BTW I don't mean for those questions to be rhetorical. I really want to know why he shouldn't get more money if he has the opportunity.

Well his obligation is to the team in which he is under contract and paying him. His opportunity to make more money will be when his contract is up in 5 years, or he can sit out and get paid nothing. It's ridiculous that a guy who just HAD his contract restructured, for a second time, is looking for another contract. He had his chance to make more money 3 years ago.

Yeah it's ridiculous. No question about it. But like every player in the NFL, he's working under a broken system that allows people to renege on their contracts. Until the league changes the rules, which it probably will when the lockout happens, then good players can take advantage of their stature and hold out for more money.

And why shouldn't they? I'm begging you or anyone to answer this question.

Fuck, if I was a player I would want to get paid whenever it was prudent.

Teams can back out of contracts with players at essentially any time. Holding out is the player's only option to get paid. Look at someone like Chris Johnson. He is still under his rookie contract, and is going to make less than a million this year, like every year so far, to be one of the most productive RBs in the NFL. Unfortunately, since the CBA talks are ongoing, the Titans can't even pay him that much more than he is making even if they wanted to. The only way around it is for the Titans to pay a large sum in the form of a signing bonus. For the Titans, that would be foolish, because at any point on any one play Johnson could get hurt and they lose all that money for no production.

It's a shitty system. I hope they get it worked out.

Bought Jets vs Ravens tickets last night. Roll on September! :D

Yeah they can. They can tell a player we gotta renegotiation or you're gone. Same thing Andre Johnson is saying he is gonna do, we gotta renegotiate or I'm not playing. He won't do it though

Plus guaranteed money isn't even always guaranteed. Mike Vick had to pay back some of his signing bonus didn't he? That makes no sense to me.

And the owners want a lock out.

It's ridiculous.

It's a little more complicated than that. Players want a higher percentage of the league's overall revenues, which may not seem like that big of a deal but it can get pretty complicated. Especially when the salary cap has been set off of the AVERAGE revenues of all 32 teams, so for a team like the Redskins (most profitable team in the NFL) only about 50% of their revenues goes towards paying players where as a team like the Vikings (least profitable team in the NFL) sees about 75% of theirs going towards paying players. That happens because the players are getting 62% of the average figure. It doesn't take into account what each individual team profits or has to pay out to players. The cap & the average helps eliminate the problems that other leagues have with teams w/ the most money spending the most on players but it can create problems for teams on the "business" side.

Plus some owners want more revenue sharing & others don't, right now they only share the gate, TV money & sales from licensed NFL products. Teams that make a ton of money really don't want to share a lot of the other things that create revenue, such as luxury box sales, naming rights, concession sales, etc. Teams that do want to increase revenue sharing no longer want to see such a large percentage of their revenues going towards playing the players when other franchises aren't paying anywhere near the same percentage.

Professional sports are pretty complicated and aren't run or operated like a lot of "normal" businesses, they really can't be when you think about it. They even play under a different set of rules from the government, a lot of anti-trust laws don't apply the same way as they would for every other business.

My favorite part of the whole lockout is that Indianapolis's Superbowl goes poof. It's great. People think Lebron leaving Cleveland is devestating. Indy losing the Superbowl in 2012 is devestating. The money that has been put into this already. I'm gunna be crushed.

Indy is getting the Superbowl in 2012? I did not know that.

I know they got a new stadium but I don't really see Indianapolis as a hot spot for a Super Bowl. I'm sure it's a great city and everything but I've never felt, or have I ever heard anyone say, "Wow I really wanna take a trip to Indianapolis!"

I guess they've had Superbowls in other locations like that but at least they were in warmer climates. Can't imagine it's too nice in February in Indy

wear a coat

They make the Final Four and Indy 500 work, I'm sure they can handle the Super Bowl

Indy 500 is in May though, far cry from the weather in early February most of the time. I do think they would definitely make it work though.

They did it in Detroit 4 years ago and the winters there are brutal. I think it'll be fine.

Yeah that's true too.

they're building a olympic village like place in downtown indy.

<font color=goldenrod>If the New Meadowlands Stadium gets rave reviews next year, the NFL should quit being a bunch of nancies and hold the Super Bowl there in 2014 or whenever the next year is that hasn't already been booked.</font>

nah

I'm sure NY will get the votes from most of the cold weather teams, maybe boost their hopes of getting it one day

Cold weather Super Bowls are dumb. It should be about who has the best team, not who adjusts to the weather.

you could argue that the best team is the one who adjusts to situations better

Thanks Denver

Thanks for you take Skip Bayless.

It's supposed to be a neutral site. Field advantages are for the playoffs, not the Super Bowl.

Unless by some off chance the host team gets to the Super Bowl, of course

I actually do agree. I wouldn't mind seeing a Super Bowl in the snow however.

That'll be solved once they move the game to Wembley

<font color=goldenrod>This. It could also be argued that a team that plays in the cold throughout the entire playoffs would feel out of their element in warm weather.</font>

Right, but that argument is stupid and clearly worse than the argument against playing in cold weather.

<font color=goldenrod>What really irks me is that NFL has also said they do it "for the fans", making it sound as though not having it in a warm or domed place would hurt attendance. Bullshit. The fans would go to the Super Bowl even if it was in Lambeau Field and the temperatures were as they were during the 2007 NFC Title game.</font>

It could also be argued that Sean Payton only draws up his best plays while strung out on stolen vicodin.

The only place they would consider holding an outdoor Super Bowl in a cold winter climate is New York City. Looks like it'll probably happen in 2014.

Cold weather games arefucking great to go to, minus the chance of frostbite

If there was another choice besides Florida I think they wouldnt go with NJ, but Miami and Tampa have had the superbowl like 1/3 of the time.

I wonder why Baltimore was opposed..

Imagine if the Colts played in a Superbowl in Baltimore

I doubt they'd ever play a Super Bowl in Baltimore..

Imagine if the Ravens played the Super Bowl in Indy!

NY/NJ wins!

Itd be funny if it ends up being Jets/Giants.

<font color=goldenrod>And the 2014 Super Bowl goes to New York!!!

*crotch chop to everybody that opposed it*</font>