Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Okay. So then I don't even see why we're arguing. Owners want the system the way it is because they can get out of it at will. Players would prefer to have guaranteed contracts. I think they should get them. You do not. I think it's shitty that players get 100% of the negative media attention when they have outperformed their contract and want to be paid market value and teams are looked at as prudent and well-run when they shit all over a player they use up and toss aside.
|
I'm on the player's side of just about everyone owner-player dispute.* We're arguing because I thought you were claiming that NFL players -- in the aggregate -- would make more money if their contracts were guaranteed. Were that the case, I think more players would be making the same amount of money.
* The exception to this is the Branch/T.O. situation. If a player signs a contract, they should perform. It's not like they're going to give back part of the signing bonus if they suck. For a player like Branch, who is underpaid, I think it would be better if the team rips up the contract and reaches a new deal at market. But Branch and the Pats were trying to do that, and failing, evidently because they disagreed about what market is.
Quote:
|
What happens in college? If a player gets a scholarship and gets injured (or isn't as good as the coaches thought he would be), is he in danger of losing it?
|
I don't think so. I'd hate to use the college system as a model for anything, though.
