Replacement Players

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

MTK
04-11-2011, 03:17 PM
I remember the 87 games. It was alright because it was kind of like theater, or watching a live news telecast because you want to see what happens, even though it ain't pretty. After a few games the novelty of that wears off though. It would be tough to sit through 16 games of it.

16 games of it would be brutal. Pretty sure that would never happen though thankfully.

I think people would tune in the first few games, but the ratings and attendance would drop off pretty sharply once people see the "quality" of these games is sorely lacking.

freddyg12
04-11-2011, 03:28 PM
16 games of it would be brutal. Pretty sure that would never happen though thankfully.

I think people would tune in the first few games, but the ratings and attendance would drop off pretty sharply once people see the "quality" of these games is sorely lacking.

I agree. In 87 it was about like watching the XFL cause those guys had little time to prepare & so many of them were just off the streets. I remember hearing stories from people afterwards like, 'my friend's a bartender down at such & such pub, but last month he was starting at TE for the Skins!'

NC_Skins
04-11-2011, 03:54 PM
I think people would tune in the first few games, but the ratings and attendance would drop off pretty sharply once people see the "quality" of these games is sorely lacking.

After about 4 games, I imagine the stadium would look something like this.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/465908300_0c0945ee14.jpg

SmootSmack
04-11-2011, 04:22 PM
It's kind of funny how people talk about not wanting to see replacement players in the NFL...yet at the same time you hear about how players are overpaid and overrated money grubbing bastards who get paid to play a game. "Try getting a job in the real world" I thought these guys were a dime a dozen?

Longtimefan
04-11-2011, 04:37 PM
I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players. In 1987 I did attend the games because I realized they were going to count in the standings regardless of who the players were. Had we not won those games it's likely we would not have won the SB that year either. I have plenty of time to decide.

ps/ I'll be refunded if games are cancelled. It's no biggie one way or the other.

NC_Skins
04-11-2011, 05:29 PM
I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players.


/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

NC_Skins
04-11-2011, 05:49 PM
It's kind of funny how people talk about not wanting to see replacement players in the NFL...yet at the same time you hear about how players are overpaid and overrated money grubbing bastards who get paid to play a game. "Try getting a job in the real world" I thought these guys were a dime a dozen?

Let's be frank. Most average fans are idiots. I hate to be rude and even assholish about that point, but it's true. These are the same people that keep voting in the idiots that ruin our country and wonder why nothing changes.

It's hard for the average person to relate to these guys situation. You know why they can't? Because they don't have that sort of leverage at their jobs or couldn't fathom having such talent. I said before I felt that most people spouting that stuff were doing so out of jealousy from their inability to command that type of money for having a talent they were born with. These people aren't easily (if at all) replaceable regardless of what we think.

I mean, who should get the money out of selling millions of records? The record label or the artist? I say the artist. Without him, the record label would not even exist. I feel the same way about the NFL and the players.

If people's beef with the players is that they make too much, then my suggestion to them is to lower the value of the market by stop attending games and watching on TV. That is a surefire way to decrease the value (revenue) of both the owners and players.

Defensewins
04-11-2011, 06:30 PM
.....If people's beef with the players is that they make too much, then my suggestion to them is to lower the value of the market by stop attending games and watching on TV. That is a surefire way to decrease the value (revenue) of both the owners and players.

I will not watch replacement players and I have cancelled my NFL gameticket.
It is really time to send a message to these spoiled owners. Frankly I am tired of the owners whining about their split of $9 billion is not enough, but yet won't open the books all the way to prove it. All of this at a time when the value of the franchises are multiplying every year.
Ultimately this is an ego thing on the part of the owners. Owners hold cities hostage on the threat of moving the team if they do not get a brand new state of the art stadium, these billionaire owners want more and more. The value of franchises is multiplying year after year. Shouldn't that be enough?
If it is true there are a handful or more of owners that are cash poor, they need to sell your ****ing team and that will easily provide enough money for generations of their family to live off of. There are so many financially qualified people dying to buy an NFL team out there, but the existing owners that are cash poor do not want to sell because they want to remain being a famous NFL owner. Ego!. The players should not be asked to give money back. That is just stupid. Especially when there is a huge history of owners making millions while players like Joe Jocoby were making like $60,000 in his second or third year and being one of the top players at his position.
What is the biggest insult is the only reason the owners will not open their books all the way is the wealthy owners do not want the small market onwers to see what they are making for fear of more revenue sharing amongst owners. So ultimately this is the reason we are in a lock out. Not because of the players.

Longtimefan
04-11-2011, 06:31 PM
/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

I think the question posed by the poster was: Would you watch the games "if" they were played by replacements, not whether there will or won't be.

saden1
04-12-2011, 12:01 AM
I would rather watch cricket. Congratulations to India for winning the world cup.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum