The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:01 pm**

Okay guys,

As of a few minutes ago, I learned that you have begun to destroy the most profitable league in the history of professional sports. This has to stop right now. As a fan of the greatest team of the Superbowl era and of the sport in general I cannot let you do this. So very simply, I am upping the stakes by one fan. For each and every day the lockout / strike continues I will boycott your sport for one full week after a deal is done and the season starts. This means no going to games, no watching games, no buying jerseys, no reading sports pages, I will not engage in anything that contributes money nor advertising views to your league.

Now I realize that with 9 billion dollars to worry about, you obviously don't care about one mere working stiff of a fan like me, so I encourage all true fans of the sport to join me in this. If enough of us do, then just maybe we'll actually have a football season this fall.

Sincerely,
-Josh k

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:02 am**

I'm afraid that I don't really understand what's going on...?

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:09 am**

The NFL owners have done a lockout. They're refusing to let the NFL players play, unless the players agree that the owners get more money.

The NFL takes all the money earned by the NFL brand--merchandising, TV advertising, etc--and pools it. Then it divides it amongst all the teams. Players get a cut, coaches get a cut, owners, all that. It's a very democratic system.

Except the team owners (who sponsor teams and get money in return) are demanding a bigger percentage.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:28 am**

That is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in quite a while.

-Username17

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:05 am**

Pretty big "who cares?" from me...in other news, a nuke plant may meltdown horrifically.

Back to the NFL, bring back the scabs already, the game is just as fun to watch with the bottom 1/2 of the top 1% of players, instead of the top 1/2 of 1% of players.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:02 am**

Doom wrote:Pretty big "who cares?" from me...in other news, a nuke plant may meltdown horrifically.

Pretty much the same here. The fact that every one of the seventy-plus players on a team can negotiate multi-million-dollar salaries means that everybody involved is already rich. I don't care who gets three million and who gets two million.

Also, the nuclear reactor almost certainly isn't going to release anything dangerous. They've flooded the entire thing with seawater and boric acid, and radiation isn't that bad in the first place.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:19 am**

Doom wrote:Pretty big "who cares?" from me...in other news, a nuke plant may meltdown horrifically.

Back to the NFL, bring back the scabs already, the game is just as fun to watch with the bottom 1/2 of the top 1% of players, instead of the top 1/2 of 1% of players.

Yeah, because it's pretty clear that the bad guys in this are the guys who play football. Those fucking bastards want money for their play? What [EDITED].

Everyone knows that an owner contributes way more to the joy of football than any 45 players.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:44 pm**

I used to love baseball as a kid. I watched it religiously, followed the Phillies like they were extended family, slept in my team jacket, collected cards, followed stats, everything. Then the '81 strike killed that love in me. Everything that I had thought about the sport as a game and not a business got tossed into the trash, and my love of the game never recovered.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:46 pm**

alright, this one is gonna be a bit lengthy; but I'm more than a little passionate about this one:

First, my final assessment of this: screw the prima donna players.

Now, the only concession that I think that the owners should make is over season length -- for me, moving the season to 18 games just dilutes the importance of each game (which makes me less inclined to have to watch each and every game -- that's right, no Sunday Ticket for me).
I might even concede to a slight shift (2-5%) in the revenue sharing ..... if they weren't being so self-righteous about it.

Before I start my tirade, here's a little article that needs to be examined, to really put things in to perspective, as it relates to the bigger picture.
(side note: while I may not be a big fan of the CfAP, I have to admit that a broken clock is right twice a day)

Now, on to the Wall O' Text:

Let's look at each of the major grievances of the Players' Union:
- Salary Cap:
Okay, this is the big one that has my head ready to explode. The salary cap is the one thing that allows there to be parity in the league. This is probably the single most important element of the CBA. Dropping the salary cap would completely destroy the league. Sure, the top-rated players, as individuals, would win out; but that's it. The NFL would end-up looking like MLB, and that would just be horrible -- you'd have the same 6 teams every year, with no one else ever really having a chance. The fans of the other 26 teams would lose out the most.
If you want to have a competitive league, the Salary Cap has to stay.

The Players' Union reasoning on this position is something to the effect of:
- short careers (~3 year or something)
- bodily injury (which causes the short careers)
I'm gonna have to call BS on this "average career length":
- the vast majority of "too-short" careers is due to washing out, not injury. that's not to say that career-ending injuries don't happen, or that injuries don't shorten careers; but that's not the cause of the skewed "average career length" -- it's scrubs that can't hack it.
- you've got a college degree. many of them got it for free. it's not my fault that they got it in Underwater Basket Weaving, instead of something useful.
- Endorsements -- they can pay a lot. if you're any good, you get endorsements. if you suck, you don't get them -- in which case, you might want to go ahead and start planning your next career anyway and stop crying.
- If you're not a top-tier player, then not only do you not benefit from the removal of the salary cap, but you actually suffer. Only the most profitable teams will be able to afford the top salaries ... leaving the low-earning franchises to pick up the rubble. with the cap, scrubs can still be used to round-out a good team. without the cap, only the poor teams will have you, and you'll never even have a hope of seeing a playoff game. this leads to a downward spiral to hell for the league.

Being a big fan of Dave Ramsey, I tend to listen to his radio show a lot. I was listening to him one night when he briefly talked about the fact that a "sports start" came to him for financial planning after signing a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract. Dave put him on a $200K/year budget, and everything else went in to a robust investment strategy. Why a "measly" $200K? It's called planning. Being proactive about things is much better than blowing your wad on a lavish lifestyle and then crying to your employer that you don't make enough.

- Profit Share
Like I said earlier, I can see giving on this just a little; but not near as much as the Players' Union wants. They stand by the position of "without us, they don't have a league". Well, for those of us who remember 1987, we know that is complete BS.
Additionally, without the league (and their solid business model), the players must rely on their degrees to earn a living. Oh, but wait a minute -- without a successful league, college scholarships start to dry up (an issue that is (at least in part) a completely different discussion ..... and don't even get me started on Title 9); and now you don't even have your degree.
How's that for some trickle-down?

- Season Length
This is one area with which I agree with the players .... except for completely different reasons. As stated above, if you want me to keep buying Sunday Ticket, don't dilute the season. Full stop.
If you want more TV revenue, hows about you get rid of that god-awful exclusivity clause in your DirecTV contract?

I haven't watched baseball since the '94 strike. Why? The league caved, and we ended up with a worse product (unless, of course, you're in one of the handful of major markets). MBL has been a shining example of how not to run your league.

During the NHL strike of '04, I was pissed. I thought that I was going to have to stop watching -- I was sure that we were gonna have the same thing we did with MLB in '94. However, when the deal went to arbitration, the arbiters ended up sticking the Players with a worse deal than what the League originally offered.

There were changes that were made, and now we have a much more exciting game, and a much more competitive league (and, as a result, a more profitable league).
Of course, it didn't hurt that the owner of my team really did have fairness and the good of the fans at the forefront of his mind (realizing that this was the linchpin of the league's success).

[/soapbox rant]

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:37 am**

Paying "super stars" too much is also what wrecked the NBA. Sure, it made the team who had Jordan or Lebron or Kobe very profitable, but all the other teams are barely breaking even or are losing money.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:43 am**

Yeah but Lebron and Kobe are the ones who actually play. The Owners just want to makie 150 million, instead of a 100 million.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:31 am**

Doom wrote:Back to the NFL, bring back the scabs already, the game is just as fun to watch with the bottom 1/2 of the top 1% of players, instead of the top 1/2 of 1% of players.

Bring back the scabs and you might find this union hating conservative joining the picket lines. Seriously professional football should be BANNED. The long term effects of Professional Football makes boxing look like a gentle sport. If owners are going to take scabs and basically fuck them on the playing field until their bones break or sucessive concussions leads them to middle aged retirement homes then fuck them because I've got too many damn liberals who will be demanding I pay for their health coverage when they are in a state of dimensia and not the fucking owners who fucked them for every penny they could get.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:22 am**

tzor wrote:
Doom wrote:Back to the NFL, bring back the scabs already, the game is just as fun to watch with the bottom 1/2 of the top 1% of players, instead of the top 1/2 of 1% of players.
Bring back the scabs and you might find this union hating conservative joining the picket lines. Seriously professional football should be BANNED. The long term effects of Professional Football makes boxing look like a gentle sport. If owners are going to take scabs and basically fuck them on the playing field until their bones break or sucessive concussions leads them to middle aged retirement homes then fuck them because I've got too many damn liberals who will be demanding I pay for their health coverage when they are in a state of dimensia and not the fucking owners who fucked them for every penny they could get.

so .... the fact that the players make a conscious, deliberate, and willing choice to play has nothing to do with it? besides, it's not like they're involved in a necessary staple of the economy -- it's f'n spectator entertainment. They're free to go do something else with their lives.

Just like I don't feel bad for the "extreme sports" guys who have their various mishaps ..... it's an inherent and assumed risk that the participants take.
(and yes, I consider 300lb-men running full speed in to each other for an hour at a time to be a bit extreme ... it's just the way that the game has evolved)

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:00 am**

Losing $50M in revenue would seriously put most of the NBA teams in the red. Big market teams like LA can afford losing that amount, but most small market teams can't.

Again, there's a huge disparity in the revenue-generating power between big and small market teams. So a big market team can generally afford to spend insane amounts of players, whereas small market teams cannot. And because of their insane spending, the price of all players - even the crappy ones - go up.

Moreover, bluntly - LeBron has yet to show he knows how to win a championship. It's telling that despite quitting on Cleveland and joining up with two of the biggest "superstars" in the league, the best record in the NBA today still belongs to the humble San Antonio Spurs.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:59 am**

sabs wrote:Yeah but Lebron and Kobe are the ones who actually play. The Owners just want to makie 150 million, instead of a 100 million.

Their stock portfolio's are in the toilet because they trusted the free market. They need to replenish their cash reserves, and telling the free market to go screw itself is the easiest way.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:38 am**

wotmaniac wrote:Like I said earlier, I can see giving on this just a little; but not near as much as the Players' Union wants. They stand by the position of "without us, they don't have a league". Well, for those of us who remember 1987, we know that is complete BS.
Additionally, without the league (and their solid business model), the players must rely on their degrees to earn a living. Oh, but wait a minute -- without a successful league, college scholarships start to dry up (an issue that is (at least in part) a completely different discussion ..... and don't even get me started on Title 9); and now you don't even have your degree.
How's that for some trickle-down?

I'm not so sure college scholarships are such a great deal any way.

Obviously all the people going into these sports at college level have phenomenal drive ... but they put that drive into joke educations because of the sport. If they set their minds to being successful at something else earlier in life they might be better off in median terms (though probably not average).

The whole semi-commercial college sports thing (although it's more about alumni money than direct income) is kind of distasteful to me to begin with ...

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:38 pm**

I'm kind of hoping the lock out lasts until February of Next Year.
A year without Football, what a wonderful world this would be.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:41 pm**

sabs wrote:I'm kind of hoping the lock out lasts until February of Next Year.
A year without Football, what a wonderful world this would be.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:01 pm**

I haven't watched baseball since the '94 strike. Why? The league caved, and we ended up with a worse product (unless, of course, you're in one of the handful of major markets). MBL has been a shining example of how not to run your league.

It also didn't help that our former mayor overruled the ballot referendum and decided that we should all pay a Regional Asset District Tax in order to come up with public funding for our new stadiums.

Those tax dollars were "justified" on the grounds that they were being used for job creation. And well, it should be blindingly obvious that nobody is gonna be working a job during a strike / lockout. Which makes that claim not just a political swindle but an outright fraud.

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:08 am**

It will certainly kick my town of Indianapoils in the nuts if our superbowl prep is for naught. Oops.

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:54 am**

If you say so. I can safely say that my lil sister (who works and lives there) would enjoy not having the extra traffic.

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:00 am**

I refer to the oodles of lost expected revenue. I personally do not even watch the game and I will be inconvenienced by the crowds as I work downtown. But I am willing to endure that for a couple days along with the endless annoying media I am certain to suffer, because it is a lot of money coming into the city. We are getting tons of road work completed that would not have been viable without the expected super bowl. It is a very good thing for our local economy.

The Gaming Den

An Open Letter to the Entire NFL and Fandom

An Open Letter to the Entire NFL and Fandom