Sisyphean Bills

Yes, it did. (He admitted it; perhaps someone can even find a link.) He got suspended for it. He had a solid rookie year, but the Bills had a lot of DBs and with the supplement suspension, he was let go. He played on the '01 New England Patriots Super Bowl winning team, in fact. http://www.nfl.com/player/mattstevens/2503138/profile

But a star like Cam Newton should be telling the NFL where and how to get off the bus.

On the other hand, the OP actually appears to be saying these percentages are the chance XXX "is the answer at RT" (for all but Hairston, who gets two percentages under arbitrary other criteria). Unless the Bills are planning to use an offensive formation that uses more than 1 RT for the season (a 345.23% chance of being sort of like the 11 Steve Taskers offense), then "the answer" should really mean the one cat that wins the RT job outright, so having a set of probabilities that come out to more than 1 would be a fundamental error.

Hence the need to find and build a new star in that sport. The bold part speaks directly to the nature of a zero-sum game like the NFL, and why using the Bills lack of a star QB as a circular support for why the Bills need a star QB is such a weak linchpin argument. PS: Here's another recent headline that speaks to "star power" -- and in particular a certain select individual's perceived star power -- being the only thing of any importance at all in entertainment related business: Megan Fox got canned from the latest Transformers movie. Now, that may mean Megan Fox loyalists may not go see the movie, but apparently Spielberg is comfortable enough that the movie can stand on its own without her and her not quite politically correct interviews.

Yes, and I was thinking the same thing.

Nothing quite like freezing your stones off watching a Dick Jauron led rag-tag group of waiver wire rejects blow a game in December...

As I was just borrowing from recent events and headlines, you should take your beef up with the sports media industry. I'm sure you could bring all sports writers around to your views on how things really work and what people actually think.

There will never be another Tiger Woods Rory McIlroy.

I had no idea Tom Modrak had worked in so many places and for so long.

It means that if Lehman would just pay a star to play there, their field would be long enough.

The NFL really is just another entertainment businesses. There are movie stars, rock stars, and football stars. Some fans are devoted to the star and follow (worship) that individual. To them, what toothpaste Tom Brady uses really does matter. And they really do want to know whether Peyton Manning wears boxers or briefs. I get that. On the other hand, there are others that go to NFL games and couldn't care less. It's not a one size fits all situation. Like other entertainment, there are people/fans that will go to, say, any sort of movie in which <insert star> has a role. It doesn't matter what the movie is about or if every critic says, "this movie is horrible, save your money." They're going no matter what. It's not the art; it's not the story; they want to see their heart throb larger than life. And, the production company knows that. But that doesn't mean there is a contradiction nor even an inconsistency if someone else can separate the art (or the sport) from the individuals involved. It is hard to separate the talent and draw of, say, the latest Disney star from the machine that is Disney that propels the latest kid they get under contract into an icon for their young viewers. Is every Disney-created star "the best"? Not in my opinion. What they lack in true vocal talent they more than make up for in promotion. Now if you ask some pre-teen kid, you might get a very different answer. Just like Disney does when the kid hits 18, when the football star has played out, another player fills the void.

Would the NFLPA and players support increased roster sizes, which means necessarily splitting the pie into more slices? Good article, Alcorb.

As long as the new owners aren't allowed to make any money unless they are still wearing shoulder pads or mini skirts depending on gender and/or orientation.

Why not? I mean it's also a "fact" that corporate America, after they file bankruptcy papers, will be chomping at the bit to sign up for another doubling of advertising rates. Some things are just obvious. You claimed to be someone involved in player contracts. If that is true, you are obviously not impartial on the issue and there is no ambiguity as to your personal motives. I am not and never claimed to be an NFL owner, your attempts to draw parallel on that issue notwithstanding. To be very direct, I was stating a personal opinion of my own person. I am a football fan, mac. I have never bought a Manning or Brady jersey. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they never play another down of football. I won't even cry if there is no NFL season this year. There is other football and I have other interests as well. Put that in your "it's nothing more than players" pipe and smoke it.

That's exactly right, Doc. The product is clearly the game, the sport, the experience. In fact, some of us watch a lot of college football because we find it very entertaining. (It was vastly more entertaining than watching a Dick Jauron coached team grind out another close loss to Cleveland.) No doubt it is a somewhat different form of the sport, but as a football fan I rather enjoy it.

It's an entertainment business. The players are not the product. They are employees that are a part of producing the entertainment.

But, nobody would come to the games if JaMarcus Russell didn't play. Oh wait...

Actually, he wasn't double teamed every down. But don't let that slow down the debate ... I got my popcorn.

That and CJ Spiller making the line block better.

A perfect storm situation for sports entertainment. Heck, even figure skating revenue exploded.

I disagree with that. They fared well enough. They got free agency. They got the owners backpedaling to maintain "labor peace" in the last negotiation, which is now sticking in the owners' throat badly enough to result in a lockout. The simple fact is that unions do not drive down labor costs. That is Economics 101. People that think they do are simply looking up the wrong side of the street. Also, just because revenue went up quickly since the last CBA does not guarantee that it will continue to climb. Ownership is claiming exactly that in fact, revenue is falling back and it is getting harder to maintain what they have. Which only makes a certain degree of sense, given the economic condition of our country, it seems plausible that it is harder and will become even more so to find corporations and other deep pockets that can buy luxury suites, naming rights, etc. Are the broadcasting companies just going to double the last contract automatically or are they finding it harder to sell advertising time?

Tommy Maddox.

Besides that, a union can and does drive up labor costs over a work-at-will independent contractor scenario. The notion that the owners didn't want the NFLPA to decertify because labor costs would skyrocket is laughable. Labor costs doubled in the last decade with the NFLPA. The owners want the union so that they can continue to conduct a profitable NFL entertainment business exactly as they have, with a draft, with stable franchises, with single point negotiations on TV contracts, official merchandising ventures, and so on.

This statement is absurd. The NFL game, as it is, does act like a trust and does violate anti-trust laws. That's why they lose every time they go to court. Forcing the NFL teams to act as 32 separate competing corporations through the courts, which is exactly what the NFLPA led lawsuit is directed at doing, would be the exact opposite result of keeping things just as they were.

1. is a ridiculous straw-man argument. Nobody goes to a football game for the satisfaction of knowing their money is helping an owner pay his bills and make a profit. 2. You haven't answered why you think billionaires are a dime a dozen or why you think the majority of this very small, very elite, very finite class of individuals would want to tie up some of their fortune in an NFL franchise when you simultaneously cry that they are so rich that they don't deserve to make a profit. But hey, there is always that other straw-man that the elite players can pool together a few of their millions and start a new league that would lose billions for years to come because people only want to see those individuals. How many people flocked to the WFL when Csonka, Warfield, and Kiick jumped ship again?