Simple: fans aren't rational. They see players they lose because they get ridiculous salaries elsewhere. If the salaries are smaller, they feel like they can keep them. Whether that's actually the case or not is irrelevant. Everytime you have a Spreewell saying they can't feed their family or a Haynesworth getting $100MM and being a lazy ****** or getting arrested, fans are more likely to see players as overpaid.
I agree people are dumb, and are angry over overpaid athletes. Maybe they want to see salaries reduced out of simple jealousy. That's a far more likely explanation than that the "average" dumb fan will believe that a lower salary cap for all teams means "more good players" either overall or for his team...it's inherently illogical and makes zero sense, nor is it really even a very natural association unless you're playing Randman on the interwebs.
Sam, people's problems with athlete salaries stem from several (incorrect) assumptions. 1) High player salaries are the reason ticket prices are so expensive: This is the worst one imo. This is fallacy requires people to completely ignore all market theories and just say "owners only charge what they do because they have to pay these crazy player salaries." This is easily debunked without any economic breakdowns by asking "If the Texans could pay all players $100,000 next year, do you think they'd lower their ticket prices?" However, even when the flaw in their stupid logic is explained, most fans still revert back to believing that ticket prices, beer prices, etc. are all driven by the high player salaries. 2) Simple jealousy: "This guy gets paid that much to play a game and I only get 60k a year to sit at my computer and REALLY work!" No explanation needed here. 3) Deeper jealousy: This one is a little more complex and stems from the bitterness many people feel over the fact that athletes have been given special treatment their whole life and are often not as smart or qualified for the real world as you and I may be. It bothers people that no matter how smart they are, how hard they work, their earning potential is capped much lower than some kid who can barely put a sentence together but was lucky enough to hit the genetic lottery. 4) Competitive balance: People honestly believe that when salaries are reduced it will help their team be more competitive. This doesn't make sense, particularly with rookie salaries, for reasons you already mentioned. There is a limited number of high end players in the league, and lowering the salaries won't change that.
I think the poster with the "stupid" fans theory seems to overlook all the immensely over-paid 1st round draft busts that have crippled entire franchises like Jamarcus Russell, Alex Smith, Reggie Bush, and Vince Young types who make ridiculous amounts like $30 million guaranteed without ever taking a snap in the NFL. That is really root of the problem here. Had the league and players union instituted a rookie wage scale long ago, then perhaps fans would think differently of these overpaid and spoiled athletes. However, The players are right in that they are being exploited by the owners especially the average salary vets, but when your top plaintiffs are multi-millionaires Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning, then you are going to have hard time gaining public sympathy even with such excellent character guys representing your union.
Wrong. A single bad player contract, since the NFL runs a soft cap, and since a single contract is only ~ 1/50th of total contracts, and most importantly, since only a small poriton of contracts are guarnteed and players can be cut at any time with pretty minor cap consequences, doesn't "cripple an entire franchise" - that's laughable. A brief look at your examples of "crippled" franchises like the Super Bowl champion Saints and playoff teams like the Titans doesn't allow this position to pass the laugh test.
For those who haven't seen, Mike Silver of Yahoo is reporting that a stay is expected to come very shortly. Pathetic.
Weird that it isn't showing on my computer... Anyway, I don't think a stay is unreasonable, nor do I think it necessarily implies the 8th circuit is leaning one way or another.
A stay automatically doesn't mean it will extend the lockout all the way until the appeal is decided either, IIRC. Could be a smaller amount of time.
Here's the story he filed. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_players_expect_stay_of_nelson_ruling_042911 The good news is that it's just an "administrative" stay, with the real decision to come on Monday or so.
Stay granted by the 8th circuit. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42825449/ns/sports-player_news/ Lockout back on. El oh el
