That’s not what that article says. It says that a handful of teams, those in huge markets, found ways to increase local revenues substantially. The bulk of which is on the back of the Cowboys nearly doubling ticket costs and increasing stadium capacity. The other high revenue team also have dramatically raised ticket prices. Now, maybe other teams will have to follow suit, but that’s besides the point entirely.
I said that the Packers costs are going to be similar across the league. That’s still true, and while the Packers increased at a higher percentage than the league as a whole the average player cost is still $141M. That number is consistent, as is the TV revenue figures. It’s very easy to determine what the associated costs and revenues are across the league.
That there’s a difference between the NFL’s haves and have-nots is not at issue. The league can figure that out on it’s own. The NFLPA has all the information it needs in order to determine what the leagues revenues and costs are. The NFLPA can’t hold up the profits of the Cowboys as the measure of what they should be paid any more than the NFL can hold up the Packers as their example. It only works in averages and that information is included in the current CBA.
The owners getting tax money for stadiums is an entirely different argument. It has nothing to do with the players or the CBA. Reports are that the Lockout could cost NFL cities $160M in jobs and revenues. You could make a case that taxpayers are getting a nice return on their investments. Either way that’s a debate for another thread.
And there’s the rub. You’re in the tank for unions no matter what the facts state. That’s a debate for another thread. Comparing anything about the NFL to the typical union is silly though.
That’s crap. Backups are called into duty on every NFL team. There isn’t a rash of traumatic injuries because rookie lineman have to play. How much experience did Lagursky have this season before last nights game? How did the Packers fair with all their injuries this year? If anything, having deeper rosters and more opportunities for back ups to play in the regular season will improve the learning curve of young players. The 4 preseason games doesn’t do the 52nd man on a roster a lick of good when he doesn’t even get to suit up for 16 weeks of the regular season. Having seasoned backups will become something teams need. That’s a good thing.
As it stands teams usually only dress about 8 O Lineman. I’m suggesting they dress 10, one backup for every position, and smart teams will find ways to make sure they are competent. I’m not seeing how that’s a bad thing. Get rid of the practice squad and get these developmental guys into action.
Teams are starting to play pre-preseason scrimmages. When they eliminate preseason games they’ll all start doing this. Scrimmages are better practice than preseason games anyways since they aren’t interfered with by the TV broadcast and they can focus on specific game situations that may not come up in a unscripted game.
Teams will find ways to evaluate talent. Come August, assuming there’s football, I want you all to remember how shitty preseason games are to watch for paying fans. It’s amazing how people sudden care so much about the poor widdle players and couldn’t give a crap about what the paying fans are getting,
Yeah, but there’s an increased risk of traumatic injuries when rookie linemen have to protect the franchise QB. In fact, it happened to Green Bay last season. I recall the Bengals Antwan Odom getting 5 sacks on Rodgers in that game, and it wasn’t because Odom is really good (he isn’t) but because he was lined up against the Packers third stringer. Sure, that was a freakish case of injuries hitting a position group pretty hard within the current framework of games we have now…but you want to increase that risk and make that scenario even more likely? I don’t, and the players don’t either.
And Rodgers never missed a start. It’s a bogus slippery slope argument. If player safety is such a paramount concern lets go back to 14 games. Hell, how about 12. The Packers had 15 guys on the DL and won the Super Bowl. The Steelers were on their backup OTs and C. They performed just fine. Adding two more games isn’t going to diminish the quality of play any more than going from 14 to 16 did. I can recall anyone ever lamenting that decision.
Apparently the NFLPA propaganda machine is working like a charm. It’s bizarre to me that 12 months ago when everyone was talking about 18 games there was pretty hearty support for it. Just about all the media members liked it and in the threads here on the Dope it was pretty much unanimous. Now, after the overblown concussion scare and Goddell’s hard-ass “safety” policies perception has boomeranged around completely.
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.
So why are there 4 preseason games? Shouldn’t the players be trying to eliminate 2 of those if games played equals injuries? Maybe the season should only be 10 games.
Yeah, I know, the “real” players don’t even play in preseason games. Why bother having them?
There was no calamity when the schedule was increased to 16 from 14. Add another bye week if the players can’t hack so many games in a row.
Largely a holdover from the era when teams didn’t have off-season workout programs, and most players had to work second jobs. In fact, before the NFL went to the 16-game schedule in 1978, teams played 6 preseason games. They needed that long to get players back into playing shape after they’d spent 7 months selling insurance or cars.
Um, Rodgers was hurt when the STARTER was in the lineup this year. You were talking about a 2009 game when Odom was all over him and he survived just fine. You’re not even keeping your silly argument straight.
Even if they’re skipping the official team activities, they’re still able to spend most of their time working out. They’re still not going to be in a position where they need to spend 2 months sweating off the fat and rebuilding muscle, as players did a generation ago.
Got any links? I’ve never liked the 18 game schedule. Right now the rotation works so well, every four years a team has played every other team. Every eight years every team has been to a stadium. I don’t think there’s a lot of support for 18 games amongst anybody but the owners and Goodell.
Nah, it’s a pain to sift through the Google results for recent discussions versus old ones. It doesn’t really matter, maybe my recollection is wrong, but I just don’t remember the outrage over player safety prior to those Week 2 concussions and the league subsequent over reaction. The context I recall was “man these preseason games are a joke!” "I can’t believe people pay for this!"and the idea of replacing them with actual football was a pretty good alternative.
The preseason games are a joke, and I can’t believe people pay for them, but I still think that the season needs to remain as it is. It may be a shift from my prior thinking, but that’s not unheard of. Why change a good thing?
Here
is a 2008 thread I started which seems to be more in favor of an 18 game schedule. I hated the idea then and I hate it even more now. I can’t wait to watch practice squad quarterbacks playing out the last game or two of a season.
No, fans don’t support adding more games. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you want it. What matters is whether or not you’ll pay for it. As it is, season ticket holders have to pay for four preseason games plus the eight regular-season home games. If they change two of those preseasons games to regular games, they can say they’re giving the fans what they want even though what the fans really want is to not be charged for the preseason games (which most of them don’t care to watch) as part of the package for regular season games. But that idea involves the owners giving up some money, so it’s never going to happen.
So there’s one reason I have little sympathy for the owners here. I don’t have all that much for the players either, but that’s a bait and switch, and one of their central demands is that the players take on all the risk for giving the fans something they don’t want - and all that after a lot of folderol about trying to reduce injuries on the field. (And of course, nobody cares about what happens to the players after they’re done playing.) In the end the owners will get just about everything they want and it’ll be only to their benefit. They can wait a lot longer than the players can.
You really can’t equate preseasn games to regular season games. As you mention, the starters will play more. Much more. I would guess starters sit out at least 8 quarters during the preaseason. That’s the equivalent of the 2 additional games. I think the 4 preseason games is adequate for knocking off the rust for most guys and evaluating who will round out the roster.
This is unfortunately true. Even if most fans became outraged an 18 game season, they’d still go to the games, watch on TV and buy the merchandise.
