Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
Wrong, it was due for an extension, after the 2011 season. Yes, the owners opted out of the final season of the extension, but either it would have happened in 2010, or it would have happened in 2011.

Right now, the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season. I don't really get this argument because you play those games now, and they don't mean anything.

A player can have a career ending injury in a pre-season game as easily as he can in a regular season game. If you are going to play the games anyway, make them worth something.
Quote Originally Posted by Chiefster View Post
The problem I have with this is that it gives coaches two less weeks to evaluate talent and make final cuts.
That, and the players are currently not playing much of those two preseason games, whereas they will be required to play every minute of two additional regular season games.

One of the remaining two preseason games would still require a lot of playing time from starters, as game three currently does.

What it boils down to is almost two complete games added to the schedule, as opposed to two games that they already playing, being counted, as was suggested.

Then, after a season or two of having only two preseason games, to prepare for an eighteen game schedule, of course teams will want the other two preseason games back, without subtracting them from the eighteen game schedule.

That would complete the addition of two games of work and physical risk to the players. And that is exactly what the owners are looking for.

But I also love the bias shown with the issue, as "the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season" suggesting that it is the NFLPA that is making some demands, instead of the fact that it is the owners who are making the demand for more games.

Hayvern, you make it seem like there was no cost to the decision to opt out of the current agreement, by saying it would have happened eventually.

Yeah. That is not something that places the blame for the threatened lockout onto players though.

All blame for the current situation should be placed on the owners. They, literally, asked for the blame.

Had the owners not opted out, (because how many of us are really feeling sorry for the massive profits that they are recording under the current CBA?)then the threat would have been a year away. Not to mention the extra year to negotiate, while not threatening to lockout.

Make no doubt, the whole issue exists now, because the owners chose to make it an issue right now.

As for who is actually putting themselves at risk, is this really a question? Some billionaire risks part of his massive collection of money, while a player risks his health, livelihood, and even his life.

No amount of financial risk equals the risk that the players are putting fourth.

What? The owners are risking being poor? (Not really) So what? Be poor. Life goes on. Try being permanently handicapped. Then I'll listen to your plight.