Active Users:748 Time:20/03/2026 06:01:29 AM
She hates revenue sharing, salary caps & the draft, too, but the Pack would be screwed without each. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/09/2012 03:34:00 AM
I am reminded of that piece Bill Maher did a few years ago about how the NFL works because of Marxism (revenue sharing.)

While I deeply sympathize with the regular refs, who are only striking to preserve defined benefit pensions to which the NFL long ago agreed, I think it would be perversely ironic if those pensions survived only because this call (which the regular refs would almost certainly have made, too) convinced the NFL to deal.

The author of Salons piece DOES have a valid (if somewhat irrelevant) point though: In the Ayn Rand Football League, the Green Bay Packers would have gone the way of the Canton Bulldogs and Massillon Tigers. Without the draft, small-market teams like Green Bay (VERY small-market in the '30s and '40s) could never compete with Chicago, New York of Philly for star players. If you had a CHOICE between playing in a "city" where you had to walk five miles to get a newspaper with coverage of your performance, or a media Mecca that broadcast your prowess to the nation and offered all the luxuries to which you felt entitled, which would you pick?

What if your choice were dictated solely by salary, and the Bears, Giants and Eagles had ticket sales from the countrys three largest cities? In 1940 Green Bay could not have filled venues like the Rose Bowl if the whole town of 102,000 came. Thanks to revenue sharing, however, GB has as much with which to pay players as every other team does. Since the salary cap (which Rand would also have loathed,) owners cannot even supplement that with their own wealth: Each team has $x (currently ~$120 million) to split among 48 players (plus 5 practice squad players.) Anyone who cannot be paid must be released to the highest bidder (if any,) and even if no one takes them they STILL cannot return to the old team unless it can pay them NFL minimum wage (which increases with experience) without exceeding the cap.

It goes without saying how Rand would feel about Green Bays status as the only publicly owned NFL team. It ensures the Packers fans will never know the agony Oilers fans like me (or Colts fans, Rams fans (twice,) Cardinals fans, Browns fans and Raiders fans) felt when our teams owner followed through on threats to leave town unless the city met their demands (usually for new stadiums.) Cleveland residents and Rams fans (which were at one point synonymous) have been especially victimized; the Rams moved to L.A. in the '40s, then St. Louis in the '90s (after the Cardinals moved from there to Arizona, having previously moved TO there from Chicago.) They also saw coach Paul Brown, who led the team from its founding to 7 championships, begin the rival Cincinnati Bengals after owner Art Modell fired him, then a generation later saw Modell move the whole team to Baltimore (who had lost the Colts to Indianapolis in the '80s.) The Rams final move gave all NFL owners lasting leverage in negotiations with host cities, because L.A. has been without a team ever since, and threats to move teams to the nations second largest city are a powerful motivator for current host cities.

Green Bay, of course, need never worry about any of that, because the host city IS the owner, and since getting season tickets requires putting ones name on a list and waiting for hundreds of people to DIE they are assured a large homefield crowd. It is still rank socialism by any measure. ;)

The Green Bay Packers are anathema to everything Ayn Rand believed, but then, so is Thomas Aquinas. Paul Ryan is an... odd fellow.... :confused:
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/09/2012 at 04:02:45 AM
Reply to message
/NFL: now that replacement refs have cost the packers a win, can we please get the real ones back? *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:14:58 AM 726 Views
I was gonna keep it to one thread, but hell, I'll join yours. - 25/09/2012 05:24:26 AM 842 Views
Link? Clip? - 25/09/2012 05:27:07 AM 801 Views
Let's just say that Gruden used the word "Jobbed" in the live telecast. *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:35:08 AM 517 Views
Here's a link. - 25/09/2012 05:36:56 AM 896 Views
Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:47:07 AM 721 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:52:55 AM 945 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 06:13:46 AM 904 Views
youtube link - 25/09/2012 07:00:29 AM 928 Views
Thanks; that looks like a textbook case of simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver: TD. - 25/09/2012 07:29:28 AM 798 Views
pete carroll is a cheating douchebag, you cannot take his word for what happened - 25/09/2012 10:59:33 AM 1071 Views
I did not; I watched the clip: Simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver. - 26/09/2012 01:30:18 AM 1401 Views
watch a better replay if you can - 26/09/2012 02:38:17 AM 859 Views
Have now; still not convinced. - 26/09/2012 04:01:23 AM 915 Views
that's ok. you're still wrong - 26/09/2012 04:12:56 AM 920 Views
I know you are but what am I? *MN* - 26/09/2012 04:48:47 AM 857 Views
How have you not seen this play? Are you in a cave? *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:57:55 PM 419 Views
No, I am in Norway, where NFL coverage is rather limited. - 26/09/2012 01:40:07 AM 1008 Views
Wait, you're not in Houston? *NM* - 26/09/2012 01:42:45 AM 434 Views
Not since the Texas Sesquicentennial, no. - 26/09/2012 01:45:29 AM 772 Views
While you can hardly blame the replacement refs because they are basically trainees... - 25/09/2012 06:05:22 AM 982 Views
Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 06:27:42 AM 1000 Views
Re: Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 02:48:56 PM 898 Views
I have still only seen the YouTube clip, but it looked like they both had both hands on the ball. - 26/09/2012 01:58:27 AM 820 Views
There are good views on nfl.com. Will link. - 26/09/2012 02:16:51 AM 984 Views
Thanks; I still do not see much to change my mind. - 26/09/2012 02:32:43 AM 911 Views
The last call was a joke. - 25/09/2012 06:52:59 AM 861 Views
Tie goes to the receiver - the rule for decades. The Packers benefitted from worse calls last year - 25/09/2012 11:31:47 AM 916 Views
you probably think greedo shot first too..... - 25/09/2012 01:49:03 PM 868 Views
They can't reverse that call. - 25/09/2012 04:43:28 PM 946 Views
the only possible way was to rule it incomplete - 25/09/2012 10:42:25 PM 938 Views
Congrats Cannoli, you are the only person (thing?) in the country who thinks it's a TD *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:53:18 PM 541 Views
I'm not even the only person in this thread, moron. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:07:48 PM 453 Views
Joel hasn't even seen the play, douchebag *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:12:35 PM 417 Views
Just so you can get this information without namecalling ... - 25/09/2012 04:18:41 PM 833 Views
No I mean he hasn't seen the replay over and over on ESPN *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:21:46 PM 421 Views
Interesting. What is the rule with arguing refs? - 25/09/2012 05:18:35 PM 786 Views
That response was disturbingly like my thoughts on the play. - 26/09/2012 01:49:37 AM 876 Views
As a Seahawks fan. - 25/09/2012 02:10:58 PM 829 Views
No. Not with that attitude. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:03:32 PM 401 Views
*throws public tantrum* *NM* - 25/09/2012 10:39:22 PM 386 Views
Slightly (very) loopy yet entertaining piece on why Ayn Rand is to blame for all of this. - 25/09/2012 05:38:12 PM 809 Views
She hates revenue sharing, salary caps & the draft, too, but the Pack would be screwed without each. - 26/09/2012 03:34:00 AM 830 Views
Here's the proof Cannoli is refusing to see - 25/09/2012 05:54:07 PM 930 Views
Clearer shot, but stills do not allow us to see where Tates hands were at all times. - 26/09/2012 02:10:25 AM 733 Views
you can't claim "good ol' strip" *AND* simultaneous catch -- which is it? - 26/09/2012 02:35:41 AM 1166 Views
I do not claim both: I claim simultaneous catch but IF not, then strip. - 26/09/2012 03:51:47 AM 1172 Views
you sure you saw the right replay? - 26/09/2012 04:21:57 AM 837 Views
Think so, yeah. - 26/09/2012 04:58:15 AM 996 Views
from another angle -- pun intended - 26/09/2012 04:01:54 PM 836 Views
There are two separate issues: 1) Was it a simultaneous catch; 2) IF not, was it a strip? - 27/09/2012 08:54:52 AM 1026 Views
your opinion is against pretty much everyone in the world, so..... *shrug* - 27/09/2012 03:55:33 PM 1065 Views
Thanks; I did not expect you to give in so easily. - 27/09/2012 10:14:30 PM 875 Views
did you even read that article??? - 28/09/2012 12:35:39 AM 873 Views
"his control wasn’t established again...." - 28/09/2012 01:08:03 AM 1329 Views
wow, what a thorough analysis you sent me either way, you're still wrong - 28/09/2012 02:05:24 AM 981 Views
That is not an argument. - 28/09/2012 02:26:58 AM 777 Views

Reply to Message