CosmicBills

You're dreaming.

It's a good bet he'll be one of the Juniors getting a hard look.

... And if you're wrong do the folks who like him get to laugh at you? (I should note that I don't have an opinion on him as of yet since I have only seen one game. But it seems silly to speak in absolutes when it's only February.)

You make some excellent points about the issues within the NFLPA. And I agree with you. But they're not really relevant to the current CBA negotiations. The NFLPA has a whole bunch of issues it needs to sort out, no argument from me on that point. But that's not relevant to the current CBA negotiations. What is relevant is the 2011 season and beyond. At the end of the day, the players want to play and the owners don't. Why? Because the owners want a bigger share of the pie. It's one thing to hold a lockout when the fate of your league and livelyhood are at stake (as can be argued is true with the NBA's current labor dispute). But the NFL is making money. Record breaking money. For both sides. Players and owners. And for it to come to an end, even for 8 games, is a slap in the face to the fans. As I said earlier, in nearly every other labor dispute in the past few decades that I've been a fan, I've never been on the players' side. But this is different. People don't care because at the end of the day it's billionares fighting with millionares. They don't care about the fans (on either side). I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners are capable of preventing a work stoppage if they really want to. But they don't. And that, as a fan, pisses me off.

That's certainly true -- but as has been pointed out during this whole thing, the NFL right now is untouchable. But a prolonged work stoppage will have an adverse effect on their business. The NBA took a huge hit after the 98 strike that they're still recovering from. Ditto with MLB. The owners are banking on being able to outlast the players -- they certainly have the war chest to do so. However, if there is no football in 2011 -- or even if it's just a portion of the season -- the American public will not tolerate it as many here seem to think they will. Ratings will drop. Revenue will suffer. They'll rebound, most likely, but who knows how long it will take. The owners, not the players, are playing a very dangerous game of chicken here. And it's the fans who suffer. The people here who are on the owners side are just not seeing the forest through the trees. The current CBA benefits the players yet the owners are STILL making record profits. Going to a 50/50 split would be a win for the owners and make them even MORE money, yet they refuse to do so. They want more than their share because they know they can get it. When you factor in how poorly the owners treat their employees AND their fans (10 dollar beers?!), it's nuts that there are people here defending them.

You might be right of course. But I have a feeling Quinn will blow people away in Indy and shoot right up there.

But that's the rub ... and where you're off. If any owner left the league, 1000 others would be lining up to take their spot that would bring as much to the league in terms of quality as the current owners do. The same can NOT be said for the players. If the players leave, there would be 1000s willing to take their place. But the quality of their play and the entertainment value they bring to the fans would NOT be the same. Not sure what in that statement is scary to you ... the owners are printing money right now. They will get everything they want from the players in this negotiation because they have all the leverage. But that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that there won't be ramifications on their business.

That's not true and not realistic. The NFL is the number 1 entertainment business in the country. It trumps movies, television any other sport. The TV ratings, TV money, merchandising let alone ticket sales parking and concessions make it perhaps one of the only can't miss business ventures in the world. There is not a single NFL team that loses money. Not one. Of course, the owners are crying poor -- yet they won't open their books to show their revenues. Why? Because unlike the NBA owners (who need to contract to survive) they can't prove they're losing money because they just aren't. Thinking otherwise is just being naive. I don't know about misstating facts ... I fully admit I don't know everything, no one does, because the owners won't open the books. However you're implying I'm intentionally misleading folks and that just ain't true. Of course no one forces you to play in the NFL. But that's not the point. You're a fan of the game right? Why are you a fan? I bet it's not because of how savvy the owners are in the way they manipulate the legalities of the business. I bet it has nothing to do with the earnings reports the owners see at the end of each quarter. I bet it has nothing to do with how much money each owner pockets ... but I bet it has everything to do with the quality of the athletes on the field. Right? Let's get another thing straight. THE PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. If given the chance for the current deal to continue, they'd take it no question. There would be football tomorrow and no one would say a word. But the OWNERS don't want to play football. So you can't put this on the players -- this work stoppage that (may) come is 100% on the owners. There are plenty of studies that show the average life span of an NFL player is far shorter than the rest of the population. A lineman who has 10 years in the league lives, on average, to 55. Again, it's their choice to play. But with how much money the NFL makes and how much money the Owners pocket, how can you honestly say that it's okay to provide virtually no benefits to retired players? Especially when those same players are the ones that MADE the owners their money and built their palaces? It's just wrong. One of many ... just google it. Other than the 10% number which Mike pointed out, what are the inaccuracies in the post. Check out this Forbes article posted earlier. It backs up the numbers and shows pretty coherently why the claim of economic hardship of the owners is absurd. You ask why I'm on the side of the players, I'll tell you. Because in this time and place, they're right. The owners are wrong. In nearly every other labor dispute in sports I've never been on the players' side. The current fiasco going on in the NBA? Totally on the owners side because I see first hand how many half full arenas there are. But that's not the case in the NFL. Not even close. There's so much money to be made, by both sides, but the owners want more. More than they're entitled to in my opinion. They run a business where they don't provide any long term care for their employees, they provide virtually no benefits for their retired players, they don't guarantee contracts, and young men give up their lives to play for them. Yes, it's a choice for the players to play. They certainly don't have to. But at the same time, the owners should have some responsibility to act like human beings. There is more than enough money to go around ... Also, ask yourself this, what is it that makes the NFL great? It's not the owners. It's the players on the field. You think scabs are going to provide as much entertainment as the best athletes in the world? I sure don't. You think America will continue to turn in to a product that puts less than the best on the field? Nope. I love football. I love the NFL. I don't want to see it tarnished -- but a lockout will do exactly that. Get it straight here, this is about greed. That's all this is. The owners are currently printing money -- but it's not enough for them. They know they have the players over a barrel and are going to take everything they wish when all is said and done. You might think that's cool. You might think that's the American way. I personally think it's unconscionable considering how profitable the league is right now for the owners.

(grabs popcorn....) Thanks, Jay! I now have something to keep me entertained for the next few days.

ah ... good point.

Good to know about the numbers, Mike. Thanks! Still, the owners have zero risk (the tv money each year covers their nut -- and then some), don't guarantee their employees money nor provide adequate care for them once they're retired and yet they want more more more ...

I may be alone here but while this deal is awesome I would rather get their first round pick next season rather than a second this year. Having two first round picks next season (one if not both of those picks being pretty high) it would give them the ability to make a serious move for Luck ... It's a gamble yes, but worth it. A least to me ...

Let's see ... The owners are guaranteed 7 Billion (w a B) from tv money -- 1 billion of that from Directv which is theirs to keep. They don't guarantee any of their employee contracts, impose a salary cap on it's players limiting the amount they can earn, they don't provide healthcare for retired players, a large chunk of their employees are dead by 55 thanks to the strains imposed on their bodies for playing this game ... The players offer a 10% reduction in their cut of the revenues and propose a 50/50 split when the owners assume ZERO risk in this venture and yet the owners walk away. Man the owners are f'ing scumbags who's greed is going to cost them. They think the product is bullet proof -- it ain't. But 1 billion of that is theirs w no need to pay it back if there is no 2011 season ....

I felt SUPER creeped out when I was backstage at one of the tapings and talked to her ... I thought she was 20-22 or so playing 16. But she was actually 16 or 17. That killed it for me. At least on that level.

True -- but Bill's show was a standard sitcom. Not a talk show.

Didn't Rodgers run the spread in college? (I could be WAY off there ... I don't follow college football much).

And yet you went out of your way in the OP to compare him to a "Roman Emperor" and ask whether she "wipes his ass too" ... so obviously you can't even interpret your own ramblings. You also were so upset by this you felt the need to start a thread about it. Which makes you even more of an over-reactor than A-Rod (who clearly has his own issues in dealing with the media).

:lol: Not sure why, something about the way you phrased that, "sports jocks", is hilarious to me. Maybe I need more coffee.

It had a great cast, including Tim Medows and Nancy Travis. I can't be too hard on it though, I admit it made me laugh.

And the Mask ...

Cookiemonster. And apparently he cares a lot.

I know this is off topic, but this is a very interesting point about our society as a whole.

A-Rod is a tool for getting upset over them cutting to him during the Super Bowl. He's a narcissist who thinks they were out to get an embarrassing shot of him and Cameron when clearly it was just a random cut away to celebs in the crowd. However, the OP is a bigger tool for being so disturbed by a show of affection between two people dating. At least that's my take.

No, you're 100% right. It's not a substitute for real, quantitative change within the organization. Or the actual product that takes the field on Sundays. But it's something to talk about, debate, discuss until the draft.