RedRamage

I guess I wouldn't be opposed to soft cap depending on the penalties... I'd want them pretty stiff personally. But then I'd also be pretty stiff with the rules for that money as well: I would spread the tax to the other teams... maybe on a graduated basis... and that money would need to be used on salary AND that money would not count towards the floor (or maybe only count half of it towards the floor). If we're spreading out money (and I think we should) to make a more even/competitive league, we have to ensure that money is being spent to making teams more competitive and a salary floor is the easiest way to police that AND it benefits players collectively, making the ceiling more palatable.

Yes and no. There are rules about where some players have to line up, but only some. I'm not sure what the roots of the rule are but I suspect part of it for recognition... so that the defense knows what players are eligible receivers and which aren't. And the rule is that only 7 offensive players must be on the line, not all 11. And that's only in terms of "vertical" placement... they can be anywhere on the line left or right. No rules on the defense. There's also rules in the MLB about offensive placement... batter's must be in the batter box, runners have to follow the base path... So both Football and Baseball somewhat limit offensive placement but don't (currently) limit defensive placement.

I think the media deals are where you attack this, along with a floor and ceiling. I totally get that a minimum payroll doesn't always make the most sense for a team rebuilding (better to use assets towards development/ scouting/ coaches/ facilities/ etc) but a floor would make a ceiling more palatable for the players. If you can attack the problem by saying: "Yeah, a salary cap will means players, as a whole will lose x-amount of dollars, but the floor means that players will gain y-amount of dollars and y > x, therefore net gains" it might be able to get passed. Along with this, I would argue that media deals should be shared. In a perfect world I'd say all media gets polled together and divided out... the logic I'd use is that no one is paying to watch the Yankee's go out and "practice" for 9 innings. They are going out to watch them play against another team. Without the other team the Yankees sell no tickets, get no eye-balls on TVs, etc. That said I think a 100% sharing won't pass with the big market owners, so I'd say do a 50/50 split. The team gets 50% of any local media deal, the other 50% goes into a pool. The pool is split evenly among all teams. That's still going to be a big blow to the big market owners, but I'd try to soften it by saying a hard cap will reduce your spending and prevent "arms races" between big market teams so even though you'll get less media money your spending will hopefully be lower. Additionally the long term hope here is that the floor plus more media money for small market teams will help them get more competitive and, which means better media deals for them in the future, which means a bigger media cash pool which benefits all teams.

Looked up the players on pro-football-reference and none of them seem like anything major, other than Fant seems like he's had decent production at TE. But still, 2 first and 2 second. Unless Goff comes back as a productive QB I'd say the Seahawks scored much better in this trade. Time will tell if Wilson ends up being a key asset for the Broncos but looking at it now they WAY overpaid imho.

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2022/03/seahawks-to-trade-russell-wilson-to-broncos Did Seattle get a better haul than the Lions did for Stafford? Just on the face of it, it feels like they did.

If you're suffering from Lions withdraw, take a look at this video: Starting around 20 minutes is footage of old time NFL games (30s era) featuring the Lions when they were actually good!

Exactly. Someone would be: "Oh, I just have this little thing so I should be allowed to take it and go... the rule is for those people who have big luggage that's hard to get out or that takes up a lot of room so my little bag is no big deal... Let's see... where was it? Ah, here it... oh, someone's suitcase is in the way... who's is this? Could you get this out of the way for me a minute please? Yes, okay... thank you... oh, wait, wrong area, my bag is in here."

This is the one area where I take exception... I really don't fly that often, but when I do my back is usually killing me from sitting for so long. I like to stand to just change positions. Yes I know I'm not getting off any sooner, but I just need to change positions for a bit.

Yeah, when did this 7-inning crap start??

I know I've already promoted this but after listening/watching nearly all the current episodes, it's just really enjoyable... If you like sports history this is a great program talking about the 30s of sports history in Detroit. The deep dive they go into on these topics is so interesting.

If you look at the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Detroit_Lions_head_coaches) Fontes stands out as having the most wins and having the most accolades, so yeah... it's probably that they were that lazy.

On a side note: Propst to Reid for being listed twice! I don't know enough about either team's history to know if Reid is accurate as the best coach, but still there's no denying that he's had substantial success at both teams.

I dunno if I'd list Fontes as the best coach. I think he made the list simply because of his "accolades" and all those came in just '91. Over all Fontes has a losing record (66 and 67). I'd definitely put Potsy Clark (53, 25, and 7 - 1 NFL title) and Buddy Parker (47, 23, and 2, 2 NFL titles) ahead of Fontes. And I think a case can be made for Dutch Clark, George Wilson, and probably some others too.

Hmm... that's not a terrible idea. I mean, obviously you need a couple of expansion teams first. 12 games a year against your own division (84 games) 6 games a year against the other division (48 games) 3 games a year against a division from the other league (24 games) 156 game season. And I dislike 12 teams a in the playoffs less if there are 32 total teams. Let the union know you'll work to expand two teams in the next 5 years (that's 52 additional jobs)... that should make them happier.

Agreed totally... too many, but better than 14. So... 3 winners + 3 wild cards? Or top two teams from each each division?

Here's my radical idea: Each team in the same division 14 times (2 home series, 3 & 4 games, 2 road series, 3 & 4 games) = 56 Each other team in the league 8 times (one home, one away series, 4 games) = 80 Each team in one division in the other league 4 times (one home, one away series, 2 games) = 20 Total of 156 games.

Given that we don't have Spring Training to talk about, how about some other pointless discussion. With the fact that we're almost certainly gonna lose some regular season games, there's some rumblings in the lockout thread that the regular season is too long anyway... so, let's say that MLB comes to you and gives you the power to not only set the number of games but also divide up how many games teams play against opponents in other divisions/leagues... and yes this means you can eliminate IL if you want. So, what's your plan?

While this may be someone within the Lions talking, this is the time of year when you should believe 0.00% of stuff coming out of the mouths of NFL front office personnel. I know that that's nothing earth shattering and that the mark of a good reporter is one who can sift through all the BS and find the bits of truth. But if the Lions were trying to drum up interest in their pick from a trade stand point, this is how you do it: By hinting that you might be taking someone that someone else really wants. If everyone one "knowns" that you taking either Hutch or Thib then you have fewer trade partners. The most uncertainty you can create the better shot you have of someone being nervous enough to trade up to be SURE that they'll get their man.

The two downsides to this: 1. Generally speaking: The big city teams have the most money to spend and have the most success. Geographical alignment and division winners getting playoff spots ensures that someone from "middle America" will get in the playoffs. (This is somewhat mitigated by so mean freakin' teams making the playoffs of course.) 2. Only seeing teams for two series really intensifies the whole "It's not who you play, but when you play them" axiom. By sheer luck you could avoid having to face the ace(s) of a particular teams staff. Or you might face them when key players are injured. In theory a teams luck would average out you'd expect, but I think there would still be plenty of instances were this could come into play.

One interesting aspect of not using geography as the first level of dividing teams is that it allows people to root for other local teams without necessarily feeling disloyal to their primary team. Not sure how much in practice this happens or not but I do remember back in the Peyton years that I semi-rooted for the Colts. There's no way I would have done that if they were direct competition to the Lions making the playoffs. Likewise I kinda root for the Cubs, but would never do that if the Tigers were up against them for playoff positioning. I don't know how much rivalries still play a part in baseball either, but there's potential to lose some of those if geography was the first layer of separation. There no way the Braves would be in the same group as the Phillies or Mets.

I don't think NCAA football (or Basketball) is quite the same animal. The fan base for these teams is a totally different things... every year you import thousands of new fans who are living in a small close community re-enforcing that fandom and feeding on itself. After four years of this they are released into the world... some of them will remain rabid fans... some will become casual fans and some will lose their fandom. But even if 80% of those leaving the school completely stop following their teams that still means 20% remain fans... and thousands more replace them in the new freshman class.

MLBPA really need better communication efforts to the fans. MLB has put out daily updates the last few days and while I know it's propaganda, it's still hard now to get a jaded view of the union based on how MLB has put out their info.

If the Packers approached the Lions and offered to trade Equanimeous to the Lions because he wanted to play with his brother, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to get him? Now, on one hand Equanimeous has been entirely unremarkable in his career so far... 569 yards so far scattered across three years. So why would you give anything up for that? But, on the other hand, Equanimeous has at least shown that he can play in the NFL AND the Lions are sorely lacking in WR talent. So, would a 7th round pick be worth giving up to shore up the WR group a (very) little bit as well as create a nice feel good story about another set of brothers on the team? Lions have picks: 217 (6th round) 230 (7th round) 238 (7th round) Would you be willing to give up one of those picks?

This Rob guy sounds like a douche.

I dunno... I mean for this year of course it's mostly meaningless as they aren't playing in those locations. But I guess the question is: It's better to "piggyback" off locations that already have a football fan base built or to go to a location where there isn't any risk of fan-conflict? Looking at the original USFL: Teams in NFL cities: Boston/N.O. Breakers (83/84) Chicago Blitz Denver Gold LA Express Michigan Panthers NJ Generals Oakland Invaders* (While the Raiders were in LA at this time, the 49ers were in SF) Philly Stars (83/84) Tampa Bay Bandits Washington Federals (83/84) Houston Gamblers Pittsburgh Maulers Teams in non-NFL cities: Arizona Wranglers/Outlaws (Cards move right after the USFL closed) Birmingham Stallions Portland Breakers (85) Baltimore Stars (85) Orlando Renegades (85) Jacksonville Bulls Memphis Showboats Oklahoma Outlaws San Antionio Gunslingers So 6 teams were always in non-NFL cites, 9 teams were always in NFL cities, and 3 teams started in NFL cities and moved to non-NFL their last year. I guess I'd lean on the side of trying to tap into an existing fan base. As long as the USFL doesn't try to go up against the NFL there's probably not going to be much issue with a Steelers' fan feeling disloyal rooting for the Mualers or a Texans' fan cheering for the Gamblers.