A Fallacy in Football Culture - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

A Fallacy in Football Culture

Moderator: Football Moderators

A Fallacy in Football Culture

Postby jnjtk555 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:37 am

I began thinking about this issue again today for some reason, and decided to see if/what others thought. There seems to be a preception that athletes are sometimes owned more than whats in their contract. For instance, it was said/dicussed on espn during the off season that the Packers "owe" Brett Favre the chance to return and play QB for the team. So as not to be biased i wont consider the situation of his prolonged decision and the J Walker incident; but why would this be owned to Favre. Seems to me unless this was cleary spelled out in the contract(which im certain it wasnt) then the Packers dont owe him anything of the sort. When the ink hits the paper i would think they only owe him the money specified and any other benefits identified. All this he has done so much for the packers is nonsense as consideration for such a view due to the fact that everything he did for the pack was pretty much his obligation via the contract. He along with every other althlete owe it to the respective organizations 100% effort and every tough, atheletic, amazing pass, catch, tackle, basket and goal that they can make, or otherwise they are in breach of contract, if not literally then definitely the spirit of it. The winning of championships doesnt warrant special treatment cause its an explict goal fo all parties and pretty everything given to get there is covered by the compensation of the contract......gotta opinion or response i'd like to read it...peace
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart and lean not to thine understanding"
jnjtk555
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 327
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby deacon » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:28 am

That's just part of that 'sports talk' garbage. People need something to talk about so it is folded into that 'sportsmanship' line of talk. It is interchangeable with the term 'deserve'.

For all that he has done Brett Favre deserves to have a chance to play as long as he wants. See, it works the same way.

It's like your best friend telling you your girlfriend 'deserves' a second chance after she screwed up. Or you 'owe' your girlfriend a second chance because of blah blah blah.

It only has meaning in the court of public opinion. Fans can get upset if a team treats a player contrary to what they think he 'deserves' or what the team 'owes' him and vice-versa.
Bacon is the greatest meat of all!
deacon
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 792
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: South of Atlanta

Postby programatik » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:35 am

maybe it's not in contract, but an unwritten law for holding up his end of the bargain in such high standard :p where many others fail to do so?

there are many unwritten "laws" that aren't necessarily followed all the time but are often adherred to. plus, like said above, and in madden 07, being a fan favorite plays into your decision :)
programatik
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 169
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Matthias » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:41 am

Well, I'd say a few things.

1) In a non-sport context, if someone works hard and loyally for a company for 25 years and then gets canned because they bring in a new management team who wants to bring in a new vision and just indiscriminately fires a large portion of the staff, you hear that the company owed it to the employee to treat them better than that. Even though the employee was entirely at will and the company had no further obligation. This is especially true if, a few years earlier, the employee turned down richer offers from competitors because he liked and believed in the company that he was employed at. So it's not just limited to sports.

2) In a similiar vein, there is sometimes an unspoken understanding that the player is not extracting the absolute most out he could have from the team in order to grant them flexibility. I'm not familiar with Favre's contract specifically, but if you think of Bronson Arroyo with the Red Sox (yah, baseball, sue me) he signed a lowball contract at the beginning of this season that before he signed, his agent said was a bad deal. But he liked the team and was willing to concede below market value in order to stay with them. They then treated him poorly by immediately taking his below-market contract and trading him to the Reds.

3) There are some players who exceed their contract, not just performance-wise, but off the field. Someone (at the extreme, TO) can be a great athlete and fantastic player but does things outside of the purview of the playing contract that would make the team owe them less. On the flip side of the coin, Favre is a great team representative. He respects the game. He respects the fans. He respects the team. He creates value (ticket sales, jerseys, etc.) for the team by the way he carries himself off the field. Even more than just by meeting some minimum threshold of decent conduct which he would obliged to do under his contract and beyond just what his success and performance on the field would dictate.

4) There is a course of business idea. There are some players who are more than happy to jump ship to ship depending upon who pays them the most. (This is the flip side of point 2, I suppose). And when they're treating the team and the league strictly as a business then I would say they don't deserve to get treated any better. But if someone does treat it as more than just business, then they should reasonably expect the same in return. At my local corner store, there was about six months where all my purchases were whole dollar amounts. Or at least, that's what I paid. Sometimes they rounded up to their advantage, sometimes they rounded down to mine. So even though I had no legal or contractual expectation for them to charge me $2 instead of $2.25, I grew to reasonably expect them to do so. So they owed me more than strict business mandated.

Some of these things you may find persuasive. Some not. But something to chew on.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby jnjtk555 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:45 am

thanks for the replies fellas; but in the Favre case i think it will turn out to be such a poor decision, especially for that new head coach; if he has a 3yr deal this may all fall on his shoulders :-t :-t :-t !!!!!! They should clearly parted ways with him; not like they have a top 10-15 offense or defense, well i know their defense isnt. And know telling how long Rodgers will need to get acquainted as the new QB......
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart and lean not to thine understanding"
jnjtk555
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 327
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby mysticphysh » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:30 am

Sure, they may owe it to Favre to allow him to play, but they also owe it to the fans who pay their salary to win some games. They need to have the guy out there who gives them the best chance to win. I know its fashionable to be down on Favre, but it's really not his fault. Sure he will throw illadvised passes, but that's the way Favre has always been, except now he has to do more for the team. Their running game sucks. Their O-line can't protect worth crap. Their Defense is horrid. Their team is just all around bad and Favre gives them the best chance at winning NOW, not in the future by giving what amounts to a rookie QB a chance to start. The team "owes" it to their fans to win now, not later.
Image
mysticphysh
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 3465
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby jnjtk555 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:54 am

I guess i follow your reasoning mystic, however winning now is not what they are doing; and while he may give them the best chance to win do so win not only NOT AMOUNT TO ANYTHING; but will also postpone the inevitable, unless they plan to be agressive in the upcoming off-season it is very unsound to continue with him. This is of course taking for granted that this is his last season.....Green bay fans while they may not like it must realize that their QB of the future doesnt wear # 4. Perhaps if winning now would amount even to a wild card i would concede but unfortunately it wont so i cant.....
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart and lean not to thine understanding"
jnjtk555
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 327
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby BigMusky » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:06 pm

you dont get it...the point of football is to entertain and bring fans to the game and sell TV slots. Winning usually creates that entertainment, but so does having a Hall of Fame QB that the whole state of wisconsin is in love with. So they get more value out of this team starting Favre then sucking with Rogers. So if playing favre an extra year or two postpones the development of Rogers, so what because they get more out of 4-12 Favre team than an 8-8 Rogers team.

Perfect example is the Bulls. I remember most people care more about the Wizards when he went back then there own team Chicago.
BigMusky
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1258
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: "Milla-walk-ay"


Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 11:01 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact