02-09T00:01:40Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > > [@VarlosZ](#): > > > > Yes, [teams having one or more meaningless games at the end of the season] will be a little more frequent, and it’s certainly fair to tally it as a negative. > > I’d need some statistical proof to accept that argument. It’s obvious on it’s face: more games = larger absolute leads within divisions and for seeding at the end of the season = more games at the end of the season featuring teams who have nothing to play for. Just look at baseball and it’s 162 game season. Last year, in a sport wherein the teams are bunched much more closely together in terms of quality\*, and in a year with unusually few blow-out races, [the Twins clinched their division with 11 games left to play](http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/date/20100921). When’s the last time an NFL team clinched their division in Week 5? [In '08, the Angels clinched their division with 17 games left to go](http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/date/20080910), the equivalent of an entire NFL season and then some. More directly on point, most MLB playoff teams have already clinched their specific playoff berth prior to the their last few games. > [@](#): > > I’d wager heavily that expanding to eight 4 team divisions had a MUCH greater impact on this than the length of schedule. Sure, I would assume that’s correct, and I don’t think the issue amounts to all that big of a deal. But it’s still fair to point out as a negative that going to an 18-game season would lead to, on average, probably one or two extra games each year featuring teams that have already clinched their playoff seeds and will not make a serious effort to win. > [@](#): > > Players are fighting to work less for the same pay. An 18 game schedule is the exact same amount of time commitment from players as it is now, but they want to do less work in the offseason. Yet the owners are the ones wanting more work for less pay? In fairness, while the players may want (in a “perfect world” sort of way) to reduce the off-season workouts and such, their case is accurately stated as: “We’re happy with the existing agreement and would like to continue to work under the previously agreed-upon terms.” Since their explicit desire is to keep both the level of work and the level of pay the same, I really don’t think we can say that they “are fighting to work less for the same pay.” > [@villa](#): > > > [@VarlosZ](#): > > > > Why [do you think that fans’ interests align more closely with the players’ than with the owners’]? > > For one, take the example of 18 vs 16 games. Ownership look at it terms of revenue. If every team suffers 12.5% more injuries, that doesn’t damage the interests of the owners - they may get lucky and be less injured, or unlucky and be more injured. But their relative position shouldn’t change. > > Players, on the other hand, see 12.5% more injuries as pretty much a bad thing. > > The fans are interested in their team winning - the 12.5% increase in injuries won’t alter that in theory. But they are also interested in quality of play. And the increase in injuries will reduce the quality of play across the board. > > So there is a closer link between players and fans interests there than there is between fans and owners. I mean no offense, but I think you’re stretching a little here. There are a lot of different, ambiguous factors (the question itself is pretty nebulous), plenty of ways in which the fans’ interests align more closely with one side or the other, and the issue you detail is a rather minor example that, as \*\*Omni \*\*pointed out, cuts both ways. > [@Omniscient](#): > > Peyton Manning and Dwight Freeney are probably making more money than Jim Irsay. Definitely a possibility, but I think the level of confidence in that “probably” is necessarily pretty low. I mean, if Freeney’s actual take-home pay, averaged over the life of however long his contract winds up lasting, turns out to be $12M-$15M a year (which is at least ballpark), how much really are you willing to wager that Jim Irsay profits less than that amount, from all sources, through his ownership of the Colts over the past two years? The real concern, I imagine, isn’t so much that the owners aren’t making enough money now, but that there’s no reason sports franchises have to keep on becoming more and more profitable. The NBA, for instance, has serious money problems that didn’t exist for them 5 or so years ago, and if the NFL’s revenues continue to grow at a diminished rate – let alone shrink – the league actually will be in the kind of financial trouble that would be hard to dig out of without substantially reduced player costs. \*=\> The best baseball teams each year win about 60% of their games, the worst about 40% (as opposed to the NFL, where the numbers are more like 80+% and 20%), and it’s not just a matter of sample size. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/75 "2011-02-09T00:01:52Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > Green Bay this year is a relatively unusual case. More often, a very good team such as GB will be ahead late in the season, and their late wins will be them pulling away, rather than catching up. I’m not willing to accept that as a given. I think it’s more likely that teams will be able to tank exactly as many games with an 18 game schedule as they do under a 16 game schedule. The last game, and rarely the last two, are going to be meaningless regardless of the length of the schedule. The MLB plays 162 games and this year the largest lead at the end of the season was 9 games, less than 6% of the overall schedule, they averaged 4.8 games or about 3% of the total across all 6 divisions. In 2009 the max was again 9 games, though the total average was closer to 6 games or 3.8% of the schedule. In the NFL last year the maximum lead was 3 games and the average lead was 1.12 games, a maximum of 18% and an average of 7% of the schedule. In 2009 it was a whopping 2.4 games or 15%. In 2008 it was identical to 2010. 1.12 games and 7%. Seems to me that it’s more likely that more games with lessen the size of the leads and that a larger sample size will allow more teams to regress to the middle. There’s a reason why the best record in the NFL is usually the highest winning percentage of all the sports and it’s a small sample size. Better teams don’t tend to pull farther away, they tend to regress to the middle. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/76 "2011-02-09T00:11:31Z")
Just to dig back further. The NFL in 1977 with a 14 game schedule had an average margin of victory of 1.33 games, 9.5% of the schedule. In 1976 it was 1.83 games or 13% of the schedule. In 1975 is was an INSANE 3.16 games, or 22.6% of the schedule. That year the Rams won their division by 7 games, and the Vikings and Raiders each won by 5 games in a 14 game schedule. Tell me exactly why we should think 18 games would mean more meaningless games? It seems pretty obvious that a long schedule will make luck less a factor and would lead to MORE competitive division races. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/77 "2011-02-09T00:17:11Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The bottom line is the owners want to take more of the pie, and at the same time increase the amount of work done by the players. In any other industry, anyone but the most anti-worker right winger would be immediately on the side of the workforce. Well, it kinda depends. The value and profitability of professional sports franchises has simply _ **exploded** _ over the past 30 or so years. That trend can’t persist indefinitely, but the continued profitability of NFL franchises under the current labor agreement seems to require that is does (to one extent or another). Probably. It’s hard to know exactly what’s going on. Besides, the NFL isn’t “any other industry.” It doesn’t \*necessarily \*make sense to assume the same rules and norms should apply here as in a more typical labor dispute. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/78 "2011-02-09T00:26:40Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The MLB plays 162 games and this year the largest lead at the end of the season was 9 games, less than **6%** of the overall schedule, they averaged 4.8 games or about **3%** of the total across all 6 divisions. In 2009 the max was again 9 games, though the total average was closer to 6 games or **3.8%** of the schedule. > > In the NFL last year the maximum lead was 3 games and the average lead was 1.12 games, a maximum of **18%** and an average of **7%** of the schedule. In 2009 it was a whopping 2.4 games or **15%**. In 2008 it was identical to 2010. 1.12 games and **7%**. This is where you’ve overlooked something: the \*proportional \*size of the leads doesn’t matter for our purposes, only the \*absolute \*size, because that’s what leads to the distasteful games in question. The argument was that (1) a longer season would lead to more games featuring teams who who’ve clinched their playoff seed and aren’t trying hard to win, and that (2) this is a bad thing. Both things are true. That there are (IMO) other arguments in favor of a longer schedule that greatly outweigh this concern doesn’t stop it from being legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/79 "2011-02-09T00:37:51Z")
I posted the above comments before I saw this response. But some responses. > [@VarlosZ](#): > > It’s obvious on it’s face: more games = larger absolute leads within divisions and for seeding at the end of the season = more games at the end of the season featuring teams who have nothing to play for. Just look at baseball and it’s 162 game season. Last year, in a sport wherein the teams are bunched much more closely together in terms of quality\*, and in a year with unusually few blow-out races, [the Twins clinched their division with 11 games left to play](http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/date/20100921). When’s the last time an NFL team clinched their division in Week 5? [In '08, the Angels clinched their division with 17 games left to go](http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/date/20080910), the equivalent of an entire NFL season and then some. More directly on point, most MLB playoff teams have already clinched their specific playoff berth prior to the their last few games. As you note, those 11 game and 17 game amounts are the proportional equivalents of 1 NFL game or less. The MLB actually has a much more competitive end of the season than the NFL does. Of course, “clinching the playoffs” is a bit of an inexact comparison because they have a smaller percentage of teams in the playoffs. > [@](#): > > Sure, I would assume that’s correct, and I don’t think the issue amounts to all that big of a deal. But it’s still fair to point out as a negative that going to an 18-game season would lead to, on average, probably one or two extra games each year featuring teams that have already clinched their playoff seeds and will not make a serious effort to win. Your estimate is completely out of left field. As I pointed out in looking back to the end of the 14 game schedule that the divisions were won by a significantly larger number of games than with a 16 game schedule. I suspect that trend would hold in an 18 game schedule. Larger sample sizes would mean less disparity, not more. > [@](#): > > In fairness, while the players may want (in a “perfect world” sort of way) to reduce the off-season workouts and such, their case is accurately stated as: “We’re happy with the existing agreement and would like to continue to work under the previously agreed-upon terms.” Since their explicit desire is to keep both the level of work and the level of pay the same, I really don’t think we can say that they “are fighting to work less for the same pay.” But they are asking for less work, that’s fundamentally true. I agree that it’s a negotiating ploy and that they’d be happy with the status quo, the NFLs asking for an 18 game schedule can also be construed as a negotiating ploy. From a hourly work standpoint an 18 game schedule is the exact same amount of time commitment as a 16 game schedule since they’ll reduce the preseason games. Players will spend as much time in practice and the same time on airplanes. Yes they’ll play harder for 60 minutes of game time, but the owners aren’t asking for more time out of their lives. The players are specifically arguing to spend more time away from team facilities doing whatever they please. Owners are in effect arguing for a better quality of work in existing time commitment. It’s like an auto worker being asked to put out a better car with fewer defects in their 40 hour week. Not asking them to work 12% more hours. > [@](#): > > Definitely a possibility, but I think the level of confidence in that “probably” is necessarily pretty low. I mean, if Freeney’s actual take-home pay, averaged over the life of however long his contract winds up lasting, turns out to be $12M-$15M a year (which is at least ballpark), how much really are you willing to wager that Jim Irsay profits less than that amount, from all sources, through his ownership of the Colts over the past two years? Tough to say for sure. I wouldn’t put a ton of confidence in it. It depends how different the Colts books are from the Packers. I chose them because they are in vaguely similar markets with somewhat similar local populations. If their new profits are similar to the Packers then it’s definitively true. Irsay owns 90% of the team and the stadium he plays in is owned wholly by the state of Indiana. I have no idea who gets the concessions and who gets the naming rights money, but I’m struggling to see where he’d get vastly more money than the Packers who have a similar stadium ownership situation. > [@](#): > > The real concern, I imagine, isn’t so much that the owners aren’t making enough money now, but that there’s no reason sports franchises have to keep on becoming more and more profitable. The NBA, for instance, has serious money problems that didn’t exist for them 5 or so years ago, and if the NFL’s revenues continue to grow at a diminished rate – let alone shrink – the league actually will be in the kind of financial trouble that would be hard to dig out of without substantially reduced player costs. Agreed, and the haves and have-not’s situation that the NFL owners are developing plays a role in that problem. I think it’s important to point out that these owners aren’t all Jerry Jones gouging his fan base for $100M+ a year. It’s been said many times, but generally speaking sports team’s owners don’t make huge money on them, they are pet projects. They build paper value of course, but very few of them are big profit generating machines. If they were so profitable why did Dan Rooney have so much trouble buying up enough shares to retain majority ownership in their team. It’s not as if the Steelers are mismanaged. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/80 "2011-02-09T00:45:38Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > This is where you’ve overlooked something: the \*proportional \*size of the leads doesn’t matter for our purposes, only the \*absolute \*size, because that’s what leads to the distasteful games in question. The argument was that (1) a longer season would lead to more games featuring teams who who’ve clinched their playoff seed and aren’t trying hard to win, and that (2) this is a bad thing. Both things are true. That there are (IMO) other arguments in favor of a longer schedule that greatly outweigh this concern doesn’t stop it from being legitimate. Well, the MLB and NFL aren’t an apples to apples comparison. Proportionality is the only way to compare them meaningfully. I see you ignored my point about the results of a 14 games NFL schedule. You footnote in your earlier post sum it up. More games played, larger sample sizes, are apt to mean that teams win a smaller percentage of their games, not a higher one. That reduction in percentage means that teams in the NFL will probably be more closely grouped and will play more meaningful games, not fewer. You assumptions aren’t grounded in reality as far as I can tell. You’re just assuming off hand that the Patriots would have been 16-2 this year and the Jets still would have been an 11 win team leading to more meaningless games. In realty the Patriots given more games probably would have had a lower winning percentage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575.md?page=5)