QuoteNFL hat case may adjust sports landscape
By Jesse Holland
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A hat can be a small thing.
Then there's the Supreme Court battle over who gets to make official NFL headgear logos. It could end up having a very large effect not only on all professional sports, but also the landscape of business in the United States.
"Make no mistake about it, this case is about more than just hats," said DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the National Football League Player Association.
The high court will hear arguments Wednesday from a former NFL apparel maker seeking to overturn rulings that the National Football League is one business, not 32 separate ones or teams working together, and therefore immune to an antitrust complaint.
A decision granting the NFL a blanket antitrust exemption could lead to player strikes not only in football, but also pro basketball, hockey and other sports, advocates said. It also could give leagues leeway to reduce player salaries by ending free agency, mean higher ticket price and even reshape nonsport business practices by narrowing the scope of antitrust enforcement.
"NFL players have advanced the game — by forcing free agency, for example — because of the ability to challenge the NFL on antitrust violations," Smith said. "If the Supreme Court grants the NFL immunity from those laws, 50 years of precedent will be ignored, and the game will suffer as a result."
The fallout if the ruling says a league with privately owned clubs can't be considered one business? Lawyers on the other side says that could lead to lawsuits against pro sport leagues, multinational businesses and even credit card companies, potentially driving up the cost of doing business and of everyday products.
A victory by American Needle Inc. of Buffalo Grove, Ill., "would convert every league of separately owned clubs into a walking antitrust conspiracy," NFL lawyer Gregg H. Levy said in court briefs.
The company filed an antitrust challenge to an NFL deal with Reebok International Ltd. American Needle had been one of many companies that made NFL headgear until the league awarded an exclusive contract to Reebok in 2001.
American Needle sued the league and Reebok in 2004, claiming the deal violated antitrust law. Lower courts threw out the suit, holding that nothing in antitrust law prohibits NFL teams from cooperating on apparel licensing so the league can compete against other forms of entertainment.
But in what sports fans would call "running up the score," the NFL is asking the Supreme Court to review the case in hopes of getting a blanket antitrust exemption that could eliminate most, if not all, the antitrust suits against the league.
"It was an odd request — similar to my asking an official to review an 80-yard pass of mine that the official had already ruled a touchdown," New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in The Washington Post. Brees serves on the executive committee of the NFL Players Association.
Right now, only Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption, dating from a 1922 Supreme Court decision. The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the NCAA, NASCAR, professional tennis and Major League Soccer are supporting the NFL in hopes the court will expand that antitrust exemption to other sports.
The NFL and other sports leagues want the high court to cement the league's victory in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago because other appeals courts have ruled differently.
The major credit card companies, Visa and MasterCard, also want the NFL to win, because if the NFL can be considered 32 separate businesses and vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits, then the federation of banks that makes up the credit card network would be in the same position.
An NFL victory would come at the cost of labor peace in pro sports, possibly leading to strikes and lost seasons for professional hockey, basketball and football, player unions say. Even the baseball players endorsed that view because, although baseball has an antitrust exemption, they fear competition among teams over player pay could be eliminated.
The NFL's players union and other pro athlete associations oppose the court's giving the league antitrust protection, noting that labor agreements in the NFL, NBA, NHL and pro baseball all expire in or around 2011.
If the NFL prevails, "decades of antitrust precedents that have protected competition for player services would be reversed, the benefits that both players and consumers have gained from competitive markets would be jeopardized and labor disputes and work stoppages would likely ensue," lawyers from the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB players' associations said.
"If the NFL wins this case, they can set ticket prices and stop nearby teams from competing for fans by offering discounted tickets. With the economy the way it is, I don't see how that's good for fans," said Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson from the Minnesota Vikings. Hutchinson is also a player representative for the NFL's players association.
The case is American Needle v. NFL, 08-661.
There's no force in the universe that can prevent a strike/lockout in 2011, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference except to stengthen the owners' position.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2010, 09:31:23 PM
There's no force in the universe that can prevent a strike/lockout in 2011, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference except to stengthen the owners' position.
Sick part is the more inevitable it looks the lower the chances are of any late miracle compromise as no one will even be trying for one.
Finally nothing to distract us from thrilling NCAA matchups like Texas vs. Lousiana-Monroe.
The whole idea of anti-trust having any appreciable impact on labor relations in pro sports is completely overblown. Which pro sport has the strongest players' union? The one with the anti-trust exemption.
It's an interesting case. There is some substance behind NFL's claims, but I don't buy the argument that clubs never compete against each other. For example, I'm pretty certain there is competition for sponsorships and advertisement.
It seems, in a way, not unlike some other "two-side" markets (e.g. newspapers, which compete for readers but also for advertisers) where a relatively small competition for fans/readers (due to high "brand" loyalty etc.) is coupled with a very strong competition for advertisers.
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2010, 05:47:07 AM
It's an interesting case. There is some substance behind NFL's claims, but I don't buy the argument that clubs never compete against each other. For example, I'm pretty certain there is competition for sponsorships and advertisement.
Actually, national-level sponsorship and advertising are done by the league.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2010, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2010, 05:47:07 AM
It's an interesting case. There is some substance behind NFL's claims, but I don't buy the argument that clubs never compete against each other. For example, I'm pretty certain there is competition for sponsorships and advertisement.
Actually, national-level sponsorship and advertising are done by the league.
And team markets are reserved, which is why you don't see the Ravens advertising in the Washington Post, or the Redskins in the Baltimore Sun.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2010, 08:14:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2010, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2010, 05:47:07 AM
It's an interesting case. There is some substance behind NFL's claims, but I don't buy the argument that clubs never compete against each other. For example, I'm pretty certain there is competition for sponsorships and advertisement.
Actually, national-level sponsorship and advertising are done by the league.
And team markets are reserved, which is why you don't see the Ravens advertising in the Washington Post, or the Redskins in the Baltimore Sun.
Which no doubt made 84-95 extra galling for you, eh?
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2010, 08:16:15 AM
Which no doubt made 84-95 extra galling for you, eh?
Particularly painful. Which is why Jacke Kente Cooke colluded to keeping a team out of Baltimore.
"Baltimore? That's my market now, Commissioner Tagliabue!"
I hope he's rotting in hell, nice and slow.
The teams have solo business of promoting players and applying their label to an endorsement. It might take two teams to put on a game, but nobody's going to call up the Eagles' general manager when booking an appearance for Tony Romo. The revenue's pooled, but what about capital injections? They come from team owners and single-purpose investors, right? Sounds to me like the NFL's a regulatory body that's far overstepped its authority, to be honest.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2010, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2010, 05:47:07 AM
It's an interesting case. There is some substance behind NFL's claims, but I don't buy the argument that clubs never compete against each other. For example, I'm pretty certain there is competition for sponsorships and advertisement.
Actually, national-level sponsorship and advertising are done by the league.
Oh, ok. This does sound like either a single economic entity or a very tight cartel then. :P
QuoteSotomayor prodded further, asking what decisions could sports teams make that "would be subject to antitrust scrutiny?"
Levy replied that "the NFL clubs are not separate sources of independent power. They are a unit ... a single entity."
So, pounced Sotomayor, "You are seeking, through this ruling, what you haven't gotten from Congress: an absolute bar to an antitrust claim."
Quote from: citizen k on January 16, 2010, 05:11:25 PM
QuoteSotomayor prodded further, asking what decisions could sports teams make that "would be subject to antitrust scrutiny?"
Levy replied that "the NFL clubs are not separate sources of independent power. They are a unit ... a single entity."
So, pounced Sotomayor, "You are seeking, through this ruling, what you haven't gotten from Congress: an absolute bar to an antitrust claim."
That's how MLB got their anti-trust exemption--via a USSC ruling.
I don't want to picture Sotomayor pouncing. :x
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2010, 01:02:18 AM
I don't want to picture Sotomayor pouncing. :x
Thanks for that.
:D
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2010, 01:02:18 AM
I don't want to picture Sotomayor pouncing. :x
Ay, Chihuahua!
Oh Seedy and Valmy!
Dan Snyder is an asshole (Taiwan animation version):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOIsaCWKQzU&feature=player_embedded
So I guess the NFLPA has decertified today.
Can someone help me out on why they would follow this tactic?
Speaking of NFL and the law...looks like lockout will be happening, as NLFPA was applying for decertification.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 05:44:20 PM
So I guess the NFLPA has decertified today.
Can someone help me out on why they would follow this tactic?
So the players can start a suing.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 05:44:20 PM
So I guess the NFLPA has decertified today.
Can someone help me out on why they would follow this tactic?
By decertifying, the union clears the way for individual players to file antitrust lawsuits against the NFL, which opted out of the CBA in 2008. It renounced its right to represent the players in contract bargaining.
Quote from: katmai on March 11, 2011, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 05:44:20 PM
So I guess the NFLPA has decertified today.
Can someone help me out on why they would follow this tactic?
By decertifying, the union clears the way for individual players to file antitrust lawsuits against the NFL, which opted out of the CBA in 2008. It renounced its right to represent the players in contract bargaining.
WHy couldn't the NFLPA file such suits?
QuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
QuoteMINNEAPOLIS (AP)—MVP Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) are among the players who filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL on Friday to prevent a lockout.
Just after the players' union decertified, the star quarterbacks and seven other players filed suit against the NFL in U.S. District Court, seeking class-action against the league. They also filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL and the teams from engaging in a lockout.
The collective bargaining agreement with the league expires at the end of Friday.
Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson(notes), Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber(notes) and defensive end Brian Robison(notes), New England guard Logan Mankins(notes), New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora(notes), Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year's draft.
"The torch has been passed to a young Aggie who has decided to put his name on a lawsuit," Smith said.
Manning, Jackson and Mankins are free agents. The Colts tagged Manning as a franchise player, while the Chargers did the same with Jackson and the Patriots with Mankins. The union is disputing the validity of those tags.
The players allege that the NFL conspired to deny the players' ability to market their services.
Tom Brady has long hair and looks like a girl.
Quote from: katmai on March 11, 2011, 06:04:17 PM
QuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
I got a letter from Roger today!
QuoteDear NFL Fan,
When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.
Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players' financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.
The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.
We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.
While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.
Yours,
Roger Goodell
Fuck him, I hope the players clean his clock.
Bring back Tagliabue.
Quote from: Scipio on March 12, 2011, 06:59:12 AM
Bring back Tagliabue.
I can just imagine CdM's reaction to that! :lol:
Bring back zombie Rozelle!
Quote from: NeilQuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
Of course it's a ploy. Whether or not the courts see it that way depends on whether the judges hearing the case are pro-labor or not.
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:00:54 PM
Bring back zombie Rozelle!
Quote from: NeilQuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
Of course it's a ploy. Whether or not the courts see it that way depends on whether the judges hearing the case are pro-labor or not.
The players' cases will be heard by David Doty, who is very, very friendly to the NFL players, not sure if the owners' case would go to him as well.
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:00:54 PM
Quote from: NeilQuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
Of course it's a ploy. Whether or not the courts see it that way depends on whether the judges hearing the case are pro-labor or not.
The complaint alleges that as part of a prior settlement with the NFL, the NFL agreed not to contest any decertifications as pretextual. Whether or not that will hold up in this case, who knows.
Quote from: sbr on March 12, 2011, 08:15:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:00:54 PM
Bring back zombie Rozelle!
Quote from: NeilQuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
Of course it's a ploy. Whether or not the courts see it that way depends on whether the judges hearing the case are pro-labor or not.
The players' cases will be heard by David Doty, who is very, very friendly to the NFL players, not sure if the owners' case would go to him as well.
Actually it's not, been handed to a different judge.
Quote from: katmai on March 12, 2011, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 12, 2011, 08:15:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:00:54 PM
Bring back zombie Rozelle!
Quote from: NeilQuoteDecertification would allow the players to act as a trade organization instead of a union, which would allow a lawsuit if the owners lock them out next March. The league would then likely countersue and claim that the decertification is simply a move to gain entry to the antitrust laws the union does not currently enjoy.
Well, the NFL is right, aren't they? The whole thing is a ploy and they'll recertify as soon as the lawsuits run their course, just like they did before.
Of course it's a ploy. Whether or not the courts see it that way depends on whether the judges hearing the case are pro-labor or not.
The players' cases will be heard by David Doty, who is very, very friendly to the NFL players, not sure if the owners' case would go to him as well.
Actually it's not, been handed to a different judge.
OK, I figured if the owners had any say in where the case was heard it would be a different judge, but wasn't sure.
The short story is: there's 9 billion a year to split up. The owners want 1 billion more for their share, and they want it subtracted from the players.
It's tough to find any sympathy for parties arguing over 9 billion, but when 1 party wants to subtract a billion from the other party to add to their own, meh...I'm slightly favoring the players in this one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2011, 09:29:31 PM
The short story is: there's 9 billion a year to split up. The owners want 1 billion more for their share, and they want it subtracted from the players.
It's tough to find any sympathy for parties arguing over 9 billion, but when 1 party wants to subtract a billion from the other party to add to their own, meh...I'm slightly favoring the players in this one.
I agree. I haven't been following this that closely but everything I have seen makes the owners look horrible.
A strong player's union would be bad for the sport (see: baseball, which I have lost almost all interest in, at this point), so I have to back the owners.
Quote from: Kleves on March 13, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
A strong player's union would be bad for the sport (see: baseball, which I have lost almost all interest in, at this point), so I have to back the owners.
Baseball's problem isn't a strong player's union, but an owner-centric commissioner's office.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 13, 2011, 10:04:57 AM
Quote from: Kleves on March 13, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
A strong player's union would be bad for the sport (see: baseball, which I have lost almost all interest in, at this point), so I have to back the owners.
Baseball's problem isn't a strong player's union, but an owner-centric commissioner's office.
Baseball's problem is a dull sport where all the drama has to be chemically-induced.
QuoteZbikowski scores TKO on first-round body blow
Ravens safety is now 2-0 as pro boxer, plans to fight later this month in Atlantic City
By Lance Pugmire, Tribune Newspapers
9:58 AM EDT, March 13, 2011
Las Vegas —
Football's loss may be boxing's gain.
With the NFL in labor limbo, Ravens safety Tommy Zbikowski returned to pro boxing Saturday and produced a first-round technical knockout over less-fit opponent Richard Bryant.
The 25-year-old Zbikowski pounded a left hook to the 235-pound Bryant's belly, and the big man lost his breath and slumped to the canvas. Bryant was so out of wind referee Russell Mora stopped the fight at the 1:45 mark of the first.
"I knew I hurt him," the 193-pound Zbikowski said. "I love that I got a body shot for a knockout."
Zbikowski was able to strike a $10,000 deal to fight Bryant with bout promoter Top Rank as the Ravens' restricted free agent awaits signing a tender with the team.
Top Rank Chairman Bob Arum said he projects another Zbikowski event March 26 in Atlantic City, and also in late April in a casino-resort outside Dallas.
He hadn't fought since his 2006 pro boxing debut as a Notre Dame player and admitted, "I was a little rusty ... he was a tough dude."
Bryant (1-3), who clearly expected some punishment by entering the MGM Grand Garden Arena to Culture Club's "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?" called the decisive body shot "tremendous."
The charismatic Zbikowski now has an open schedule with the NFL's labor strife and was visibly excited about spending the time away from football in boxing, a sport he's called his "first love."
"I just want to keep it rolling as much as we can," he said.
I really hope Chad Ochocinco takes him up on his offer to fight. I would love to see Zbikowski tear Chad a new one.
My understanding was the owners want 2 bill off the top and then the players get 60% of what is left. So in 3-5 years depending on growth the players would be right back to getting at least 50% of the money, right now it was 1 bill off the top and players get 60%. **roughly as it depends on how each team spends their cap room**
Is that all their down to at this point? What's going on with the 18-game schedule and the rookie cap?
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2011, 09:19:50 PM
Is that all their down to at this point? What's going on with the 18-game schedule and the rookie cap?
Both sides are in agreement on the rookie cap. They were just working out the nuts and bolts of it. Players are refusing to consider the 18-game schedule from the last report I heard on ESPN.
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
Yeah, anything short of a 20 is way too small.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
One of the joys of the NFL is that each game is so meaningful. 16 games is almost too much as it is and by the end of the season we are all patiently waiting around for the playoffs.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 09:28:44 AM
One of the joys of the NFL is that each game is so meaningful. 16 games is almost too much as it is and by the end of the season we are all patiently waiting around for the playoffs.
Ditto.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
You know, there's a very successful pro football league that plays 18 games... :whistle:
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
You know, there's a very successful pro football league that plays 18 games... :whistle:
No, no there is not.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 09:28:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
One of the joys of the NFL is that each game is so meaningful. 16 games is almost too much as it is and by the end of the season we are all patiently waiting around for the playoffs.
Agreed. And by 16 games the players are already very beat up and injured.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 14, 2011, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
You know, there's a very successful pro football league that plays 18 games... :whistle:
No, no there is not.
http://www.cfl.ca/
:cool:
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
Normally, I'm on the side of the owners, not the players, but I 100% agree with the players on this, and hope that's not something that they compromise away.
Quote from: dps on March 14, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
Normally, I'm on the side of the owners, not the players, but I 100% agree with the players on this, and hope that's not something that they compromise away.
I agree with the mob. More is not always better and this is the perfect example. Sixteen games is plenty, we already have stars sitting out the last game or two once they clinch a playoff spot, having an extra two games will only make that worse. It would also make teh division games even less important than they are now. With only 4 teams per division you only get 6 division games, if there were 12 out of division games those 6 would be even more meaningless than they are now.
The principle argument I've heard from the owners for taking a bigger cut is they want to use the money to fund market expansion. Seems to me the players might see that in their interest as well, with a possible compromise of getting a player rep on some sort of committee overseeing the expenditures.
Also vote no on expansion. I think we should kill the preseason while we're at it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
The teams that don't get the extra home game would be mad.
Hopefully, the London game shit would be scrapped. American football for Americans. And some Canucks.
None for Beeb however.
Quote from: Neil on March 14, 2011, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
The teams that don't get the extra home game would be mad.
Ding-ding. :yes:
An odd numbered game schedule would never fly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2011, 06:17:05 PM
The principle argument I've heard from the owners for taking a bigger cut is they want to use the money to fund market expansion. Seems to me the players might see that in their interest as well, with a possible compromise of getting a player rep on some sort of committee overseeing the expenditures.
Also vote no on expansion. I think we should kill the preseason while we're at it.
You can't trust the owners to do anything right. They are a bunch of sneaky bastards that will keep on lying at everyturn until they are forced to share publicly their revenues.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 14, 2011, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
You know, there's a very successful pro football league that plays 18 games... :whistle:
No, no there is not.
http://www.cfl.ca/
:cool:
Didn't you say successful? :P
Janitors make more money than your players, no really. :XD:
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 15, 2011, 12:02:28 AM
Didn't you say successful? :P
Janitors make more money than your players, no really. :XD:
Does keep the ticket prices down for the average fan, and its not a league of overpaid bums compared to the big 4. :)
Quote from: Gaius Marius on March 15, 2011, 01:19:14 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 15, 2011, 12:02:28 AM
Didn't you say successful? :P
Janitors make more money than your players, no really. :XD:
Does keep the ticket prices down for the average fan, and its not a league of overpaid bums compared to the big 4. :)
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
I'm quite looking forward to seeing some CFL games eonce I move back south. Hell I might even buy season tickets - it's just that I hate the Eskimos so very, very much... :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on March 14, 2011, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
The teams that don't get the extra home game would be mad.
Just schedule so that they all get one every other year and add another by week for health reasons. Cut two preseason games as well.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
Semi-pro American football, buy not paying players at all, makes tickets even
more affordable than CFL football. :contract:
Plus, it is more successful than CFL, with over 1,000 teams.
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2011, 05:27:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
Semi-pro American football, buy not paying players at all, makes tickets even more affordable than CFL football. :contract:
Plus, it is more successful than CFL, with over 1,000 teams.
I got a free uniform! :contract: :yeah:
But I had to give it back. :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 14, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
Hopefully, the London game shit would be scrapped.
:cheers: :cheers:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2011, 01:54:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 14, 2011, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
As they should not. The 18 game schedule is an abomination.
How about a 17 game compromise?
The teams that don't get the extra home game would be mad.
Just schedule so that they all get one every other year and add another by week for health reasons.
That's just a stupid idea. The only way to make a schedule with an odd number of games work would be to have each team play a neutral-site game each year. And to be fair, it would have to be a true neutral site, say Devner vs. New England in Chicago, not something like Cincinnati vs Baltimore at Annapolis.
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2011, 05:27:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
Semi-pro American football, buy not paying players at all, makes tickets even more affordable than CFL football. :contract:
Plus, it is more successful than CFL, with over 1,000 teams.
That's all well and good. :)
But what does it have to do with my original point - that there is a very successful pro football league that plays an 18 game schedule?
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2011, 05:27:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
Semi-pro American football, buy not paying players at all, makes tickets even more affordable than CFL football. :contract:
Plus, it is more successful than CFL, with over 1,000 teams.
That's all well and good. :)
But what does it have to do with my original point - that there is a very successful pro football league that plays an 18 game schedule?
The argument is whether or not the CFL can reasonably be labelled "successful". A point was made that the CFL is affordable. The counter-example of US semi-pro leagues offering affordable games show that you can't judge the success of a business venture by the affordabiltiy of its product.
The CFL is successful in Canada, I suppose, but it's attempt a while back to expand into the US was a terrible failure. To US football fans, just a place where college footbball players without the talent to make it in the NFL and without the foresight to actually get an education in college go to play.
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2011, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2011, 05:27:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
I thought about taunting Alci on just this basis - the CFL, by keeping player salaries low, makes ticket prices very affordable.
Semi-pro American football, buy not paying players at all, makes tickets even more affordable than CFL football. :contract:
Plus, it is more successful than CFL, with over 1,000 teams.
That's all well and good. :)
But what does it have to do with my original point - that there is a very successful pro football league that plays an 18 game schedule?
The argument is whether or not the CFL can reasonably be labelled "successful". A point was made that the CFL is affordable. The counter-example of US semi-pro leagues offering affordable games show that you can't judge the success of a business venture by the affordabiltiy of its product.
The CFL is successful in Canada, I suppose, but it's attempt a while back to expand into the US was a terrible failure. To US football fans, just a place where college footbball players without the talent to make it in the NFL and without the foresight to actually get an education in college go to play.
US expansion was a terrible, terrible disaster, without a doubt (with the one exception of Baltimore).
But the league is doing very well these days.
I don't think you can judge the success of a league based on how much it pays its players, by the way. The NFL is not successful merely because it pays its players millions of dollars.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 12:33:15 PM
I don't think you can judge the success of a league based on how much it pays its players, by the way. The NFL is not successful merely because it pays its players millions of dollars.
It's a good start. Pro leagues are in the business of making money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2011, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 12:33:15 PM
I don't think you can judge the success of a league based on how much it pays its players, by the way. The NFL is not successful merely because it pays its players millions of dollars.
It's a good start. Pro leagues are in the business of making money.
And high player salaries are a good way to lose money.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
And high player salaries are a good way to lose money.
Sure, if you own a CFL team. For most leagues high salaries are a reflection of high revenues.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2011, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
And high player salaries are a good way to lose money.
Sure, if you own a CFL team. For most leagues high salaries are a reflection of high revenues.
You should talk to the Phoenix Coyotes about that. :lol:
Welp, football as we know it is over.
Quote
Prior to "Decertification"-Litigation-Lockout, perhaps the most polarizing topic in NFL circles was the league's more stringent emphasis on illegal hits in 2010 even if players repeatedly bucked against their enforcement while claiming it remained unclear what constituted a legal vs. an illegal hit.
They better figure it out for the 2011 season (assuming it's played, of course), because flagrant hits will likely be drawing suspensions in addition to those heavy fines.
"Frankly, now that the notice has been given, players and coaches and clubs are very aware of what the emphasis is and we won't have that hesitation," said NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson, who didn't suspend any players in 2010 for illegal hits, on Wednesday.
"Everyone will be very clearly on notice now that a suspension is very viable for us and we will exercise it ... when it comes to illegal hits to the head and neck area and to defenseless players."
Defenseless players will now be classified as:
A quarterback in the act of throwing
A receiver trying to catch a pass
A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped
A player fielding a punt or a kickoff
A kicker or punter during the kick
A quarterback at any time after change of possession
A receiver who receives a blind-side block
A player already on the ground
"We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," said Anderson.
"The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul."
The competition committee is also mulling changes to kickoffs and proposes moving them up to the 35-yard line to curb injuries on the play. Other changes -- which will be up for discussion at next week's owners meetings in New Orleans -- could include making all scoring plays reviewable from a booth official without a coach's challenge and the elimination of a third coach's challenge even if he is successful on his first two challenges in a game
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/nfl-suspensions-coming-next-season-for-illegal-hits/1
What the...
The new rules can't be that all encompassing can they?
Why not just say 'A quarterback. Ever. Seriously, we'll suspend you for looking at these guys wrong.'
Then again, we're just talking head hits. You were already playing with fire when you hit a QB in the head.
I don't think any of those are new rules, just a clarification of what a defenseless player is. The only questionable one is the "A quarterback at any time after change of possession", but I can't really argue with that one.
Sooo... at this point we might as well tune into the Lingerie Bowl/League since the NFL is aiming for the same rules. At least the players in the Lingerie Bowl/League make good eye candy.
Side note: Go Riders! :Canuck:
Those rules are gay.
Then again, Hines Ward has now lost his reason to live.
I assume Tom Brady will keep his ability to call for penalties (and get them) when a defensive player gets within 5 feet of him.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 07:08:13 AM
I assume Tom Brady will keep his ability to call for penalties (and get them) when a defensive player gets within 5 feet of him.
I have heard they are giving him a pink flag to throw to indicate a penalty should be called.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2011, 06:53:50 AM
Those rules are gay.
Then again, Hines Ward has now lost his reason to live.
Does it say something about blindsiding DBs in the head? If anything, he's happy now because he can deliver his cheapshots without fear of retribution.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2011, 06:53:50 AM
Those rules are gay.
Then again, Hines Ward has now lost his reason to live.
Well duh, once you win a couple Superbowls it's hard to find new lofty goals.
So basically they're making it a non-contact sport.
Just brainstorming . . . should the NFL consider weight limits on players? That would have health benefits in itself in addition to reducing somewhat the potential impact from hits. it would also stop the never-ending race to develop more giant sized linemen.
You guys are weird. Tne NFL has been threating QBs differently for years now. It's just finally spelt out. We should be happy.
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
So basically they're making it a non-contact sport.
:huh:
Nothing much has changed; it has been a penalty to
intentionally hit a defenseless player in the head or neck for a long time. All they did was define what they consider a defenseless player and let players know that the punishment for that is going to increase.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Just brainstorming . . . should the NFL consider weight limits on players? That would have health benefits in itself in addition to reducing somewhat the potential impact from hits. it would also stop the never-ending race to develop more giant sized linemen.
You know, this isn't the most unthinkable thing I've ever heard. It'd be unworkable unless the limits were position-based though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Just brainstorming . . . should the NFL consider weight limits on players? That would have health benefits in itself in addition to reducing somewhat the potential impact from hits. it would also stop the never-ending race to develop more giant sized linemen.
I was unaware the NFL was genetically engineering linemen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2011, 09:26:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Just brainstorming . . . should the NFL consider weight limits on players? That would have health benefits in itself in addition to reducing somewhat the potential impact from hits. it would also stop the never-ending race to develop more giant sized linemen.
I was unaware the NFL was genetically engineering linemen.
You should pay more attention.
Quote from: sbr on March 18, 2011, 10:22:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2011, 09:26:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Just brainstorming . . . should the NFL consider weight limits on players? That would have health benefits in itself in addition to reducing somewhat the potential impact from hits. it would also stop the never-ending race to develop more giant sized linemen.
I was unaware the NFL was genetically engineering linemen.
You should pay more attention.
Will do :D
So....Kendall Hunter (RB, Oklahoma State) scored a 9, and Carl Johnson (OT, Florida) scored a 6 on the Wonderlic Test.
Impressive.
(while it probably doesn't mean all that much, Hunter came out of OSU with a 4.0 GPA, a couple of academic awards, and was on the President's Honor Roll and Big 12 Commissioner's Honor Roll).
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 19, 2011, 02:19:58 AM
So....Kendall Hunter (RB, Oklahoma State) scored a 9, and Carl Johnson (OT, Florida) scored a 6 on the Wonderlic Test.
Impressive.
(while it probably doesn't mean all that much, Hunter came out of OSU with a 4.0 GPA, a couple of academic awards, and was on the President's Honor Roll and Big 12 Commissioner's Honor Roll).
ZOMG! Ｐlagarism!
:lol:
Quote
Ken Lanci, Cleveland Browns Fan, Sues Team & NFL Over Lockout
One fan has had enough of the NFL lockout and has taken it upon himself to save the upcoming season.
Businessman Ken Lanci filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Cleveland Browns and the league over the lockout, according to Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Lanci, a Cleveland Browns fan, claims in the lawsuit that the lockout violates his private seat license contract with the team and "jeopardizes his right to watch a full season of home games."
The 60-year-old reportedly asked the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to prohibit the lockout.
"What tipped the scale for me is the labor issue between millionaires and billionaires and the fact they can't settle it when the country is in a recession," Lanci said. "Worse yet, they have to rub this in our faces."
Here's hoping.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AkHJFkV52fO_MmWrBQo4sY45nYcB?slug=dw-wetzel_retired_players_file_antitrust_suit_against_NFL_032811
QuoteRetired players file antitrust suit against NFL
Dan Wetzel
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports 6 hours, 15 minutes ago
Holmes spent seven of his 11 NFL seasons with the Chiefs.
(Dick Whipple/AP Photo)
Four retired NFL players, including Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller and Pro Bowl running back Priest Holmes, filed a federal class action, antitrust lawsuit against the NFL on Monday seeking to end the current lockout.
Eller v. NFL, obtained by Yahoo! Sports, is similar to the current Brady, et al v. NFL. However, it is based on a potentially clever legal maneuver that could box the league into a corner and prove a significant development in ending pro football's nearly month-long labor impasse.
The former players' suit also covers draft-eligible prospects, who aren't represented by the NFL Players Association under the previous collective bargaining agreement. As such, these plaintiffs could potentially avoid one of the league's chief counterarguments against the Brady lawsuit – that the union illegally decertified.
"The owners say the union has unlawfully decertified and the union should be ordered to reconstitute and forced to sit at the bargaining table," lead attorney Michael Hausfeld of the Washington D.C.-based Hausfeld LLC told Y! Sports. "If you look at the last CBA, it represents the rookies that have been drafted and the rookies who have begun negotiating with teams."
Therefore, college players awaiting next month's draft are not represented by the union and can't be faulted for its decertification. However they are, Hausfeld argues, being affected by the lockout.
"These players have an antitrust claim," Hausfeld said. "They've essentially staked the pursuit of a career on being eligible for the NFL.
"The owners have shut down their potential employees through a concerted boycott," Hausfeld continued. "[The suit is] going to avoid the main thrust of the owners' defense and their argument that the matter should be settled by the [National Labor Relations Board] not in the courts."
The NFL said its "attorneys have not had an opportunity to review" the suit, which was filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The NFLPA was made aware of the suit prior to its filing, according to Hausfeld. It too has yet to respond with comment.
Hausfeld has made a career out of winning complicated lawsuits – that includes earning reparations for Holocaust survivors from Swiss banks. His firm is currently one of the lead councils in a suit filed by former college athletes such as Ed O'Bannon and Oscar Robertson against the NCAA for the unlawful use of their likenesses.
In the Eller case, Hausfeld believes a crack has been found in the NFL's armor.
"How silly is it to have a draft in April and then say, congratulations, you're locked out?" he asked.
By using the window between now and the start of the NFL draft on April 28, the NFL is exposed to this kind of argument.
The NFL, Hausfeld said, would have to work out a deal with the NFLPA or risk taking on an antitrust case without its top counterarguments. If the league were to lose, it would risk the basic structures of its business – the salary cap, the draft, free agency and so forth. It would be better off agreeing to a deal.
"We see something different," Hausfeld said. "[The NFL has] created more of a mess for themselves. If we can end the lockout and there is no union then they're going to individually negotiate with every player and former player.
"This is basically the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. Hopefully it forces everyone to the table."
That remains to be seen. Predicting how any lawsuit, let alone complicated antitrust arguments, will go is fruitless. The NFL has plenty of lawyers also.
For fans eager for any kind of solution or forced movement on the labor impasse though, this unexpected legal challenge is, at the very least, a potential positive.
Veddy Interestink. Is there any word about what the former players' claims might be?
Quote from: sbr on March 28, 2011, 11:05:48 PM
Veddy Interestink. Is there any word about what the former players' claims might be?
I have no idea. Sort of like this bit from the article:
Quote
"We see something different," Hausfeld said. "[The NFL has] created more of a mess for themselves. If we can end the lockout and there is no union then they're going to individually negotiate with every player and former player.
I'm not clear on exactly what he thinks the league would be negotiating about with former players. Pensions, maybe, but that would imply that with no union, the league could take away a retired player's pension unless that individual player could negotiate a new pension plan for himself, which is an argument that I wouldn't want my lawyer to make if I was a former employee.