Official NFL Discussion Thread

[Stennick]

I know we have a NFL Playoffs thread a page or two back but I figured might as well make a new catch all thread for the NFL.

 

This Super Bowl has storylines with Mannings, and New Orleons, and two high powered offenses going into the game etc. that being said I'm just not interested in it. I like the Colts and don't care about the Saints. To me the game I was most interested in was the NFC Championship and in a lot of ways felt like a more important game than the Super Bowl. Again thats just how I feel.

 

That being said I'm more interested in things such as the uncapped year that may be coming.

 

Some of the things surrounding the player agreements are interesting. First of all the subject of retired players welfare. Brees fired off on the subject being against it (from the intereviews I've seen). I kind of have to agree with him. The NFL hasn't always been the national powerhouse that it was. I don't have any numbers and frankly I'm too lazy to get them but I'd have to think that the Niners run in the 80's is when the NFL started to take over as the top sport in the country. Maybe it was the 70's but I'd think it wasn't until the late eighties early 90's that the NFL became the top sport in America.

 

I have all the respect in the world for those guys and when your dealing with a subject as touchy as peoples livelihoods there is no right answer. That being said take a great guy like Jim Brown. I don't know what Jim made but everything I can gather he was severely underpaid by todays' standards. Sure thats a shame but at the same time the sport wasn't as BIG as it is now. Guys like Montana, Rice, Young, Aikmen, Smith, Elway, these guys made this game huge in the 80's. When the game got big so did their pay days. Its almost like rewarding guys from the past because guys in the present appealed to a larger mass therefore making the league larger. Did they maintain the sport so that others would come along and make it a bigger deal? Sure but I didn't see people from the Dead Ball era getting paid some of Ruth's cash because they kept the sport of baseball alive long enough for someone to come around and make it a big deal. If the League feels compelled to pay these guys thats fine but I think it should come out of NFL's funds and not teams and players. Again I don't know how its set up now but I don't think the players of today should help pay for players of yesterday.

 

I know one way they have talked about doing things is the Rookie Cap. Although I think this is a great idea and NEEDS to be done I don't think that you can say "well since your saving money on these players you can use some of that to fund the players welfare. The NFL as a league generates cash on its own and I think that it should be NFL cash not individual teams or players that fund these player welfares. That being said the Rookie Cap has got to be done. Jamarcus Russell is making too much it cripples a team being all but forced to pay these huge sums of money to unproven talent. Should you get paid to be the number 1 pick in the NFL draft? Sure but should you be paid more than the top guy at your position? Absolutely not. I know there has been talk of taking the average salary of the top five guys at your position and using that as a guidline. Thats one way of dealing with it but then you get into who decides the "top five" and what happens when you get a Kurt Warner's that come out of nowhere as a seventh round pick or a walk on and become great but don't have the salary to reflect it.

 

Also I remember last year being an underwhelming year for QB's and such and everyone said "wait till the 2010 draft with Tebow, Bradford, McCoy, etc" now we're looking at Tebow who's struggling to be a traditional NFL QB, while Colt and Sam have atleast mild health concerns that seemingly have dramatically dropped their stock.

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Some of the things surrounding the player agreements are interesting. First of all the subject of retired players welfare. Brees fired off on the subject being against it (from the intereviews I've seen). I kind of have to agree with him. The NFL hasn't always been the national powerhouse that it was. I don't have any numbers and frankly I'm too lazy to get them but I'd have to think that the Niners run in the 80's is when the NFL started to take over as the top sport in the country. Maybe it was the 70's but I'd think it wasn't until the late eighties early 90's that the NFL became the top sport in America.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Might help to figure out what changed with the world and society to bring that about. It explains a lot. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have all the respect in the world for those guys and when your dealing with a subject as touchy as peoples livelihoods there is no right answer. That being said take a great guy like Jim Brown. I don't know what Jim made but everything I can gather he was severely underpaid by todays' standards. Sure thats a shame but at the same time the sport wasn't as BIG as it is now. Guys like Montana, Rice, Young, Aikmen, Smith, Elway, these guys made this game huge in the 80's. When the game got big so did their pay days. Its almost like rewarding guys from the past because guys in the present appealed to a larger mass therefore making the league larger. Did they maintain the sport so that others would come along and make it a bigger deal? Sure but I didn't see people from the Dead Ball era getting paid some of Ruth's cash because they kept the sport of baseball alive long enough for someone to come around and make it a big deal. If the League feels compelled to pay these guys thats fine but I think it should come out of NFL's funds and not teams and players. Again I don't know how its set up now but I don't think the players of today should help pay for players of yesterday.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If that's the case, abolish Social Security. <strong><em>RIGHT NOW</em></strong>. Adjusted for inflation, my second to worst financial year is still far better than my parents' BEST financial year (COMBINED). There's more money to be made today than there was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s so why should I have to pay for your parents and grandparents continued existence? I don't know them. They did nothing to earn my money. Well, except for working in deplorable conditions that led to the workplace regulations I benefit from. Consuming materials in everyday life that formed the basis of scientific study that led to things like smoke detectors, sprinklers systems, water treatment/filtration, and half the drugs my generation takes for granted. Remember when Coca-Cola actually had cocaine in it? Probably not. But your parents and grandparents might.</p><p> </p><p> Point is, many of the breakthroughs and "discoveries" being made today were known 20 years ago but couldn't be substantiated due to the limits of technology back then. You think concussions are a NEW thing? I got my first concussion at 14 (1987) in 8th grade and kept playing because even the term itself wasn't widely known. I was woozy for 2 hours and it wasn't until almost half a day later that I was officially diagnosed. When my father played (50s and 60s), wanna know what they did when you got a concussion (or 'knocked out' as they put it then)? They gave you smelling salts, you got up, and went back into the same environment that created the injury in the first place. The retired players program isn't just about "welfare" and that's such a disgusting term for it, it's ridiculous. It's about taking care of the people who made the game what it is today. If not for John Unitas and Bart Starr, there would be no Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. When a player has to seek help from the union to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their playing career, with injuries teams systematically tried to cover up (like a shot of something to numb the pain so the player could continue playing...and making money for the franchise), it isn't welfare. It's doing the right thing with the benefit of hindsight.</p><p> </p><p> You want to say the NFL was built on the backs of the Mannings and Brees and Favres, you'll make yourself look silly. Tell me, how many content distribution methods were there in 1985? How many revenue streams existed back then? Now, how many exist now? Cable TV was NICHE in '85, not it's as ubiquitous as the telephone (in whatever form).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know one way they have talked about doing things is the Rookie Cap. Although I think this is a great idea and NEEDS to be done I don't think that you can say "well since your saving money on these players you can use some of that to fund the players welfare. The NFL as a league generates cash on its own and I think that it should be NFL cash not individual teams or players that fund these player welfares. That being said the Rookie Cap has got to be done. Jamarcus Russell is making too much it cripples a team being all but forced to pay these huge sums of money to unproven talent. Should you get paid to be the number 1 pick in the NFL draft? Sure but should you be paid more than the top guy at your position? Absolutely not. I know there has been talk of taking the average salary of the top five guys at your position and using that as a guidline. Thats one way of dealing with it but then you get into who decides the "top five" and what happens when you get a Kurt Warner's that come out of nowhere as a seventh round pick or a walk on and become great but don't have the salary to reflect it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> A rookie cap is necessary to avoid the rampant inflation that exists with regard to player salaries. When a rookie who hasn't taken a single pro snap gets more money for signing his name than the people who have won Super Bowls and been performing at the highest level possible, there's something seriously wrong with the system. Show of hands, how many people think Matthew Stafford is better than both Mannings, Brees, Rivers, hell even ORTON? Anyone, anyone? So why, in a league where performance is supposedly rewarded, does he make more money than all of them? If Matt Stafford never played a single down in the NFL due to incompetence, he'd still be rich based solely on his signing bonus.</p><p> </p><p> One thing that casual fans probably don't know about is the escalator clause. Ask Dan Marino about it. It was abolished when the salary cap was first introduced but it can still work. Problem is, it prevents cap managers from projecting more than two years into the future. But even that can be mitigated or an exception can be granted to each team. Sure, stupid teams like the Panthers would use it foolishly but there's a reason some teams are good year in and year out and others can't even sniff the Super Bowl. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also I remember last year being an underwhelming year for QB's and such and everyone said "wait till the 2010 draft with Tebow, Bradford, McCoy, etc" now we're looking at Tebow who's struggling to be a traditional NFL QB, while Colt and Sam have atleast mild health concerns that seemingly have dramatically dropped their stock.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> News flash! Steve Young "struggled to be a traditional NFL QB". How'd he turn out? There are many examples of players who didn't fit the NFL's "mold" at a given position but wound up being rock solid. Look at this year's Hall of Fame ballot. Jerry Rice, wasn't fast enough. Emmitt Smith, wasn't big or fast enough. Darrell Green, wasn't big enough. Cris Carter, not fast enough. Look at how many players don't even get drafted but turn out to be all-world ("Welker. Paging Mr. Welker"). What did people think of that Brady kid when he was draft eligible? Oh, right, the belief around the league was that Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger, and Spergon Wynn were all better quarterbacks than he was. How'd that turn out?</p><p> </p><p> Tim Tebow is a leader, end of story. He's a guy who's perfect to be the face of a franchise. You can teach a kid to have better mechanics but you cannot teach them how to be a leader. Colt McCoy has potential but he needs to learn control. Sam Bradford is hype. I haven't seen him do anything particularly impressive. When rattled, on the biggest stage available to him, he folded. That says a lot about a player.</p>

[Stennick]

If that's the case, abolish Social Security. RIGHT NOW. Adjusted for inflation, my second to worst financial year is still far better than my parents' BEST financial year (COMBINED). There's more money to be made today than there was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s so why should I have to pay for your parents and grandparents continued existence? I don't know them. They did nothing to earn my money. Well, except for working in deplorable conditions that led to the workplace regulations I benefit from. Consuming materials in everyday life that formed the basis of scientific study that led to things like smoke detectors, sprinklers systems, water treatment/filtration, and half the drugs my generation takes for granted. Remember when Coca-Cola actually had cocaine in it? Probably not. But your parents and grandparents might.

 

Point is, many of the breakthroughs and "discoveries" being made today were known 20 years ago but couldn't be substantiated due to the limits of technology back then. You think concussions are a NEW thing? I got my first concussion at 14 (1987) in 8th grade and kept playing because even the term itself wasn't widely known. I was woozy for 2 hours and it wasn't until almost half a day later that I was officially diagnosed. When my father played (50s and 60s), wanna know what they did when you got a concussion (or 'knocked out' as they put it then)? They gave you smelling salts, you got up, and went back into the same environment that created the injury in the first place. The retired players program isn't just about "welfare" and that's such a disgusting term for it, it's ridiculous. It's about taking care of the people who made the game what it is today. If not for John Unitas and Bart Starr, there would be no Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. When a player has to seek help from the union to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their playing career, with injuries teams systematically tried to cover up (like a shot of something to numb the pain so the player could continue playing...and making money for the franchise), it isn't welfare. It's doing the right thing with the benefit of hindsight.

 

You want to say the NFL was built on the backs of the Mannings and Brees and Favres, you'll make yourself look silly. Tell me, how many content distribution methods were there in 1985? How many revenue streams existed back then? Now, how many exist now? Cable TV was NICHE in '85, not it's as ubiquitous as the telephone (in whatever form).

 

I agree with a lot of what you said such as Steve Young not being the traditional QB and Rookie caps being needed. That being said I think its apples and oranges when dealing with Social Security and Player Welfare. They were paid to play a game knowing full well the risks. They went to college (most of them) they had a choice to do anything in the world with themselves, they CHOSE to play football. They knew they weren't getting much money for it but they chose to play a game for a career choice and they knew the risks going in.

 

This league was built on Montana, Marino, Rice, the 90's Cowboys thats when the Super Bowl became a big deal thats when superstars that were equal to the Jordans, the Ruths, etc. were made in the NFL. It had nothing to do with distribution. Did Baseball have that in the 70's? Did that stop Reggie Jackson from being the highest paid player in baseball in the 70's? Football was on network television just like college football was even back then every Sunday.

The media playing field was equal for all sports yet Baseball thrived in the 70's while Football didn't catch up let alone surpass till the 80's and nineties. None the less its not Drew Brees fault that they didn't have 24/7 news back in the 70's and 80's. With each new generation comes new technology and with it comes advantages that often times result in pay increases for those involved.

 

I'm all for these guys getting money if thats what the NFL is doing I just want to make sure it comes from the League and not from individual teams and players. Again though Cable Television and media oppurtunities have very little to do with it. Sure they help make Football a powerhouse but they did the same for basketball, they did the same for baseball. The fact is its Dan Marino's record breaking seasons, its Jerry Rice being one of the best athletes ever, its Montana's legendary Super Bowl drive. Its dynasties like the Niners and the Cowboys coming into to power in the right age of television. Its these things that made the league a successful powerhouse. The players before this kept the league alive but in my opinion they were paid for a job and they were paid for said job. To come back thirty years later with your hand out because you played the same sport these millionaires play today doesn't make much sense to me. McDonalds workers today are making more than McDonalds workers thirty years ago should they be asking for compensation for their mental stress and grease burns they suffered?

 

Again if the League wants to pay these guys go for it I just want it to come out of league revenues and not team and player revenues. Jim Brown I bet made more yearly than I still make today. So your telling me because you only made 80'000 in the seventies instead of 80 million you deserve compensation? I understand injuries and what not but you CHOSE to play this game. Again you went to college you had a chance to do something else.

 

I'm all for these guys being healthy and again its not my money so at the end of the day I just have a passing opinion but the fact is I don't believe its fair for the owners of these teams who in most cases weren't even old enough to work when these players paid to be forced to foot some of the player welfare bill. Some of these rookies weren't even BORN when these guys looking for money were playing. The NFL is one of the most profitable sports leagues in history if they want these players to recieve money they certainly have their own means to make that happen.

[lazorbeak]

One thing that casual fans probably don't know about is the escalator clause. Ask Dan Marino about it. It was abolished when the salary cap was first introduced but it can still work.

 

What does Marino have to do with escalator clauses? Do you mean Jim Kelly? When Jim Kelly signed with the USFL he had a deal that said he had to be the third highest paid quarterback in the league at all times. He also went to school at the University of Miami, so maybe that's where you're getting a Miami connection.

 

Warren Moon also had a virtually identical clause in his 1989 contract with the Oilers that said if he met certain goals he would be paid the average of the top 3 passers in the league.

[Remianen]

I agree with a lot of what you said such as Steve Young not being the traditional QB and Rookie caps being needed. That being said I think its apples and oranges when dealing with Social Security and Player Welfare. They were paid to play a game knowing full well the risks. They went to college (most of them) they had a choice to do anything in the world with themselves, they CHOSE to play football. They knew they weren't getting much money for it but they chose to play a game for a career choice and they knew the risks going in.

 

Maybe it's me but I don't see the difference. Your parents and grandparents knew they'd eventually stop working. So why didn't they plan for that point prior to it occurring? Why should I (or anyone my age or younger who has to pay into a program we're not likely to see any benefit from) have to subsidize their continued existence? Shortsighted selfishness isn't limited to this area. How long does it take to recover from a torn ACL today? How long did it take 25 years ago? Is that not a blatantly obvious example of how the times differ?

 

This league was built on Montana, Marino, Rice, the 90's Cowboys thats when the Super Bowl became a big deal thats when superstars that were equal to the Jordans, the Ruths, etc. were made in the NFL. It had nothing to do with distribution.

 

Are you SERIOUS? Lemme get this straight. You think that additional ways to generate revenue as a result of the internet explosion has NOTHING to do with the vast increase in NFL revenues over the last 15 years? REALLY?

 

The players before this kept the league alive but in my opinion they were paid for a job and they were paid for said job. To come back thirty years later with your hand out because you played the same sport these millionaires play today doesn't make much sense to me. McDonalds workers today are making more than McDonalds workers thirty years ago should they be asking for compensation for their mental stress and grease burns they suffered?

 

I truly and honestly hope you never have to stand on the other side of the equation. If you knew how ridiculously expensive each employee is to a company (relative to the revenue they generate or can be attributed to them), your view would be further reinforced. Why have employer contributions to pensions? Let individual workers plan and pay for their own damn retirements. Again, why do we need Social Security? Why is the current workforce paying for the past workforce? Why? What sense does it make? Why does the NFLPA have a Retired Players Fund at all?

 

It is your view that former players in dire financial shape due to overwhelming medical expenses stemming from their time playing football should just suck it up and deal, yes? Now, what happens when the shroud is lifted and it becomes known that many team doctors were working on behalf of the team, not the player? Might wanna read up on what prompted Congress to call Goodell onto the carpet. "Concussions aren't a problem in the NFL". REALLY? Why the backpedal, after Congress threatened to yank the league's anti-trust exemption? The NFL does not want people poking through their dirty laundry. They don't want people paying too much attention to all the player autobiographies that detail specific examples of players being "patched up and sent back out" instead of "taken care of". Ever read 'They Call Me Assassin'? Heck, read ANY former player's book and you'll see things that arouse suspicion. So your view of 'well, they need to deal' is only valid if the players were offered competent medical care at the time of the injury (and they weren't). That was one reason behind the NFL agreeing to make a large contribution to the retired players fund. It's hush money. Make it go away so our image we've spent so much time and money developing and nurturing doesn't get tarnished.

 

As for Jim Brown's salary as a player, I don't think it's that far a stretch to say many people don't make what he did (adjusted for inflation). There are millions of people that can't say 100 grand is in their rear view mirror and I think Brown's best year was 75k (which would be over half a mil today). But that's not a reflection on the players. If you (in the general sense) choose to be a teacher, you KNOW you're not gettin' major paid.

 

And yeah, wrong member of the class of '83, though I thought Marino's contract in '90/'91 had incentives meant to mimic the escalator in some ways (I did a mock contract for my QB at the time based on it). Can't find the link though.

[Johnny Fenoli]

Man, you two type alot.

[BHK1978]

I have to agree with Remianen here. The NFL should provide for the players that made the league what it is today. Just last week I was watching Real Sports with Bryant Gumble and they were talking about concussions. They had two former teammates (I think they played for the Baltimore Colts) whose minds were so far gone due to the amount of brain damage that they suffered throughout their playing careers.

 

Do these men not deserve proper medical coverage, something that most companies give to their retired employees? Drew Brees is a horses ass if he does not think that these people should not be getting money. Like Remianen said, without the stars of yesterday, the stars of today would not be making the money that they make. Drew Brees owes all of the players before him, who fought for their rights to get paid, because without them he would not be a multi-millionaier.

 

Just like every baseball player needs to kiss the ground that Curt Flood walks on, Drew should be kissing the ground of all the players that fought for the rights of these players to make outrageous amounts of money.

 

As far as popularity goes, pro football started to see a steady gain in popularity going back to the 1950's. I think part of the reason is football, at least in my opinion, is better on television (much like hockey) whereas baseball is much better live.

[Stennick]

Maybe it's me but I don't see the difference. Your parents and grandparents knew they'd eventually stop working. So why didn't they plan for that point prior to it occurring? Why should I (or anyone my age or younger who has to pay into a program we're not likely to see any benefit from) have to subsidize their continued existence? Shortsighted selfishness isn't limited to this area. How long does it take to recover from a torn ACL today? How long did it take 25 years ago? Is that not a blatantly obvious example of how the times differ?

 

I agree that we're not likely to use Social Security and that is a flawed program in itself. I'm not disputing the times have changed I'm just disputing if they deserve any compensation for the changing of times.

 

Are you SERIOUS? Lemme get this straight. You think that additional ways to generate revenue as a result of the internet explosion has NOTHING to do with the vast increase in NFL revenues over the last 15 years? REALLY?

 

No you don't have that straight. I was citing examples of what has happened ON the field as reasons why the sport has blown up. Every sport has a higher visibility now days than they did 15 years ago. Heck if I wanted to I could be a Man United fan and most likely not miss a beat due to internet, cable t.v, etc. As far as my Montana comment my point is that it was much more than 24/7 news letting us follow the NFL more that made it blow up. Why hasn't the NBA blown up and over taken as the top sport? Why not Hockey? All sports had equal advantage of this thing we call the modern age yet the NFL used that ALONG WITH the happenings on the field to propel them past the previously untouchable MLB. Its no secret how profitable the NFL is and some of it has to do with the internet and other means however you can't honestly say that the NFL is only as popular as it is today because of modern luxuries. NBA, NHL, NASCAR, I could go on ALL have the same access and heck most sports even have their own network now days. Was this one way in which they increased revenue? Sure but it took more than that to put them as the most popular sport in America which in turn has generated these increasingly absurd paydays every year.

 

I truly and honestly hope you never have to stand on the other side of the equation. If you knew how ridiculously expensive each employee is to a company (relative to the revenue they generate or can be attributed to them), your view would be further reinforced. Why have employer contributions to pensions? Let individual workers plan and pay for their own damn retirements. Again, why do we need Social Security? Why is the current workforce paying for the past workforce? Why? What sense does it make? Why does the NFLPA have a Retired Players Fund at all?

 

It is your view that former players in dire financial shape due to overwhelming medical expenses stemming from their time playing football should just suck it up and deal, yes? Now, what happens when the shroud is lifted and it becomes known that many team doctors were working on behalf of the team, not the player? Might wanna read up on what prompted Congress to call Goodell onto the carpet. "Concussions aren't a problem in the NFL". REALLY? Why the backpedal, after Congress threatened to yank the league's anti-trust exemption? The NFL does not want people poking through their dirty laundry. They don't want people paying too much attention to all the player autobiographies that detail specific examples of players being "patched up and sent back out" instead of "taken care of". Ever read 'They Call Me Assassin'? Heck, read ANY former player's book and you'll see things that arouse suspicion. So your view of 'well, they need to deal' is only valid if the players were offered competent medical care at the time of the injury (and they weren't). That was one reason behind the NFL agreeing to make a large contribution to the retired players fund. It's hush money. Make it go away so our image we've spent so much time and money developing and nurturing doesn't get tarnished.

 

odddly enough I own my own business in St. Louis, its actually grown in a multitude of areas each year I've own it. Revenues, employees, customers, etc. I understand fully well that especially training new employees is nearly 100 percent cost since their essentially useless to the company yet still drawing full pay. Even once their trained its a long while (in most cases) before their up to a high enough functioning level to start offsetting the cost of employing them. However I as the employer incur the expense of employee pensions I'm not asking others to take on this expense with me.

 

Again I said earlier I have NO problem if the NFL wants to give these retired players some money for any reason what so ever. Its their money to give away. I just don't want to see this money come out of owners pockets and out of players salaries. Most of these owners weren't even in the league when these things happened and most of the players weren't even alive let alone responsible for it. The Shield generates enough money on its own that its more than capable of doing this on their own. Again I don't know the exact details in fact I'm sure most of them are still being hammered out but I said before I don't have a problem with the NFL as a league offering them money as long as owners and players aren't responsible for it.

 

Your argument is that these guys got banged up and in a lot of cases weren't given legtimate care (even for the time period) and those injuries are causing harm to their way of life now. I completely understand that and have said from the first post on that if the NFL wants to take some of those milllions of dollars their making in Miami this weekend and give it to these players thats fine. My stance is I don't want Owners and Players having money taken away from them in order to support this. They had nothing to do with this and I'm of the opinion that the stars of the last two decades helped build this sport along with the modernization of media. Those people and those events shouldn't then be forced that because their blessed to play in an era where these things are avaailable to turn around and give it to others.

 

Again if someone works at McDonalds today their open 24 hours a day, min wage is higher, their offered benefits, etc things that were not available to employees 30 years ago I'm sure. Should the Franchise owners and employees have money taken from them from Mcdonalds in order to give it to these employees that weren't given the chance to be employed in that envirement? Of course not. If the League wants to give money to these players go for it. But you can't sit there and say that the NFL is big because of Cable T.V and Internet because if that was the case other sports should be just as big yet their not. The NFL is as big as it is because the NFL has some of the best athletes in the world playing an exciting, hard hitting at times fast paced game and they have paid people very well to market the heck outta that. Say what you will about the NFL but their hype machine is top notch and thats what has led them past MLB and to the top of the sports ladder in America.

[CQI13]

Why haven't the other leagues "blown up" in popularity?

 

1. MLB season is way too long...and they had a work stoppage in 1994.

2. NBA season is way too long...and they had a work stoppage in 1998-99.

3. NHL season is way too long...and they had a work stoppage 2004-05.

 

The last time the NFL had a work stoppage was 1987. That incredibly long period of labor peace has most definitely contributed to their popularity.

 

As for Jim Brown, I believe he made more on The Dirty Dozen than he ever did as a player.

 

We'll see how popular the NFL remains should there be a work stoppage in 2011.

[Stennick]

If the MLB season is "way too long" why was it the most popular and most dominant sport in America for nearly a century? It wasn't until the mid nineties that baseball's popularity started to die off...

 

I like football because every game matters but its been that way since the inception. In the 70's they played 14 games so every game mattered more and the other sports still had longer seasons yet it wasn't top dog then.

 

While I agree that football is great for short attention spanned America I wouldn't say thats in a top five reason why they have surpassed the other sports in popularity.

[Craig Edwards]

The are alot of big Reason football is the biggest sport in america.

 

Not in any order:

Cable TV

 

every game matters both to the team and and fans. If you missed 4 baseball game you haven't missed alot. if you missed 4 games of your fav team you just missed 1/4 of the season

 

The internet and Fantasy Football

 

The Rise of the passing game with Montana and Rice before these two started hooking up most passes where 5-10 yards

 

Games played mostly on the weekend. alot baseball games are played during the week during work hours

 

The Cap and Free Agents. With the cap every teams has a chance to win the super bowl every year. IN baseball the teams with the most money are the most likely to get into the playoffs and get the the world series

[Stennick]

I agree all of those things combined.

 

I'd say if I had to pick one it would be the rise of the passing game. Passing has got the casual fan who can't appreciate grinding it out for one or two yards fifteen carries a game. I'd say this along with the NFL being the very best when it comes to promoting.

[praguepride]

Superbowl!!!!

 

Go saints!

[Johnny Fenoli]

Superbowl!!!!

 

Go saints!

 

Oh, is that today?

[Craig Edwards]

good half time show

[thatoneguy]

Am I the only one that absolutely loathes the Superbowl? Everything about it just angers me, and makes me wish College Football was back on.

[praguepride]

I hate football, but it's fun having a party and arbitrarily rooting for a random team

[Candyman]

I don't mean to jump into the middle of the conversation here, but I have one thing to say. On the comparison between former NFL players and our grandparents...don't ever make that comparison again. It's insulting to our grandparents and everybody who knows them.

 

There's one very simple, yet very important, difference. When did your grandparents retire? My grandfathers were 60 and 72. My father was 65. The average NFL player works until they're, what, 27? Hey, I have an idea for them if they need money...get a job! Go into coaching, go into scouting, become a color commentator or a personal trainer or a motivational speaker, I don't care. GET A JOB. Remember that education you were got FOR FREE when you were in college? Use it.

 

Everybody else in the civilized world gets a job when they need money. Pro athletes should be no different. Absolutely, the NFL and NFLPA should fully compensate former players for any and all football-related medical bills. No question. They should not, however, give them the means to sit around at home and do nothing for 55 years because they worked for 5. Come see me when you're 65. Until then, you better find another way to contribute to society.

[Craig Edwards]

most players play into there 30's but back when the NFL first started most players didn't go to college as you didn't need to plus alot of the old players that are asking for money can't work because they gave there bodies to the sport and have a hard time just getting out of bed and walking around and some have brain damage that doesn't let them to work. so just telling them to go and get a job isn't an option for them

[Antithesis]

I don't mean to jump into the middle of the conversation here, but I have one thing to say. On the comparison between former NFL players and our grandparents...don't ever make that comparison again. It's insulting to our grandparents and everybody who knows them.

 

There's one very simple, yet very important, difference. When did your grandparents retire? My grandfathers were 60 and 72. My father was 65. The average NFL player works until they're, what, 27? Hey, I have an idea for them if they need money...get a job! Go into coaching, go into scouting, become a color commentator or a personal trainer or a motivational speaker, I don't care. GET A JOB. Remember that education you were got FOR FREE when you were in college? Use it.

 

Everybody else in the civilized world gets a job when they need money. Pro athletes should be no different. Absolutely, the NFL and NFLPA should fully compensate former players for any and all football-related medical bills. No question. They should not, however, give them the means to sit around at home and do nothing for 55 years because they worked for 5. Come see me when you're 65. Until then, you better find another way to contribute to society.

 

What other multi billion dollar business doesn't allow for retirement plans?

 

besides, if 70,000+ people showed up every week for four months and paid to cheer and watch your grandfathers work, I doubt they would have needed to work into their 60's either.

[Tha Black Phenom]

I hate football, but it's fun having a party and arbitrarily rooting for a random team

 

I do that for the World cup. See, it's a tad more effortless since it isn't every year.

[alden]

I enjoyed the super bowl this year. I was SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!! when the saints won. i figured it would have been a blow out. won a little money though lol

[BHK1978]

I don't mean to jump into the middle of the conversation here, but I have one thing to say. On the comparison between former NFL players and our grandparents...don't ever make that comparison again. It's insulting to our grandparents and everybody who knows them.

 

There's one very simple, yet very important, difference. When did your grandparents retire? My grandfathers were 60 and 72. My father was 65. The average NFL player works until they're, what, 27? Hey, I have an idea for them if they need money...get a job! Go into coaching, go into scouting, become a color commentator or a personal trainer or a motivational speaker, I don't care. GET A JOB. Remember that education you were got FOR FREE when you were in college? Use it.

 

Everybody else in the civilized world gets a job when they need money. Pro athletes should be no different. Absolutely, the NFL and NFLPA should fully compensate former players for any and all football-related medical bills. No question. They should not, however, give them the means to sit around at home and do nothing for 55 years because they worked for 5. Come see me when you're 65. Until then, you better find another way to contribute to society.

 

Why not compare them to our grandparents? A lot of these older players didn't make enough in the NFL to live off that money all year long. Most of the older players, up until maybe the early 1970's, had to have off season jobs because what they were getting paid was not enough to provide for their families. And after retirement most of them needed to get full-time jobs. So the comparison to our parents and grandparents is valid.

 

Now if you are talking about players that are playing today, then I agree with you. However, if you are talking about the older players I do not agree with you.

 

 

As a far as the Super Bowl goes, I agree with thatoneguy. To me the Super Bowl is an over hyped game that very rearly lives up to its billing. Like I said before I would take the World Series over the Super Bowl any day of the week.

[Stennick]

No one forced these guys to go into pro football. They went into it knowing there was little money, no retirement, etc. Why should anyone be compensated to knowingly walk into a job that pays less than what most of their college degrees could get in other work areas? Nobody made these guys do the job their doing. I believe the NFL not the NFLPA should fully compensate any medical bills beyond that they knew what they were getting into.

[CQI13]

Same goes for wrestling, yes?