So, who are you madder at? The players or the owners?

[Trautdiggity]

Oh, and in which manner is stating the FACT that attendance dropped during the scab player-infested 1987 season a "sentiment argument"?

when it's made like this:

It only takes one view of games manned by replacement players during a strike to see just how loyal fans are to their teams versus interested in talent and players.

[Trautdiggity]

Well, sorta. I'd like to see the correlation between "union cities" and "non-union cities" fleshed out quite a bit more to be taken as fact.

Moreover, the bottom line is that attendance fell through the floor pretty much across the board. The fact remains that attendance dropped about 20% in 1987 from 1986 and rebounded right back to where it was pre-strike in 1988.

The #1 correlation with attendance, according to a study I just bored through, is winning.

You've argued two differing points with relation to fans preference for team or player. The general drop in attendance is an argument that fans come to NFL games and root because of the GENERAL quality of the players. This started more as an argument that fans are fans of teams (Revo's stance) and not INDIVIDUAL players (your stance). If attendance drops across the board it is an indictment of the sum-whole product on the field not a preference for player over team. Pure speculation but in those scab years do you think those who did attend, did so because of some individual player that they wanted to see, or because they love the game of football and supported their (often local) team?

[revo]

I am most certainly not willing to commit myself to the notion that fans are either just fans of teams or fans of individual players. My point, which I've already stated, is that I believe Revo's assertion that fans are loyal to teams no matter who plays for them is overstated. That element certainly exists in professional sports and in professional football, but it doesn't account for 100% of attendance by any stretch. There are a whole variety of factors at play, one of which most certainly is the quality of individual players on said team. Now, since quality of players is probably pretty well correlated with winning which is, in turn, the #1 correlation to changes in attendance, I think it's safe to say that individual players have at least more than a passing impact on attendance by team.

Ok, let's take the 1987 strike year out of the discussion.

Year-in and year-out, most NFL teams draw at least 90% of stadium capacity regardless of how the team performs on the field. Some teams have had attendance slides in recent years due to underperformance (Oakland); local recession (Detroit); or high stadium prices (Washington). But even those draw very well. All you have to look at is NFL average attendance versus every other sport in any country, and the NFL outdraws them all, by a wide margin, on an average per game basis. That should tell you right then and there that the NFL's attendance is driven by the love of the sport itself rather than any individual player.

Football has always been sport-centric rather than player-centric because of the fact players are hidden behind helmets, so they appear to be interchangeable. That was always the reasoning as to why baseball cards sold well while football cards sold poorly, despite being the more popular sport.

[Hammer]

football is also a once--a-week event whereas there are baseball games every night for 6 months and other sports 3-4 nights a week.

[revo]

I just read this synopsis of the situation somewhere: "Basically, the owners are trying to get a larger share of the revenue than the players and want the players to play 2 extra games without adjusting their salaries. The players are willing to give the owners a few of their demands but not all of them."

That seems to be the case here and, if so, it seems to me that the players are a little more in the right than are the owners.

It started off that way, but the 18-game season, but many accounts, is DOA.

Whatever the sides demanded, it kind of boiled down to this:
- the players have been successful in court before ('93 free agency) but have been largely unsuccessful at the negotiating table. The players also thought they had a pro-union judge in their back pocket who sided with them before in David Doty (as it turns out, he didn't get the case). So the players fully wanted this to get into the court system, where they knew they stood a better chance at winning.
- the owners knew all along the players wanted this to get into the courts, so they started to use defensive measures such as the re-negotiation of the broadcast contracts, where they would be far better able to withstand a long-term court case more than the players would. But that got shot down by Doty last week.

The players better hope for a quick resolution, because history says the longer they don't get paid, they more fractured they become. And the union lockout fund is giving the players just $60k per man, which some of these guys may burn through in a few weeks.

[Hammer]

I'm mad at myself for giving this sport my heart and soul, only to have them trample it like the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona. To quote the not-so-great John Cusack in Say Anything, 'I gave her my heart and she gave me a pen'.

[Trautdiggity]

I'm mad at myself for giving this sport my heart and soul, only to have them trample it like the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona. To quote the not-so-great John Cusack in Say Anything, 'I gave her my heart and she gave me a pen'.

I'm picturing you watching NFL network on mute with all the lights off listening to Boys II Men on blast.

[Hammer]

I'm picturing you watching NFL network on mute with all the lights off listening to Boys II Men on blast.

"I'll make love to you......like you want me to.....abd I'll hold you tight.........."

[Trautdiggity]

"I'll make love to you......like you want me to.....abd I'll hold you tight.........."

That conjures up an entirely different image... one I will need many drinks to permanently eliminate from my brain

[Hammer]

That conjures up an entirely different image... one I will need many drinks to permanently eliminate from my brain

we can discuss it further on Sunday pal. Looking forward to hangin wit ya

[Trautdiggity]

we can discuss it further on Sunday pal. Looking forward to hangin wit ya

Same here. See ya then Motown Philly

[Erik]

FYI -- in 1987, when replacement players were used, attendance varied by city for the 3 replacement player games, usually dependent upon if the city was a strong or anti-union area:

- In Philly and Detroit, big Union areas, the games w/replacement players drew less than 5,000/game.

There was more going on with Philly than just union membership. Buddy Ryan sided with the players and told them ALL to stay behind the picket lines so as not to jeopardize team chemistry. So the Eagles were one of the few teams that had no strikebreakers at all. Dallas, by contrast, had a bunch of them. I wonder if attendance correlated with how many strikebreakers a team had.

So the Eagles made really no effort at all to build a team/win games with replacement players, and that was a huge turnoff for fans. Also, the fanbase absolutely hated Norman Braman, who was the owner at the time. He was as arrogant as Snyder and Jones but without the corresponding desire to win. He was only in it for the money, and it showed.

[Hammer]

and in the end, this is why the owners will get the best of the lockout.....

Players from at least 16 teams have reportedly "sought out extremely aggressive short-term loans with high interest rates" to get them through the lockout.
This news comes just three days before the NFLPA's lockout fund begins paying out money to players. Many players failed to heed the union's advice to save at least three game checks from 2010, and predatory lenders are jumping at the chance to shell out loans at 18-24 percent (as high as 36 percent on default). One source estimates that 10 percent of the players have secured loans, with 20 percent more in the process. It's not exactly a "war chest," but desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Erik]

The two reasons why the NFLPA will never be as powerful as the MLBPA: Contracts aren't guaranteed, and way too many football players have no concept of financial things whatsoever.

[Hammer]

meetings postponed til mid-May.

Great to see theres a real strong urge to get something done here.