PDA

View Full Version : CBA Negotiations - Why a lockout is likely



BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 03:57 AM
EDIT: So it's understood, since the damn title is misleading (teach me to write this when i wake up) this post is why the NFL would likely pursue a lockout over the other possible scenarios regarding 2011 if no CBA agreement is reached.

The CBA expiration and the last labor dispute


The 2010 season is considered the final league year in the current CBA, under revised rules. March 2011 is when the final year expires, and so the owners cant just decide to avoid negotiation.

Look at the last labor dispute as a good example of the course of what may occur if no new CBA is reached. In 1987 when the last CBA issues arose, the league enacted what they called the post-impasse rule when the CBA expired and as a result will get to set wages, rules, and terms based upon the last offer to the NFLPA before the deadline (as required by US Labor laws). This means, that whatever they offer the NFLPA last (however ridiculous) will become league rules given US law if the league wants to continue to operate.


NFLPA/Player option


The players have two options in this case. That's to strike or decertify. Originally I thought the players would strike, but I've changed my position on this and think they will decertify. Striking means losing all wages for the players, but doesn't allow the league to make nearly as much in revenue. Both in TV and ticket sales.

Most people think the players would prefer to decertify which means that they would continue play in the NFL under the post-impasse rules while the NFLPA seeks legal means to bring anti-trust cases against the NFL (what Upshaw did in 87). For some reason, a few pundits (who I think are stupid which is why they are in the minority IMO), think this works in the favor the league. It doesn't IMO.

The league may not have as many issues lined up against them when the players were fighting for free agency in 87, but they have a lot more to lose. The majority of profit in the NFL comes by way of TV contracts. This has already been an issue for the NFL and U.S. Congress. In the Patriots undefeated regular season (07), the last game of the year was scheduled to be on only the newly formed NFL Network exclusively. After impassioned contact between constituents to law makers many US Senators contacted the NFL and said they would ensure a revisit to U.S. anti-trust laws regarding NFL TV contracts if they didn't play the game more widely. The NFL immediately announced that the game would be broadcast nationwide on both NBC and CBS.

This is what the NFLPA would likely attack.... TV contracts. There are other anti-trust issues they could use. The NFL hasn't released its profits and income to the public in a very long time. If those figures became public, opinion could sway against the owners. This is bad because the owners would like to pursue anti-trust exemptions for TV like baseball currently enjoys. That becomes unlikely if public opinion is not in their favor when congress is called to action. The NFLPA would also undoubtably look at the lack of use of poison pills as collusion between owners, something the US courts deemed legal in NFL contracts. However TV by far is the most costly issue. The NFL will not chance having their exclusive rights to every NFL game put in question. They would preempt this with a lockout. It makes much better sense to lose revenue for one year then possibly lose the majority of it for years and years to come. Hence why the NFL hires the man who was responsible for the NHL lockout, Bob Batterman.


Other Considerations and Impressions


However, remember any such anti-trust issues could land in the NFL's favor, and would take at minimum five years to be played out in court. Also remember, if the players strike the other issue for the NFL is that college football is a much stronger force then it was in 1987. While some people would continue to look to the NFL, more casual fans would likely watch the more competitive college games as a retreat from "talent-less" NFL games.

Also consider this. The NFLPA hired DeMaurice Smith as executive director because he was looked at having a tough stance on upcoming negotiation. Goddell favored Troy Vincent because he was seen as being able to find more middle ground on issues. The NFLPA is obviously taking a hard stance, and the NFL is matching.

So a lockout favors the NFL. It puts the players in a financially compromised situation. They make no income while the NFLPA pursues anti-trust issues. The players won't wait five years. Talent fades to fast for these guys and the money is to good. In that situation, the NFLPA would be under tremendous pressure from the players to find a solution. If the NFL does not lockout, the players can continue to make money by decertifying while the NFLPA seeks anti-trust issues which puts the pressure on the league. IMO, if there is no new CBA by March 2011, there will be a lockout. I however do not anticipate this. A CBA resolution benefits everyone, even if each has to make concessions they find hard to swallow. There's just to much money on the line.

Lonestar
04-12-2010, 06:48 AM
I'm not sure they players have to work with a contract.

Many work under the same rules and salaries until they work out a RULES.

It is not like each player does not have contract with their team.
Most all they are negiociating are work rules and minimum salaries. Perhaps this year the owners will get a rookie cap.

It would not be the first time that union employees worked without a contract.

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 07:50 AM
I'm not sure they players have to work with a contract.

Many work under the same rules and salaries until they work out a RULES.

It is not like each player does not have contract with their team.
Most all they are negiociating are work rules and minimum salaries. Perhaps this year the owners will get a rookie cap.

It would not be the first time that union employees worked without a contract.

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Did you read my post?

I ask because I addressed this with the fact that it is possible to operate outside of a CBA based season. However I gave a compelling reason for the league to choose not to continue to operate under similar rules in a post-impasse setting. That is that under a "contract" absent season the league would enact an impasse which open themselves to anti-trust litigation from the NFLPA that could prove far more costly then the money they may save or make during that five year period. That given leverage, the lockout would be far more effective then continuing to operate under such circumstances. The players will not be able to survive five years without pay while they await the ruling by the courts over anti-trust issues and therefor would be forced to meet the terms of the NFL's negotiating offer. A lockout for the owners is far more effective to reach their desired results if CBA negotiations break down then continuing to operate under similar rules while the NFLPA has a chance to effect the NFL's largest source of revenue, TV contracts. So long as the players continue to make money under such conditions, the NFLPA has no pressure from any source, and can pursue their legal actions without issue or difficulty. A lockout just makes more sense from the league and owners point of view. This is all covered in the previous post....

Also, I don't think you are, but if by chance you are suggesting that the league will operate under wildly different impasse rules allowing much higher profits, in the case of sports, it is US labor law that the league must enact and operate under similar conditions that were their last offer to the union on the negotiation table (if they choose to continue to operate without an agreement with the labor union). To not do so is considered to be acting, "not in good faith" to the negotiation process. As a result almost all such unilateral actions are overturned by courts in quick order to ensure a speedy return to the negotiation table. A good example of this is the baseball unilateral decision for impasse and the rules instated after were denied by the court.

Lonestar
04-27-2010, 11:48 PM
Did you read my post?

I ask because I addressed this with the fact that it is possible to operate outside of a CBA based season. However I gave a compelling reason for the league to choose not to continue to operate under similar rules in a post-impasse setting. That is that under a "contract" absent season the league would enact an impasse which open themselves to anti-trust litigation from the NFLPA that could prove far more costly then the money they may save or make during that five year period. That given leverage, the lockout would be far more effective then continuing to operate under such circumstances. The players will not be able to survive five years without pay while they await the ruling by the courts over anti-trust issues and therefor would be forced to meet the terms of the NFL's negotiating offer. A lockout for the owners is far more effective to reach their desired results if CBA negotiations break down then continuing to operate under similar rules while the NFLPA has a chance to effect the NFL's largest source of revenue, TV contracts. So long as the players continue to make money under such conditions, the NFLPA has no pressure from any source, and can pursue their legal actions without issue or difficulty. A lockout just makes more sense from the league and owners point of view. This is all covered in the previous post....

Also, I don't think you are, but if by chance you are suggesting that the league will operate under wildly different impasse rules allowing much higher profits, in the case of sports, it is US labor law that the league must enact and operate under similar conditions that were their last offer to the union on the negotiation table (if they choose to continue to operate without an agreement with the labor union). To not do so is considered to be acting, "not in good faith" to the negotiation process. As a result almost all such unilateral actions are overturned by courts in quick order to ensure a speedy return to the negotiation table. A good example of this is the baseball unilateral decision for impasse and the rules instated after were denied by the court.

Just noticed this
While I'm not a lawyer the only thing IIRC that could cause them an Issue fi congress got exercised about no football and tried to rescind the anti trust clauses they gave them back during the merger years.

I know that workers can and DO work with out contracts all the time. as long as the owners keep making offers the stay out of the courts jurisdictions IMO.

BigBroncLove
04-28-2010, 06:49 AM
Just noticed this
While I'm not a lawyer the only thing IIRC that could cause them an Issue fi congress got exercised about no football and tried to rescind the anti trust clauses they gave them back during the merger years.

I know that workers can and DO work with out contracts all the time. as long as the owners keep making offers the stay out of the courts jurisdictions IMO.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post right, but I think your saying that congress has to exercise the right to strip the NFL of its anti-trust exemptions. That's true, if an existing CBA agreement remains on the table.

In sports law and the antitrust exemptions we are talking about there are two forms. Statutory and non-statutory. For sports non-statutory is what applies. Statutory antitrust exemptions are ones created under agreement by a labor union with the employing body which can create a monopoly for their work environments in a whole. Non-Statutory is when the Union and employing body come to agreement and create a governing rule known as a collective agreement. When a collective agreement is created due to the fact the union has made a agreement under good faith with the employer it allows for antitrust exemptions. After all, if the union representing the whole of the employee body agrees to the terms an employer sets out, it cannot by definition be anti-competitive.

That's where the crux comes in. When the CBA expires, there will no longer be any agreement between the NFL and NFLPA. Now that means pretty much nothing if its still a negotiation process. All pre-existing laws will remain in place. However ever since the 1991 ruling by Judge Doty regarding this very issue, antitrust exemptions do not continue to apply if the union representing the players decertify's. That's because decertification means the players are no longer represented by the union, so any previous agreements between the union and league no longer exist. Since that would mean the employees (players) will not have given consent to the employers (league) to rule in an anti-competitive way, anti-trust exemptions under the Clayton Act of 1914 (the law that allows these exemptions) no longer applies.

This is why a lockout favors the league. By locking out they lose some market share, undoubtably, but it makes it so the players have no income and that will make any prolonged negotiation (and litigation) impossible for the NFLPA and players to pursue. The players came back to play after only three weeks of striking in 1987. The players today may be able to hold out longer, but by no means are they able to sit as long as the league is. That was the NFL's major mistake is 87. Allowing the players to return to play so they still made money while the NFLPA pursued litigation, and then in 89 decertified and in 91 won the ruling to strip the league of anti-trust exemptions because they decertified, which brought the NFL crashing back to the negotiation table and put the ball in Upshaws court. If the league had forced a lockout in 87 the players, eventually in desperation, would have come back to the negotiation table and agreed to nearly all of the league's demands.

Of course a lot is still riding on American Needle vs. NFL, which doesn't seem to be going to well for the NFL at the moment. If American Needle wins, it gives the NFLPA even more leverage in the courts since material anti-trust exemptions will have been denied (leaving the door open to question TV as well in the event of decertification). Vice versa if the NFL wins their anti-trust exemptions become not only non-statutory but judicially derived which makes things more difficult (though non-statutory is considered by definition judicially derived, it is not direct).

Broncolingus
04-28-2010, 10:27 AM
While I'm not going to be surprised if there is no lockout, and much of the banter now is 'posturing' by both sides, if I had to choose right now, I would agree a lockout is going to happen...

...however, with the amount of $$$ involved, and when the NFL/NFLPA really start getting danger-close to a strike - and all of the negatives associated with that - I won't be surprised if there's a last minute solution (even band aid) put in place.

TWT...

Lonestar
04-28-2010, 01:16 PM
While I'm not going to be surprised if there is no lockout, and much of the banter now is 'posturing' by both sides, if I had to choose right now, I would agree a lockout is going to happen...

...however, with the amount of $$$ involved, and when the NFL/NFLPA really start getting danger-close to a strike - and all of the negatives associated with that - I won't be surprised if there's a last minute solution (even band aid) put in place.

TWT...
But there is not all that much money out there to be lost. The networks still have to PAY even if there are no games, that was written into their contracts the last time around.

The money that could be lost is giving to much to the players again, there is NO way they are going to give back 60% again.

I see it as some where near 50% as that is kind of the magic number for salaries and benefits in most businesses 54% being the point where they become unprofitable. so 50 plus the teams FO and the rest of the staff trainers, secretaries, scouts etc. would get it in the 54-56% range.

So they are quite a way away from getting close not the money aspect, not to mention rookie salaries, old timer pension fund amounts and playing two extra games each year. Yep the players will either play or be locked out in 11.

Unless all of those RFA step forward and force the issues. There are about 200 this year already and most of them will still be RFA in 11 not counting the new batch of them that do not have 6 years inservice. So I'd guess some 350-450 players out of about 1700 or so are going to be PiSSED about not getting a raise.

the rookies will be thrown to the wolves as those that are voting ALREADY have their contracts so that is a gimme.

Should be interesting negotiations.

underrated29
04-28-2010, 01:49 PM
I can pretty much promise you that there will not be a lockout...Not because of the $$ they will lose that year etc. as you said it might not be that bad.......

But.....



Hockey. Hockey is my favorite sport. And when the NHL had their lockout, the sport Never recovered. It is still trying to get back to where it was before the lockout. Even with the higher scoring, shootout, parity etc....The lockout almost literally killed it..


Football being a much much much much much higher sport, one of the markets Major players. Could afford a lockout but even then it would take a long while for it to recover. Just think about all the dollars that come in from Fantasy Football....It would be devastating for the sport. Although I am sure it would boost ratings for hockey. Still- I can not see anyway possible that the NFL will take the chance that what happened to hockey could happen to football.

There will be no lockout. Hockey said the same thing. Then 3 days prior to actual lockout they had MAJOR talks and almost came to an agreement. If the NFL makes it that far where they are within a few days from lockout. I promise they will get a deal done!

BigBroncLove
04-28-2010, 04:36 PM
But there is not all that much money out there to be lost. The networks still have to PAY even if there are no games, that was written into their contracts the last time around.

The money that could be lost is giving to much to the players again, there is NO way they are going to give back 60% again.

I see it as some where near 50% as that is kind of the magic number for salaries and benefits in most businesses 54% being the point where they become unprofitable. so 50 plus the teams FO and the rest of the staff trainers, secretaries, scouts etc. would get it in the 54-56% range.

So they are quite a way away from getting close not the money aspect, not to mention rookie salaries, old timer pension fund amounts and playing two extra games each year. Yep the players will either play or be locked out in 11.

Unless all of those RFA step forward and force the issues. There are about 200 this year already and most of them will still be RFA in 11 not counting the new batch of them that do not have 6 years inservice. So I'd guess some 350-450 players out of about 1700 or so are going to be PiSSED about not getting a raise.

the rookies will be thrown to the wolves as those that are voting ALREADY have their contracts so that is a gimme.

Should be interesting negotiations.

Well the TV contracts you are referring to only applies to DirectTV's NFL sunday ticket, which represents only 1 billion dollars of an 8 billion dollar industry. The other TV contracts all run based upon air time. That's one eight of the industry, which roughly translates to around 32 million per team where the average yearly rate of stadium debt and maintenance runs around 120 million (and the average stadium debt in total is 250 million per team). So financially speaking, even with the DirectTV contract the only thing the owners can be doing is buying time during a lockout.

I think you hit the nail on the head as far as profit sharing is concerned. 50% is a little low, historically speaking. Right now the NFL enjoys the highest player percentage of profit sharing in the US. I think the next highest is 57% with baseball. However I think the lowest is 54%. I think you'll see something closer to that range but you may well be right (as you said 54% - 56%), I think the owners have the cards in this one.


There will be no lockout. Hockey said the same thing. Then 3 days prior to actual lockout they had MAJOR talks and almost came to an agreement. If the NFL makes it that far where they are within a few days from lockout. I promise they will get a deal done!

I agree... well mostly. I'll repost the bolded part of my first post to clarify my position.


IMO, if there is no new CBA by March 2011, there will be a lockout. I however do not anticipate this. A CBA resolution benefits everyone, even if each has to make concessions they find hard to swallow. There's just to much money on the line.

However you just don't know how hard nosed each side can get over issues. Both the NFLPA hired a hard hitter in hiring Smith and the NFL is obviously taking a hard stance by grabbing Batterman (who engineered the NHL lockout) and also getting rid of the salary cap. You might think this is what the owners would want but the owners have always (up until now) supported a salary cap to ensure an even playing field for team competition. However salary cap's by nature are anti-competitive and therefor are an immediate breach of antitrust laws. If the NFLPA is decertified and a salary cap is in place, the NFL immediately loses one antitrust exemption court battle out of the gates. Hence they get rid of the salary cap in a negotiation year to ensure the NFLPA has less leverage at the table. I think it's a 90% chance a new CBA is signed before things get to a lockout, but if both sides are equally uncompromising a lockout I believe is leaps and bounds more likely than impasse.

Spiritguy
02-01-2011, 07:19 PM
Decided to post this in here as it deals with the CBA and the financial aspect of things for both sides. Ted Bartlett does a great job of explaining where the owners and the NFLPA are coming from, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what he believes will be the outcome.

:listen: Warning: long article



A Navy buddy of mine named Billy Gamble recently asked if I thought there would be a lockout that would affect the 2011 season. He couched the question in terms of his own outrage with paying $8 for a beer, and I think that's a fairly common and reasonable fan reaction:

I spend a lot of money on football, so what the hell is the problem? Why would there even be talk of a lockout? Isn't there enough money coming in right now for everybody to get a fair piece? I mean, come on, 8 freaking dollars for a beer?
The short answer is, no, I don't think there will be a lockout that causes any games not to be played. It's possible-to-likely, though, that a lockout occurs which delays the start of the new NFL year, and makes things which are normally orderly, like free agency and offseason workouts, a bit chaotic.

I decided that I'd talk extensively today about NFL economics, and move from that into a discussion about the real issues in this collective bargaining negotiation. As usual, my assumption is that my readers are smart enough to understand all of this, but I realize that there may be some detailed questions which you may have. I'll be glad to answer those in the comments.

read the rest here (http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/on-bubbles)

rcsodak
02-01-2011, 09:09 PM
Ugh......headache.......
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
02-02-2011, 11:20 PM
The following link contains a lot of information in regards to the CBA/negotiations:

http://nfllabor.com/

HammeredOut
06-07-2011, 12:58 PM
The NFL ownership and players should add to the league. Why not start the draft for players at the age of 18. The early draft would allow for minor league teams to develop players in a pro system for a few seasons, and instead of the college's making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the players and college ball. Why not draft the talent out of highschool, and put them in our version of single "A" and or double "A". The NFL would create a ton of jobs, they would be able to keep former players working ext.

The college system has made so much money from College football, that maybe the NFL needs to question whether or not, they want to draft earlier, and develop earlier. Look at the NHL, they draft at the age of 18, MLB draft highschool players, the NBA use to draft highschoolers. Instead of losing hundreds of millions of dollars to the college system, why not draft earlier, create jobs, develop into a pro system earlier, and take the revenue and talent the college system already has.

The NFL might not draft a player until they are 23 years old. The problem with that is, it might take a year for him to learn the playbook, and another year till he gets good. At which point the kid is 25 or 26. The way football is on the body, an NFL player is much like a tennis player, they don't have any meaningful seasons after the age of 30. If the NFL is able to draft players at the age of 18, and put them in the system for a few years. Then say "Jr.Broncos" minor league team might have fans saying, "this player might be a better player right now at run stoping then whats starting on the Broncos right now".

I would like to see one or 2 minor league teams installed. A friday game, saturday game, and an NFL Sunday game. Colleges are not making millions off of college Baseball, and Hockey games like they are on college Basketball, and Football. The golden goose egg, needs to be broken down, and the talent should be allowed to go free, and the NFL is the hammer that breaks the golden goose egg. The NFL owners are so worried about a few million dollars, sponsorship money. The NFL minor league is the way to go. It allows for development, and longer NFL careers. I would like to see an 18 year old some day run a 4.3, 40 and enter the NFL as the next one. That is how, and what builds the game.

If school is all that may keep these kids from commiting to a pro game at an earlier age. Then im sure the teams could work out a school program with any university so that an education is guaranteed, and the kids make a nice chunk of change say 50grand a year. Now a days the NCAA is so bad, they will pay coachs 5 million a year, and more then what NFL coachs make in a season, and penalize an NCAA player for trading personal belongings for tattoos, or something of value. The players don't make a cent off from all the hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship money, they are some of the poorest kids in america, trying to survive off the table scraps of the NCAA. And I wouldn't call worthy tablescraps.

The should extend the draft to about 50 rounds. Much like the MLB. Have compensation picks for lost players.
The NFL has a real opportunity to take the talent, and start another money making league.

MOtorboat
06-07-2011, 01:12 PM
The NFL ownership and players should add to the league. Why not start the draft for players at the age of 18. The early draft would allow for minor league teams to develop players in a pro system for a few seasons, and instead of the college's making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the players and college ball. Why not draft the talent out of highschool, and put them in our version of single "A" and or double "A". The NFL would create a ton of jobs, they would be able to keep former players working ext.

The college system has made so much money from College football, that maybe the NFL needs to question whether or not, they want to draft earlier, and develop earlier. Look at the NHL, they draft at the age of 18, MLB draft highschool players, the NBA use to draft highschoolers. Instead of losing hundreds of millions of dollars to the college system, why not draft earlier, create jobs, develop into a pro system earlier, and take the revenue and talent the college system already has.

The NFL might not draft a player until they are 23 years old. The problem with that is, it might take a year for him to learn the playbook, and another year till he gets good. At which point the kid is 25 or 26. The way football is on the body, an NFL player is much like a tennis player, they don't have any meaningful seasons after the age of 30. If the NFL is able to draft players at the age of 18, and put them in the system for a few years. Then say "Jr.Broncos" minor league team might have fans saying, "this player might be a better player right now at run stoping then whats starting on the Broncos right now".

I would like to see one or 2 minor league teams installed. A friday game, saturday game, and an NFL Sunday game. Colleges are not making millions off of college Baseball, and Hockey games like they are on college Basketball, and Football. The golden goose egg, needs to be broken down, and the talent should be allowed to go free, and the NFL is the hammer that breaks the golden goose egg. The NFL owners are so worried about a few million dollars, sponsorship money. The NFL minor league is the way to go. It allows for development, and longer NFL careers. I would like to see an 18 year old some day run a 4.3, 40 and enter the NFL as the next one. That is how, and what builds the game.

If school is all that may keep these kids from commiting to a pro game at an earlier age. Then im sure the teams could work out a school program with any university so that an education is guaranteed, and the kids make a nice chunk of change say 50grand a year. Now a days the NCAA is so bad, they will pay coachs 5 million a year, and more then what NFL coachs make in a season, and penalize an NCAA player for trading personal belongings for tattoos, or something of value. The players don't make a cent off from all the hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship money, they are some of the poorest kids in america, trying to survive off the table scraps of the NCAA. And I wouldn't call worthy tablescraps.

The NFL has a real opportunity to take the talent, and start another money making league.

1.) It won't make money. It's been tried. And NFL owners aren't going to invest in something that won't make money.

2.) Baseball's system works because its been in place for nearly a 100 years. Money wasn't a factor when the system was established. Those minor league teams can break even because they have established fan bases.

It's the same with college football. They have established fan bases. The Tuscaloosa Tigers don't have a fan base and they won't be able to compete with the Alabama Crimson Tide when you get down to "recruiting" players to play for 50,000 a year or go to the best university in the state and play for one of the most prestigious teams in the country, college or pro.

3.) Football is just a different animal than baseball. Careers are shorter, injuries are more devastating. The risk/reward for a high school lineman going to a minor league team and making $50,000 a year with a possible shot at the NFL and likely very little education vs. going to a school and getting a degree and still having that shot in the NFL sides on the latter. In baseball, injuries are less likely.

HammeredOut
06-07-2011, 01:26 PM
1.) It won't make money. It's been tried. And NFL owners aren't going to invest in something that won't make money.

2.) Baseball's system works because its been in place for nearly a 100 years. Money wasn't a factor when the system was established. Those minor league teams can break even because they have established fan bases.

It's the same with college football. They have established fan bases. The Tuscaloosa Tigers don't have a fan base and they won't be able to compete with the Alabama Crimson Tide when you get down to "recruiting" players to play for 50,000 a year or go to the best university in the state and play for one of the most prestigious teams in the country, college or pro.

3.) Football is just a different animal than baseball. Careers are shorter, injuries are more devastating. The risk/reward for a high school lineman going to a minor league team and making $50,000 a year with a possible shot at the NFL and likely very little education vs. going to a school and getting a degree and still having that shot in the NFL sides on the latter. In baseball, injuries are less likely.

The NFL is the most popular sport in North America. It is never bigger then it is now. Based on stats, the run off from sports gamblers alone, the TV ratings would be high enough. 15 million online sports gamblers, a hundred million NFL fans, and few more million world wide. The minor league would survive. Im talking about playing the games in NFL cities. Maybe not the same field in some cases, because of natural grass. The NFL run-off because of fan popularity should be enough to add a league. Whats the big deal of spending say 2 or 3 million a year on a minor league team, and letting the kids get an education, and make a little bit of money.

The Denver Jr. Broncos or Denver Wild Horses is a more marketable name, then Iowa Wild Stalions. The fan base is already in the NFL cities. How they market the league would be the key.

Another thing is, you don't have to play college sports to get a college education. The NCAA is already set up like a NFL minor league. So why not make another league.

MOtorboat
06-07-2011, 01:40 PM
The NFL is the most popular sport in North America. It is never bigger then it is now. Based on stats, the run off from sports gamblers alone, the TV ratings would be high enough. 15 million online sports gamblers, a hundred million NFL fans, and few more million world wide. The minor league would survive. Im talking about playing the games in NFL cities. Maybe not the same field in some cases, because of natural grass. The NFL run-off because of fan popularity should be enough to add a league. Whats the big deal of spending say 2 or 3 million a year on a minor league team, and letting the kids get an education, and make a little bit of money.

The Denver Jr. Broncos or Denver Wild Horses is a more marketable name, then Iowa Wild Stalions. The fan base is already in the NFL cities. How they market the league would be the key.

Another thing is, you don't have to play college sports to get a college education. The NCAA is already set up like a NFL minor league. So why not make another league.

It's been done. The teams don't have the fanbase, thus there is no money. And those three names are terrible.

Ravage!!!
06-07-2011, 03:17 PM
Because why would players want to join the minors when the college games get MUCH MUCH more exposure than some minor league would? The players get their college partly/mostely/fully paid for by the university.. and thats a big benefit for those that know they aren't good enough to go pro. Those that are, know that the more exposure they get the better their chances to be drafted. The fan base for college football is HUGE, the fan base that follows high school football, isn't.

what would be the benefit for trying to form such a league, and what players would you attract?

There are those "semi-pro" leagues all around the country, and no-one watches them. No one goes. No one even knows the name of their local team.

HammeredOut
06-08-2011, 09:57 AM
Because why would players want to join the minors when the college games get MUCH MUCH more exposure than some minor league would? The players get their college partly/mostely/fully paid for by the university.. and thats a big benefit for those that know they aren't good enough to go pro. Those that are, know that the more exposure they get the better their chances to be drafted. The fan base for college football is HUGE, the fan base that follows high school football, isn't.

what would be the benefit for trying to form such a league, and what players would you attract?

There are those "semi-pro" leagues all around the country, and no-one watches them. No one goes. No one even knows the name of their local team.

It would be like our "Triple A" division so to say, with an NFL affliliation, or really an expanded practice squad roster, who plays games against other teams, minor league teams.

There will always be a need for college football, no doubt, my point was, why not draft players coming out of highschool like the NHL, MLB, and formerly the NBA. Highschoolers built some of the major professional sports. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Wayne Gretzky, Sid Crosby.

My point about an earlier draft and minor league team, is the fact, if the NFL can throw away 10 or 20 million on a bad contract. Much like some of the other leagues, it would allow for salary management, such as what happened with Albert Haynesworth. If the NHL rules applied to the NFL, Haynesworth could have been placed on waivers and sent to the minor league affiliation, and brought back up to the NFL, with only half the salary and contract. The fact somebody is getting sent down to the minors and replaced with a minor leaguer would merit better games out of some players in the nfl league.

I will bbl. talk more about it then.

MOtorboat
06-08-2011, 10:29 AM
It would be like our "Triple A" division so to say, with an NFL affliliation, or really an expanded practice squad roster, who plays games against other teams, minor league teams.

There will always be a need for college football, no doubt, my point was, why not draft players coming out of highschool like the NHL, MLB, and formerly the NBA. Highschoolers built some of the major professional sports. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Wayne Gretzky, Sid Crosby.

My point about an earlier draft and minor league team, is the fact, if the NFL can throw away 10 or 20 million on a bad contract. Much like some of the other leagues, it would allow for salary management, such as what happened with Albert Haynesworth. If the NHL rules applied to the NFL, Haynesworth could have been placed on waivers and sent to the minor league affiliation, and brought back up to the NFL, with only half the salary and contract. The fact somebody is getting sent down to the minors and replaced with a minor leaguer would merit better games out of some players in the nfl league.

I will bbl. talk more about it then.

Trust me, I know exactly how a minor league system works.

But the NFL will never have one.

Sponsored Links