PromoTheRobot Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Could the NFL field replacement teams from college players, essentially creating all-rookie teams? Consider you have all these players hoping to be drafted, they have never been part of the NFLPA, there would be no limit on OTA's so they could train all summer, and outside of top picks you can pay them whatever. I'm sure this is highly unlikely but it seems feasable. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 it would split the NFL ... wouldnt recover for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 #1- they used replacement players last time. #2- as a season ticket holder...i do NOT want to pay to watch replacement games. #3- with our luck, we would win the super bowl with replacement players....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjwii Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 sounds great to me, they wouldn't be replacements they would be our new team. think of the potential excitement from a suddenly even playing field. we could enjoy a couple of years without first round busts!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 Without the NFLPA, would these replacements even be considered scabs? The NFL would have no obligation to its former players since I assume at this point they are considered "at will" employees. The NFL would have games to put on TV thus keeping that important revenue fowling, even if they might have to offer partial rebates. I have to wonder if the owners don't have a similar plan in their back pockets? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Without the NFLPA, would these replacements even be considered scabs? The NFL would have no obligation to its former players since I assume at this point they are considered "at will" employees. The NFL would have games to put on TV thus keeping that important revenue fowling, even if they might have to offer partial rebates. I have to wonder if the owners don't have a similar plan in their back pockets? PTR At this point it not the players refusing to play, it's the owners refusing to open the doors. Means no games at all. Much different than 87. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 NFLPA still exists as a "Trade Organization" and I'm pretty sure that by getting drafted you have previously signed papers saying that you are member of the NFLPA once drafted. The NFL is a regulated monopoly and the NFLPA is mandatory for all players so I think you have to sign up for membership as part of entering the draft. So I think they would have to fill the rosters with replacement UDFA, and rookies could chose to scab and cross the picket lines like any player could choice to do, but I don't think its very likely. At least not in September, maybe as this theoretical season goes on more players would cross the line, but we have a long way until that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 NFLPA still exists as a "Trade Organization" and I'm pretty sure that by getting drafted you have previously signed papers saying that you are member of the NFLPA once drafted. The NFL is a regulated monopoly and the NFLPA is mandatory for all players so I think you have to sign up for membership as part of entering the draft. So I think they would have to fill the rosters with replacement UDFA, and rookies could chose to scab and cross the picket lines like any player could choice to do, but I don't think its very likely. At least not in September, maybe as this theoretical season goes on more players would cross the line, but we have a long way until that happens. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but the owners can not legally put on an NFL game with the paperwork they have filed. So regardless of a players status, unless NFL owners start a new league, it isn't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I guess it depends upon how desperate the fans are. I would have no interest and would not watch. As far as I am concerned they would not be the Bills. I guess for the people whose main interest is the "event" (tailgating etc.) it could work though. Edited March 15, 2011 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Again, correct me if I'm wrong but the owners can not legally put on an NFL game with the paperwork they have filed. So regardless of a players status, unless NFL owners start a new league, it isn't happening. Yeah you're right. The NFL owners would have to basically give back their status as a regulated monopoly in order to play games. Which has a whole bunch of bad ramifications for the owners and probably nullifies a whole ton of TV contracts and endorsement deals. So its not likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS 56 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Could the NFL field replacement teams from college players, essentially creating all-rookie teams? Consider you have all these players hoping to be drafted, they have never been part of the NFLPA, there would be no limit on OTA's so they could train all summer, and outside of top picks you can pay them whatever. I'm sure this is highly unlikely but it seems feasable. PTR Wasn't there a bad movie with Keanu Reeves based upon that idea? The movie kind of sucked........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjwii Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I guess it depends upon how desperate the fans are. I would have no interest and would not watch. As far as I am concerned they would not be the Bills. I guess for the people whose main interest is the "event" (tailgating etc.) it could work though. i appreciated your feelings, but they will always be the "Bills" . Why would i feel more alligence to todays player rather than the organization i have followed for 40 years. i will follow my team no matter who is playing, rather that they be great but in the end they are my team. it is about the team not the event or the players. it is about us, the supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 At this point it not the players refusing to play, it's the owners refusing to open the doors. Means no games at all. Much different than 87. There is no way the owners give up all those revenues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Can it be mandatory?? North Carolina for example is a "Right to Work State" menaing you can't be forced to join a union even one exists where you work. I believe there are other similar states. So how would that work?? NFLPA still exists as a "Trade Organization" and I'm pretty sure that by getting drafted you have previously signed papers saying that you are member of the NFLPA once drafted. The NFL is a regulated monopoly and the NFLPA is mandatory for all players so I think you have to sign up for membership as part of entering the draft. So I think they would have to fill the rosters with replacement UDFA, and rookies could chose to scab and cross the picket lines like any player could choice to do, but I don't think its very likely. At least not in September, maybe as this theoretical season goes on more players would cross the line, but we have a long way until that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 There is no way the owners give up all those revenues! literally, they are legally not allowed to play an nfl game with the owners lockout official. if they lifted the lockout they would have to play with the nflpa players, at the terms of the last cba or last offer... regardless, no substitute players are options. (i post that as a quick and dirty explanation for why this question is not relevant- there are many subtleties and it could change going forward but this is a good enough cliffnotes version of whats going on) this is not players crossing a player drawn line in the sand. the owners have said you are not welcome to play if this is the deal we are playing under. Can it be mandatory?? North Carolina for example is a "Right to Work State" menaing you can't be forced to join a union even one exists where you work. I believe there are other similar states. So how would that work?? Section 1. Union Security: Every NFL player has the option of joining or not joining the NFLPA; provided, however, that as a condition of employment commencing with the execution of this Agreement and for the duration of this Agreement and wherever and whenever legal: (a) any active player who is or later becomes a member in good standing of the NFLPA must maintain his membership in good standing in the NFLPA; and (b) any active player (including a player in the future) who is not a member in good standing of the NFLPA must, on the 30th day following the beginning of his employment or the execution of this Agreement, whichever is later, pay, pursuant to Section 2 below or otherwise to the NFLPA, an annual service fee in the same amount as any initiation fee and annual dues required of members of the NFLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdogtim Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the players. They are not in any way shape or form partners with the owners. They are employees, albeit high priced ones. Guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder, who truly are the kind of guys I wouldn't want my daughter to marry, have invested huge sums in their teams. They could have chosen wiser, more profitable investments, but chose football. They are entitled to a return on their investments and expecting one does not in and of itself make them greedy. The players are truly fortunate that there are owners who have made these incredibly huge investments so that they can get paid, handsomely in somne cases, to play a game (and let's not forget that it is a game) that they love. They are not victims simply because the owners make money from their efforts. The owners' collective investments have provided them with their opportunity to pursue their dreams. This is not about being pro or anti union. Instead, it is about a group of young men who have been given the opportunity to continue to do something that they love. How can anyone possibly suggest that going to work every day to a job that you love is in some way akin to bein used and abused. If it is, we should all be so lucky. Most men would give up plenty to have a job/career/avocation they love instead of one that they are trapped in with no way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the players. They are not in any way shape or form partners with the owners. They are employees, albeit high priced ones. Guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder, who truly are the kind of guys I wouldn't want my daughter to marry, have invested huge sums in their teams. They could have chosen wiser, more profitable investments, but chose football. They are entitled to a return on their investments and expecting one does not in and of itself make them greedy. The players are truly fortunate that there are owners who have made these incredibly huge investments so that they can get paid, handsomely in somne cases, to play a game (and let's not forget that it is a game) that they love. They are not victims simply because the owners make money from their efforts. The owners' collective investments have provided them with their opportunity to pursue their dreams. This is not about being pro or anti union. Instead, it is about a group of young men who have been given the opportunity to continue to do something that they love. How can anyone possibly suggest that going to work every day to a job that you love is in some way akin to bein used and abused. If it is, we should all be so lucky. Most men would give up plenty to have a job/career/avocation they love instead of one that they are trapped in with no way out. Excuse me? Since when does making an investment entitle you to a return? "Wiser, More Profitable investment?" Like What? The reason the franchises are worth Billions, is because they are money printing machines with little to no risk. The owners bought into a sure thing. If anything the players have shown more entrepreneurial spirit, but working extremely hard and sacrificing their time to hone their craft and sell it to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjwii Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the owners can end the lock out, release every player and reoffer them individual contracts. no "official union" to contend with. stage a tv event to redraft veterns. if they want to play they can, if not they don't have to. their choice. Blow it up and see how the players like the new nfl. and we the fan get football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the owners can end the lock out, release every player and reoffer them individual contracts. no "official union" to contend with. stage a tv event to redraft veterns. if they want to play they can, if not they don't have to. their choice. Blow it up and see how the players like the new nfl. and we the fan get football. nope -- without the union you are looking at the draft, salary caps etc... as all being collusion. it would be a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) the owners can end the lock out, release every player and reoffer them individual contracts. no "official union" to contend with. stage a tv event to redraft veterns. if they want to play they can, if not they don't have to. their choice. Blow it up and see how the players like the new nfl. and we the fan get football. They actually cannot do that. There designation as a Regulated Monopoly will not allow them to do that. Edited March 15, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts