Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 ways to make football better

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Texas
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by Texas
    Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
    Texas, you're going to get read the riot act by gh for a copy and paste. You might want to give a link or only quote a small portion.
    I thought it was short enought to slide by.

    gh if you're there....sorry won't be doing that again.
    I think the issue is more to do with the percentage of the original, rather than the literal number of words.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Texas
      Originally posted by Daisy
      Originally posted by Texas
      Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
      Texas, you're going to get read the riot act by gh for a copy and paste. You might want to give a link or only quote a small portion.
      I thought it was short enought to slide by.

      gh if you're there....sorry won't be doing that again.
      It might be a good idea to edit it before Garry deletes it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Daisy
        I think the issue is more to do with the percentage of the original, rather than the literal number of words.
        You're right. As the US Copyright Office puts it, it is the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". There is no percentage that defines what can constitute fair use, but quoting an entire copyrighted article is clearly not permitted. In the article that Texas copied and pasted, I would have advised limiting the copying to three sentences or less.

        Comment


        • #49
          I have had occasion to negotiate "fair use" of material for publication. It is a very dark gray area. There are no definitive limits. The interpretation of fair use can range from virtually zero to "go ahead, who cares"
          But that does look like a pretty healthy slice or that is a verrryy long article.

          Comment


          • #50
            Ways to make football better

            On a lighter note, George Carlin once suggested the injured be left on the field.

            Comment


            • #51
              Roger Goodell is not some random, objective opinion or source of useful information.He works for the (greedy) owners.

              What did you expect for him to say?

              I'm sure they owners would like to pay the rookies next to nothing as they wear a team jersey and risk major injury while the owners rake in more revenue.

              Do you know how much they made last year? IS the reason they dont want to pay rookies based on potential because they're having trouble making ends meet?

              How can you on the one hand say that football isn't like our jobs because we don't make millions, but then leave out the fact that most of us dont risk permanent paralysis or some other major injury when we leave the breakroom? How can you leave out the fact that our mere presence at work probably doesnt generate millions in revenue based on our potential like it may for a high profile rookie?

              I've always thought it was a shame how the media makes people believe the athletes are the "greedy bad guys" when in fact the real greedy rich folk are the owners.

              Smart, privileged, crafty business men who never get called out for the way they cast no longer useful employees aside.

              Why would I get mad at what an owner willingly pays an athlete?

              If one of these sound business men owners can afford to pay an athlete $100 million....

              How much is the owner making?!?

              And because he's a good business man, I know he wont pay someone something he can't afford to pay them. Right?

              Athletes dont hold anyone hostage to receive their pay. Its like salary caps. How silly is that? Why do you need a cap when you have the option of just not paying it?

              But its easy to make the athletes the bad guys. The media is good at it while the owners (outside of Jerry Jones) get off scot free.
              The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

              Comment


              • #52
                I couldn't have said it better myself TD. It's obvious that Texas doesn't believe in capitalism.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                  Roger Goodell is not some random, objective opinion or source of useful information.He works for the (greedy) owners.

                  What did you expect for him to say?

                  I'm sure they owners would like to pay the rookies next to nothing as they wear a team jersey and risk major injury while the owners rake in more revenue.

                  Do you know how much they made last year? IS the reason they dont want to pay rookies based on potential because they're having trouble making ends meet?

                  How can you on the one hand say that football isn't like our jobs because we don't make millions, but then leave out the fact that most of us dont risk permanent paralysis or some other major injury when we leave the breakroom? How can you leave out the fact that our mere presence at work probably doesnt generate millions in revenue based on our potential like it may for a high profile rookie?

                  I've always thought it was a shame how the media makes people believe the athletes are the "greedy bad guys" when in fact the real greedy rich folk are the owners.

                  Smart, privileged, crafty business men who never get called out for the way they cast no longer useful employees aside.

                  Why would I get mad at what an owner willingly pays an athlete?

                  If one of these sound business men owners can afford to pay an athlete $100 million....

                  How much is the owner making?!?

                  And because he's a good business man, I know he wont pay someone something he can't afford to pay them. Right?

                  Athletes dont hold anyone hostage to receive their pay. Its like salary caps. How silly is that? Why do you need a cap when you have the option of just not paying it?

                  But its easy to make the athletes the bad guys. The media is good at it while the owners (outside of Jerry Jones) get off scot free.
                  Those who really are into the game like myself have been complaining about rookie/$$$$$$$$$$ for awhile now. They make way too much and everybody knows it. Let a guy prove himself first. Yep...common sense!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Texas
                    Let a guy prove himself first. Yep...common sense!
                    Maybe I'm a little naive here but don't they prove themselves in college. i know it's a different game but there is a reason the owners fight over these prospects.

                    I'd say that if you want to get rid of the high signing fees then the least that should happen is they should be payed a decent salary by the colleges that are taking advantage of their skills for up to four years.

                    And for those that say they get an education that is crap. They have no time to go to class because they have a full time job, including overtime, playing football.

                    If the NCAA is so worried about giving them an education they would say "you play for us for four years and if you don't make it to the pro's then we will pay for your education". Of course they won't do this because that would mean less money for the athletic departments.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      Originally posted by Texas
                      Let a guy prove himself first. Yep...common sense!
                      Maybe I'm a little naive here but don't they prove themselves in college. i know it's a different game but there is a reason the owners fight over these prospects.

                      I'd say that if you want to get rid of the high signing fees then the least that should happen is they should be payed a decent salary by the colleges that are taking advantage of their skills for up to four years.

                      And for those that say they get an education that is crap. They have no time to go to class because they have a full time job, including overtime, playing football.

                      If the NCAA is so worried about giving them an education they would say "you play for us for four years and if you don't make it to the pro's then we will pay for your education". Of course they won't do this because that would mean less money for the athletic departments.
                      College guys don't play 16-20 games a season. They also don't face NFL defenses/offenses. Let a guy earn his $$$$$. Yes he showed...."potential"....at the collegiate level, that's all he did however. Take double Heisman winner Archie Griffin for an example, he was a great player in college, at the pro level,....average at best.

                      What if you've been at your company for 10 years and a new hire doing the same thing you do starts out making more than you because at her last job she was great.......well? Oh yeah, she was great at a smaller company with less to do.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        Originally posted by Daisy
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        Let a guy prove himself first. Yep...common sense!
                        Maybe I'm a little naive here but don't they prove themselves in college. i know it's a different game but there is a reason the owners fight over these prospects.

                        I'd say that if you want to get rid of the high signing fees then the least that should happen is they should be payed a decent salary by the colleges that are taking advantage of their skills for up to four years.

                        And for those that say they get an education that is crap. They have no time to go to class because they have a full time job, including overtime, playing football.

                        If the NCAA is so worried about giving them an education they would say "you play for us for four years and if you don't make it to the pro's then we will pay for your education". Of course they won't do this because that would mean less money for the athletic departments.
                        College guys don't play 16-20 games a season. They also don't face NFL defenses/offenses. Let a guy earn his $$$$$. Yes he showed...."potential"....at the collegiate level, that's all he did however. Take double Heisman winner Archie Griffin for an example, he was a great player in college, at the pro level,....average at best.

                        What if you've been at your company for 10 years and a new hire doing the same thing you do starts out making more than you because at her last job she was great.......well? Oh yeah, she was great at a smaller company with less to do.
                        Like Daisy suggested...the reason the kids are high draft picks are because of their achievements at the collegiate level. Thats the reason pro teams pay scouts and player personnel people to evaluate the complete person: the athlete and their character.

                        And then just like anything else in life you take a chance. I mean what in life is guaranteed with no risk? Its an investment opportunity that has risks with a potential beneficial return. Or not.

                        The owners get as many money saving benefits from lower draft picks and free agents and as they do negative results from high picks who dont pan out. It all evens out in the wash.

                        Look at Tony Romo. An undrafted free agent QB who's now a Pro Bowl player for America's Team. They never paid him anything in the first 4 years of his career like they would have had to if he'd been a high pick. On the other hand they wasted money on Chad Henning and Drew Henson.

                        Like I said the owners are top level businessmen who got were they are making sound investments.

                        That's the reason when a contract is signed and players perform even better than anticipated they're made out to be bad guys if they ask for the deal to be renegotiated.

                        A contract is a contract is what we hear.

                        But if that same player doesnt play up to the level the team thinks he's then told that he has to renegotiate his deal and take a pay cut or risk being cut.

                        Nothing but a double standard in favor of the owners.

                        The reason players have agents is because the owners cant be trusted to be fair and a player would be at a disadvantage negotiating their own deal.
                        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                          Originally posted by Texas
                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          Originally posted by Texas
                          Let a guy prove himself first. Yep...common sense!
                          Maybe I'm a little naive here but don't they prove themselves in college. i know it's a different game but there is a reason the owners fight over these prospects.

                          I'd say that if you want to get rid of the high signing fees then the least that should happen is they should be payed a decent salary by the colleges that are taking advantage of their skills for up to four years.

                          And for those that say they get an education that is crap. They have no time to go to class because they have a full time job, including overtime, playing football.

                          If the NCAA is so worried about giving them an education they would say "you play for us for four years and if you don't make it to the pro's then we will pay for your education". Of course they won't do this because that would mean less money for the athletic departments.
                          College guys don't play 16-20 games a season. They also don't face NFL defenses/offenses. Let a guy earn his $$$$$. Yes he showed...."potential"....at the collegiate level, that's all he did however. Take double Heisman winner Archie Griffin for an example, he was a great player in college, at the pro level,....average at best.

                          What if you've been at your company for 10 years and a new hire doing the same thing you do starts out making more than you because at her last job she was great.......well? Oh yeah, she was great at a smaller company with less to do.
                          Like Daisy suggested...the reason the kids are high draft picks are because of their achievements at the collegiate level. Thats the reason pro teams pay scouts and player personnel people to evaluate the complete person: the athlete and their character.

                          And then just like anything else in life you take a chance. I mean what in life is guaranteed with no risk? Its an investment opportunity that has risks with a potential beneficial return. Or not.

                          The owners get as many money saving benefits from lower draft picks and free agents and as they do negative results from high picks who dont pan out. It all evens out in the wash.

                          Look at Tony Romo. An undrafted free agent QB who's now a Pro Bowl player for America's Team. They never paid him anything in the first 4 years of his career like they would have had to if he'd been a high pick. On the other hand they wasted money on Chad Henning and Drew Henson.

                          Like I said the owners are top level businessmen who got were they are making sound investments.

                          That's the reason when a contract is signed and players perform even better than anticipated they're made out to be bad guys if they ask for the deal to be renegotiated.

                          A contract is a contract is what we hear.

                          But if that same player doesnt play up to the level the team thinks he's then told that he has to renegotiate his deal and take a pay cut or risk being cut.

                          Nothing but a double standard in favor of the owners.

                          The reason players have agents is because the owners cant be trusted to be fair and a player would be at a disadvantage negotiating their own deal.
                          Well aware of all that and took all of that into consideration before I came up with this....

                          First rounders will make the top rookie pay rate (whatever that is) they sign a two year contract. No need for a agent. Second rounders will make less and so on. Very simple.

                          Now after the two years is up it's time to evaluate. Now the ..NFL...abilities will be on stage, now it's time for an agent.

                          That is how it should be done and don't surprised if we don't see something similiar put in place in the future. Paying unproven players at the NFL level big bucks is crazy.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            How does one account for a first-round release and pick-up by another team? Same pay schemes, or should the released player make considerably less now that he's been let go and re-signed within that two years?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by EPelle
                              How does one account for a first-round release and pick-up by another team? Same pay schemes, or should the released player make considerably less now that he's been let go and re-signed within that two years?
                              Nobody can be released prior to the end of their contract. If a player is released after his two years and another team picks him up now there is the league minimum or whatever an agent can get for him. Maybe the kid fits in better with his new team. When it comes time for another contract renewal, maybe it is big bucks time.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                That's some serious sand-bagging for players unwilling to step it up for losing teams, no? Guaranteed income for two years despite whatever efforts they put into it. Get a smart agent wise to it all who provides a new team a close look at the exceptional skills which got the kid drafted in the first place, and one has the making of a nasty little plot going on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X