NFLPA orders draft boycott...

[Upton]

The NFL Players Association is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending next month's draft in New York, according to multiple league sources. The NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects who ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.

Thus, when NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announces the name of the first player selected, the player will not walk onto the stage at Radio City Music Hall as has been the custom. And the player will not be there to do interviews with ESPN or NFL Network. The draft will go on, but not in the manner in which it has been conducted before.

"As of right now, this is 100 percent happening," said one source familiar with the NFL Players Association's thinking. "This is going down."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6...

This is stupid. Screwing with the draft is not the way to gain sympathy from the fans..

[Auggie]

1. And thus it starts to get ugly... n/t

[Upton]

6. Yeah...

and now with it going to the courts, this could take months. I'm not feeling much in the way of optimism about next season getting started on time. Damn, like all 49er fans, I'm really looking forward to the Harbaugh regime too..

[Auggie]

12. I'd like a season too. On the other hand, I don't want to be stuck with another year

of Alex Smith at QB simply by default. And that could happen if there's a season after an extended strike (then again, 2-14 could get us Andrew Luck... mmmm)

BTW, if I were a draftee I'd side with players. Both sides have to show solidarity. And draftees could be viewed as scabs if they went to New York. I think the players and the draftees are doing the right thing.

[mojowork_n]

2. But the players *aren't* screwing with the draft.

They're reaching out to their future team mates, and introducing them to the reality of the League. Careers are short, injuries -- including chronic, life-long, sometimes severely debilitating post-concussion symptoms, in the worst cases -- are always a risk, and the owners are asking players to chip in more playing time -- two more regular-season games -- for less money. A lot less money.

I think they're doing a good thing, and they're only "screwing with" the media event that is Draft Day. Teams will still draft names, but the faces that go with those names won't be available for the cameras. (Hopefully.)

The Commissioner of the League (the owners' pet poodle), who usually shows up for the draft, will be asked embarrassing questions.

...I could be over-looking something -- consequences, penalties for some of the draftee's -- but EVERYONE knows the game's a business, so crappy teams with dictatorial, authoritarian owners will only penalize themselves if they go for lesser-grade, more compliant draft choices.

Creating more pressure on the owners to get this thing over with, already, before the draft.

[Upton]

9. I highly doubt..

that this kind of move is going to put "pressure on the owners to get to get this thing over with"..If by some chance it did work out that way..great, but the lines have been drawn. The only thing this kind of stunt does is create more acrimony between the two parties, while at the sametime the NFLPA is wasting any goodwill they've built up with fans..

[mojowork_n]

17. Who are you, the owners' PR flack?

Or Scott Walkers?

I don't really give a damn about your "doubts" about this one.

Nor do I automatically assume it means the Player's Association will be "wasting any goodwill they've built up."

Why do you immediately go to the worst case scenario, for players who have been stonewalled in honest negotiations, so far?

Like I said, the players are being asked to give up a huge amount of money -- a billion dollars a year? -- and work
longer, two more games in the regular season -- in exchange for nothing. The right to keep on risking crippling injuries.

The owners also won't explain why, or provide any substantiation of the need for cuts in salary, by opening their books.

Who's wasting good will, PR Guy for the NFL Owners?

The next step in this process -- even before the draft -- is a Federal District Court hearing. It's scheduled for April
6th in Minnesota. The first two judges assigned to the case have already recused themselves, the second one because
he'd been a private attorney representing THE LEAGUE some years' past.

The NFL Players Association filed a request to keep the League from locking them out, that's what the hearing will be
about.

Maybe you're privy to more inside info than I am on why the League wouldn't want to see this go to the Federal Judiciary,
so give me your best spin on that one, OK?

And why the first two judges assigned to the hearing had to declare their conflicts of interest?

The truth is, there's a whole lot of money on the table:

From cnn.com:

Currently, the owners take about $1 billion off the top of league revenue, and the players get 60 percent of the rest. For a new contract, the owners want to double their take off the top to $2 billion, with the players continuing to get 60 percent of the rest. The NFL generated $9.3 billion in revenue in 2010.

Why should any one automatically assume the owners NEED to double their take?

Please answer that simple question.


Edit addendum:

And yes, for the record, I AM from Wisconsin, so maybe I am too quick to see this as a violation of collective bargaining rights. So the rich will get even richer. Is THAT the new American Way?

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Refuse To Take Sides

Billionaire owners wanting an extra billion off the top, because some small market teams aren't making enough in profit. Well, then alter the sharing program or cull the herd. Quit whining.

Players who pretend to be a union, hiring a camera hogging fraud as their chief of operations, claiming to be unfairly treated with a median salary of >$600k, and demanding to see the books of privately held organizations as if they're more entitled than workers in other fields.

There are no good guys in this situation.
GAC

[Upton]

5. "There are no good guys in this situation."

I agree with you 100% Professor..

[TZ]

7. agree.

I get irritated with the fact that many of the players (including one of the frontmen now Payton Manning) have given lots of money to anti union Republicans. So alot of these players are hypocritical, unions for them..awesome, unions for the little guy are wasteful and should be eliminated. Its hard for me to like ANYBODY involved in this.

[JonLP24]

8. Let's see

The owners choose to opt out a CBA they already agreed to and they are saying it is because they're losing money. Now under that scenario, I would kinda expect to see the books. I guess that makes them bad guys in this. As far as the camera hogging, Goddell is the one sending e-mails directly to fans with the owners talking points.

We wouldn't be even having this dispute if it wasn't for owners opting out. Now that they have they're counting on this type of attitude (no good guys) so they can get a larger share.

[TZ]

11. How many Packers donated to Scott Walker do you think?

I bet its a large amount. Don't be fooled by the players. Their wealth and politics are strikingly similar to the owners, and they've probably hurt other unions as much as they've helped themselves. The only reason they are union is self interest.

[KamaAina]

13. Several Packers, past and present, supported the protests quite openly

although I'm sure some are sick-making repukes (see Chmura, Mark ).

[JonLP24]

14. None of this would be happening

if the owners didn't opt out of deal they already agreed to. I also support 16 game schedules.

If it comes to personalities, there are few worse than the Bidwells and they don't have to put their body on the line or risk losing his job to a younger guy or injured enough that scares teams away.

[Upton]

15. The owner's last offer included a 16 game schedule..

Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/3/12/2046115/nfl-lo...

The players rejected it. Both sides are at fault, both sides suck.

Peyton Manning made almost 16 million before endorsements last year. He's a big time Repub bankroller.. donating to Bush, Fred Thompson, Bob Corker..just to name a few. He's now become one of the faces, along with Brady and Brees, of the NFLPA anti trust suit. If you're comfortable with all that...so be it.

[JonLP24]

19. I would of rejected it too

Mostly because of #2. I know the idea is popular with fans so I don't try to argue it.

Here is why

A 2005 research paper called The Loser's Curse by economists Cade Massey and Richard Thaler tackled that question. In a nutshell, the paper compares rookie pay to the pay of a 6th-year veteran who could be expected to deliver the same performance as a rookie from each slot in the draft. (Performance is defined by a mix of measures including: being on a team roster, starts, and Pro Bowls.)

The conclusion of the paper is that team executives and scouts overpay for the top picks in the draft relative to the later picks, likely due to overconfidence in their ability to identify the best players. But what might surprise some readers is that rookies at every level of the draft are bargains compared to equivalently performing veterans.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/04/are-rookies-ove...

Of course there are expensive busts but there are always Albert Haynesworths.

Anyways, like I said, none of this would be happening if they would just stick with a deal they agreed to. They are the ones locking out(rather than players going on strike).

[jakefrep]

26. There isn't much besides pure greed...

...to motivate such willful stupidity from the owners.

This work stoppage is strictly the owners' deal. I know that the players are very well-paid, but that doesn't mean they should have to put up with greed and flat-out dishonesty from the owners.

[madinmaryland]

10. To be fair, that median salary of $600K is for a league average of 3.5 years.

They are then left in most cases with lingering life-long injuries. While the Mannings and Bradys have made millions to secure their futures through salary and endorsements, most are not in that situation.

[trumad]

4. There's Upton?Cboy again taking the side of the owners.

Douche

[Upton]

16. I support neither side..

and just because an elite group of millionaires and almost millionaires slap a union tag on themselves, does not, IMO, suddenly make them champions of the average working man..

[mojowork_n]

18. You can say that,

but your posts have consistently put the players association in the worst possible light, and the owners in the best.

The NFL owners didn't say they wanted to compromise on the 18 game schedule, they just said they'd take it off the table
for a couple of years.

Until then, they'll settle for doubling their annual profit.

...with heavy hearts, and long, sleepless nights. Their dreams deferred.

[JonLP24]

20. Bingo

"your posts have consistently put the players association in the worst possible light, and the owners in the best."

You're seeing what I'm seeing.

[Upton]

21. Interpret it as you wish

but from my POV I'm charting a middle ground. I didn't suggest to the NFLPA that they make what I and many others consider to be a bad PR move regarding the NFL draft. And if you don't think the fans are going to be placing blame at the feet of both sides should the draft and the upcoming season be impacted, you're kidding yourself.

Again, just because some group has the almighty word "union" attached to their name, does not automatically make them worthy of support. There's a load of difference between the public unions in Wisconsin and the millionaire's club private NFLPA..

[trumad]

23. A middle ground----to fucking funny.

[trumad]

22. Oh horseshit.....

Even your newest post proves that you're a douche.

[Upton]

24. Update: NFLPA now says no draft boycott..

NFL Players Association executive George Atallah said Tuesday that players and their families will be in New York for the NFL draft next month, but the experience might be "different."

Multiple league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Monday that the NFLPA is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending the draft. According to the sources, the 17 top prospects who ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft have been contacted and it was recommended that they not attend.

The NFLPA's plan has not been well-received by ESPN.com poll voters. A SportsNation poll with more than 75,000 votes reveals that 72 percent think the plan is a bad public relations move.

Atallah noted the fans' frustration with the NFL's work stoppage and posted a series of tweets trying to clarify the issues. "Lots of interesting commentary on the possible NFL Draft issue. Fans rightfully frustrated. We will set the record straight today. "Let me also correct the record: the NFLPA is not asking anyone to 'boycott' anything. NFL Draft in particular.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6...

Good. I'm not sure what "different" is supposed to mean, but it does look like the NFLPA is feeling the backlash from fans since their plan was first reported yesterday.

[KamaAina]

25. Keep Mel Kiper away from windows, pills and sharp objects

[Telly Savalas]

27. Maybe ESPN can just show reruns of him having an orgasm over Jamarcus Russell

while the 2011 draft results scroll on the bottom of the screen.