View Poll Results: WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • PLAYERS

    2 18.18%
  • OWNERS

    9 81.82%
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,223
    Rep Power
    108

    Who's side are you on?

    While the distribution of revenues is the main point of contention, other issues include the NFL's proposal for an 18 game regular season schedule and the implementation of a rookie wage scale.

    Owners or players?


  2. #2
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,898
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Hard to say which side I'm on as we don't really know who's asking for what yet with regard to divvying up the revenue sources. That said:

    1) I am against an 18 game regular season unless NFL owners vote to increase the current roster limits to help teams stay competitive over a longer season. This is unlikely however, as profits from two extra regular season games would be offset by the owners having to pay more in salaries for additional players. At the very least, allow teams to dress more than 45 players on game day.

    2) I am very much in favor of implementing a rookie wage scale. It seems fairer to players and teams alike to reward performance (at the NFL level) over college stats and combine hype.

  3. #3
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,223
    Rep Power
    108

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Quote Originally Posted by MauiRam View Post
    Hard to say which side I'm on as we don't really know who's asking for what yet with regard to divvying up the revenue sources. That said:

    1) I am against an 18 game regular season unless NFL owners vote to increase the current roster limits to help teams stay competitive over a longer season. This is unlikely however, as profits from two extra regular season games would be offset by the owners having to pay more in salaries for additional players. At the very least, allow teams to dress more than 45 players on game day.

    2) I am very much in favor of implementing a rookie wage scale. It seems fairer to players and teams alike to reward performance (at the NFL level) over college stats and combine hype.
    I'm in favor of the 18 game regular season schedule. The teams are already playing 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games. So it would be changed to 2 preseason and 18 regular season. Both options equal 20 games. Not to mention the ticket prices are the same whether you're paying for preseason or regular season games. I do agree that the rosters need to be expanded to help the teams deal with any and extra injuries they might endure.

    I agree with a rookie salary cap if you will.

  4. #4
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,898
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Quote Originally Posted by laram0 View Post
    I'm in favor of the 18 game regular season schedule. The teams are already playing 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games. So it would be changed to 2 preseason and 18 regular season. Both options equal 20 games. Not to mention the ticket prices are the same whether you're paying for preseason or regular season games. I do agree that the rosters need to be expanded to help the teams deal with any and extra injuries they might endure.

    I agree with a rookie salary cap if you will.
    Regular season games are treated much differently than preseason games in that the starters play 4 quarters in games that count if they're physically able to. An 18 game regular season would be two extra games wear and tear on a team's starters over the course of a season. There are enough injuries as it is in a 16 game season.

    Paying regular season prices for preseason games sucks - I hear you loud and clear on that issue. Four preseason games are overkill - no argument there. I do think the owners need to increase the existing roster limits if they want to add an extra two regular season games, otherwise the on field product could be diminished as injuries deplete the ranks. Hoping for an increased roster limit is likely a pie in the sky wish though ..

  5. #5
    Ram Mar Ram's Avatar
    Ram Mar Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Apia
    Age
    33
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I went owners, but there are things that they should compromise on the 18 game schedule. Even scrap it, i dont like 4 preseason games, for me its too long and unnecessary. 2-3 weeks max. I think owners came up with the 18-game schedule as an extra bargaining chip to leverage the other issues.

    To me Players get a big piece of the pie, they dont have to build stadiums, keep them running, pay a gazillion people in the organisation, Owners incur the financial risk and should get a larger piece of the Pie.

    Sure the players risk there bodies, injuries etc ... bottom line though is they get paid (enough) to incur these risks. I dont see coal miners and deep sea divers getting paid like these guys and they risk their LIVES. Put it into context, players have been raping & pillaging there respective teams for years.

    Rookie wage scale would be the best thing to happen to the game, and if a chunk of the money saved signing rookies can go to veterans that have earned a bigger pay-grade. Sustained excellence in the NFL should be rewarded over College accomplishments.

    Agents are a blight on the industry .... vultures circling the wagons...

    It seems that if owners dont get a fair shake then small market teams will likely suffer, not good news for St Louis as that would make moving to bigger markets more appealing, and we all know what bigger market we are talking about.

  6. #6
    Flippin' Ram's Avatar
    Flippin' Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,453
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    It's really tough to choose a side. The players' perspective, when I think of guys like Albert Haynesworth, JaMarcus Russell, even Sam Bradford and their ludicrous contracts. My side favors the owners but then those ego-driven owners like Jerry Jones and AJ Smith come to thought and it's back to the players' side. Hmmmmmmmm, is there a neutral party to go around?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Mar Ram View Post
    I went owners, but there are things that they should compromise on the 18 game schedule. Even scrap it, i dont like 4 preseason games, for me its too long and unnecessary. 2-3 weeks max. I think owners came up with the 18-game schedule as an extra bargaining chip to leverage the other issues.
    Take it from the players' perspective and think about it if their bodies can physically handle 18 games let alone 16 (to some). And don't give me that postseason excuse because they'd be dealing with 22 (with Wild Card and Super Bowl berth). Physiologists have already proven that playing football is almost equivalent to getting into a car accident especially when players burst at full speed to tackle and it's not pleasant if a concussion comes with the package. The hypocrisy of Goodell's concerns about the concussions going on yet proposing an 18-game season really intrigues me in the most pathetic sense. /endrant

    Personally, I'm in favor of a salary cap on both rookie and veteran ones with veterans having a $120 million deal at the max (The highest veteran contract was Michael Vick's 10 year $130 million contract) while rookies have $10-15 million on the chart. Rookies have to earn their paycheck obviously before they can think of big bucks. The reason why I don't want the veteran salary cap to go past the $130 million dollar margin is because of how that can cause these ridiculous contracts to go around and potentially turn it into the MLB but thank goodness Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder still look like the village idiots of NFL ownerships.

  7. #7
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I lean toward the owners in this particular dispute because anecdotally it does seem like some of the owners are struggling to keep up with operating costs and continue to field a competitive team. Buffalo comes to mind, for example. However, I think the league does need to open up its books to union officials (presumably with an ironclad NDA regarding public comments) if the teams are going to plead financial distress. Ideally, I'd like to see the NFL putting aside more money for operating expenses because it would weaken their ability to strong-arm communities into building new stadiums for them if the league was already ear-marking $2 billion/year for operational costs.

    The rookie salary reform has been long overdue. It's good for the owners because they don't want to pay millions of dollars to players who go on to bust, and it forces new players to prove themselves before they get rich overnight. All else equal, it also means more money available for the veterans.

    As far as the 18-game season goes, I don't know what the nominal increase in injury susceptibility is from changing two pre-season games into regular season games. Some teams already play their starters more than others in the pre-season, so the increase in exposure to risk is going to vary. However, I think the extra games should represent an in-kind contribution in negotiations when it comes to deciding how high the salary cap is going to be.

    From a fan's perspective, I'm conflicted about the 18-game season. On the one hand, it's more football! On the other hand, it's nice having a relatively short season where every game counts. The longer the season gets, the less meaningful any one game becomes. It's also annoying to see players breaking long-standing records for accomplishments in one season when they're playing more games than the guys who came before.

Similar Threads

  1. On the flip side...
    By VegasRam in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -06-02-2010, 10:38 AM
  2. The Bright Side
    By AvengerRam in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -08-05-2008, 12:58 PM
  3. The odds are on our side
    By VegasRam in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -05-03-2008, 04:03 PM
  4. On the Bright side?
    By laram0 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: -12-28-2007, 01:03 PM
  5. On the bright side...
    By RamsFanSam in forum LOUNGE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -12-10-2006, 01:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •