The NFL players and owners can't possibly be foolish enough to kill a goose that lays $10 billion worth of golden eggs each year, can they?
You would think not but somehow I think it will.
Don't answer that!
I just did.
As the historian Barbara Tuchman wrote, human history reflects a "march of folly" -- people and institutions go out of their way to do that which sabotages their own interests.
Yes, TMQ is a "march of folly". It is a person and an institution who goes out of its way to sabotage their own interests.
The previous agreement had room for improvement, of course. Health benefits for former players were poor. Bonuses for first-round draft choices were getting out of hand. But a routine negotiation could have handled such matters. There was no need for the owners and players to engage in a public meltdown that may damage both their interests.
I actually agree with this statement. Wholeheartedly, too. The problem is both sides wanted to get the fans involved and start lobbying their platform to them. What's worse is that at the onset of this the fans did not care, but both the players and the owners wanted to get them involved.
Are players and owners a bunch of spoiled crybabies, millionaires arguing with billionaires about who pays for the champagne? The simplest explanation is often correct, and this is the simplest explanation. But there is a crazed dynamic at work -- one that must end, so American taxpayers with a median household income of $53,000 can stop subsidizing federal courtroom time for wealthy crybabies to shout at each other. Here's what is happening:
This is a very cryptic way of saying, well, nothing.
That left the bossypants cohort of NFL owners smarting, wanting revenge on someone. Vying for revenge against your own players -- who are the product; not many people come to stadiums to watch the owners -- doesn't make a great deal of sense. But human history is a march of folly.
I seriously don't they wanted revenge. Perhaps they wanted to win, sure, but revenge? Sounds kind of crazy.
Believing they had "lost" the 2006 bargaining round, some NFL owners said words to the effect of, "Let's hire this [expletive] Batterman and crush the NFLPA."
Oh, hyperbole. I doubt this quote was every actually said.
Nevertheless, in 2008 the owners hired Batterman as labor counsel. He laid out a plan to create a lockout, and that's what happened. What does he care if an NFL season is canceled, and the league's popularity declines? He gets the same fee regardless.
Do you really think that the owners are that greedy that they will jeopardize their income (the team playing games, fans filling seats, selling beer, merchandise, etc) just to "win" the labor dispute. I actually don't think so but I'm sure some (Easterbrook included) do. However an outside counsel probably does not care since he'll get paid as Easterbrook said.
On the labor side: Upshaw, a former NFL player, was a gifted negotiator -- he won free agency for NFL athletes, steadily rising pay for them, and benefits for retired players. Because he'd been an NFL star, he was secure in his manhood. Because he'd played in the league, in all things he put the interests of the players first.
After Upshaw's death, DeMaurice Smith was elected head of the union. He is the second supervillain in this story. Smith never played pro sports -- for that matter, had no background in labor law or sports economics. He worked in the Justice Department, then became a litigator for Patton Boggs, a leading legal firm. The first impulse of litigators is to create conflicts; the second, to sustain them. The longer and nastier a conflict is, the more a litigator benefits, in fees and in personal importance.
I actually agree with this statement. It makes sense that the man representing the players should have, well, been a player. He gets paid regardless of what which side wins.Actually the more and more I read in to this the more I side with the owners and not the players. According to TMQ, Smith and a few players (that were said to represent all players) filed a lawsuit that if it success would spell the end of the draft, free agency, and salary cap - scary thought.
Basically it stipulates that high salary players will continue to get paid their high salary, if not more (double their salary, perhaps), while less well-off players' salaries will decline.
I actually agree with TMQ's "The path to the solution" paragraph, but I think it's wishful thinking. I don't think the litigation will escape the courtroom.
What TMQ finds worrisome about Newton is … he played for a BCS title team. That's a major negative; see below. But first, TMQ's annual mock of mock drafts.
Only TMQ would not equate success with success. We'll see. If Newton is a bust, he's a bust. I don't see why it matters that he was a one-hit wonder or if his integrity is questioned (only by moralists like TMQ).
His next segment is what worries me about TMQ. Deadspin hit it on their rant about TMQ's rant about President Obama filling out a bracket. "This is the worst kind of sports column: irrelevant, pedantic, and completely in love with its own righteousness." That, my friends, is TMQ each week.
And then we get TMQ's short-sighted observations and pronouncements about Cam Newton.
Is there more to his recruiting scandal? It's easy to believe a starry-eyed teenager would not grasp that NCAA rules forbid cash in return for signing a college letter of intent. It's hard to believe Newton's father did not grasp this, and it's really hard to believe the full truth of the matter has come out. Any team that drafts Newton runs a risk the NCAA will at some point void Auburn's 2010 season, and Newton will return his Heisman. If this happens, a wave of negativity would wash over a franchise that's just given Newton a check for a staggering amount of money.
Only TMQ would continue to pound this into the ground because for some reason he has an axe to grind with Newton's character. There really is nothing else to say here other than TMQ I'm sure is the only person who still thinks this is an issue.
Why did he leave Florida? Newton was at three colleges in three autumns -- University of Florida, then Blinn, then Auburn. The situation at Florida seemed ideal for Newton: backing up Tim Tebow, learning from a master in Urban Meyer, with the likelihood that as a junior, he would become the face of one of college football's best-run programs. Why did he leave, and suddenly? Not for the challenge of leading Blinn to the NJCAA playoffs. Reports say Newton was about to be expelled from Florida for cheating, which the school will neither confirm nor deny. There's something not right about the whole Florida business.
Maybe because he wanted to play, perhaps? Just maybe? He knew that while Tebow was still there he wouldn't have a chance at starting. And maybe perhaps he knew that if he wanted a chance in the NFL he had to get out of Meyer stupid whatever you call it offense and get into a pro-style offense. Again, I don't know why TMQ has such an axe to grind with Newton.
He played for a BCS title team. In his one year at Auburn, Newton was surrounded by premium athletes. Newton had stars to hand off to and stars to throw to. The blocking was exceptional. Oh mighty football gods, if I am reincarnated as a quarterback, put me on a stacked team.
Of the 11 BCS title-winning quarterbacks to enter the NFL, all were hot stuff in college; nine did little in the pros: Tee Martin, Chris Weinke, Josh Heupel, Ken Dorsey, Craig Krenzel, Matt Mauck, Matt Leinart, Chris Leak, Matt Flynn. The 10th, Tebow, has been in the NFL only one season; the sole (albeit current free agent) NFL quarterback with both a BCS title and a solid pro career is Vince Young. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Philip Rivers, Joe Flacco -- none started on college title teams. They learned the hard way.
Newton sure looked great in 2010, but he looked great in a situation that would have made any quarterback look great. That's the big red flag.
Most of those quaterbacks mentioned above played at football factories or something close to it, they didnt' exactly have it the hard way. If teams were smarted, they would draft Newton to a team with either a veteran quarterback or a coach who can help and further coach Newton to NFL standards. And I wouldn't exactly say Vince Young's career is solid.
