Crabtree threatening to sit out season [Archive]

marler1972

08-06-2009, 01:57 PM

Yes he should receive what Darrius is getting

This is from espn:

Adviser: Crabtree could re-enter draftComment Email Print Share By Joe Schad
ESPN.com

San Francisco 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree is prepared to sit out this season and re-enter the NFL draft in 2010, David Wells, Crabtree's cousin and adviser, said Thursday.

ESPN.com's Mike Sando writes about all things NFC West in his division blog.

"We are prepared to do it," Wells said. "Michael just wants fair-market value. They took him with the 10th pick and you have Darrius Heyward-Bey [the seventh overall pick by the Oakland Raiders] getting $38 million? This week is crucial. Michael was one of the best players in the draft and he just wants to be paid like one of the best players. This week is very crucial."

However, Crabtree's agent told ESPN.com that no such threat has been made on his part.

Addressing the report, agent Eugene Parker told ESPN.com on Thursday afternoon: "You've known me a long time and I'm not a guy who makes threats. Nor am I a guy who negotiates in the public. I don't know where this came from but no such threat has been made."

Wells said he believes the Niners have made an offer but that it is not acceptable. Wells said Crabtree is ready to start practicing and was held out of OTAs this spring by coaches only for precautionary reasons.

Crabtree, who turns 22 next month, also missed the 49ers' offseason minicamps and their organized team activities while recovering from a foot injury but was a regular presence at team headquarters for rehabilitation and strengthening workouts.

Crabtree caught 97 passes for 1,165 yards and 19 touchdowns last year during his sophomore season at Texas Tech. He finished his collegiate career with 231 receptions, 3,127 yards and 41 TDs.

Joe Schad is a college football reporter for ESPN. Information from ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli and The Associated Press was used in this report.

bigwood33

08-06-2009, 04:50 PM

Only time will tell but I am not as enamored with him as ESPN was. He put up big numbers in a big number offense. I am not saying that he is purely a system receiver but the next time he gets punished coming off the line or across the middle will be the 1st time. He ran is space, and lots of it, for 2 years at Tech.

Txbroadcaster

08-06-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by marler1972
Yes he should receive what Darrius is getting

no he should not..your drafted at a spot..it is slotted..you DONT get more as much as people drafted in front of you.

Pick6

08-06-2009, 04:54 PM

Who was the stud from USC that wanted to turn pro then they told him he was to young? He missed a year of football and where is he now...:thinking:

DDBooger

08-06-2009, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
no he should not..your drafted at a spot..it is slotted..you DONT get more as much as people drafted in front of you. amen

Emerson1

08-06-2009, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
Who was the stud from USC that wanted to turn pro then they told him he was to young? He missed a year of football and where is he now...:thinking:
Was in the league for a few years.

Maurice Clarrett on the other hand.

Pick6

08-06-2009, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Emerson1
Was in the league for a few years.

He was, but he never lived up to the hype.

Maybe Crabtree can catch passes from Vick in the UFL,or whatever that new league is called.

WildTexan972

08-06-2009, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
amen

he sounds like a labor union guy to me.....he wants what he "deserves" and is willing to holdout (go on strike) if he don't get it....

if a pro athlete does this the Dems whine about those mean rich people actin up, but if a large voting union membership does this, they complain that those mean business managers are not treating those workers fairly....

by the way - Crabs is a full-on idiot if he holds out because he won't get drafted in the Top10 again....ever

DDBooger

08-06-2009, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
he sounds like a labor union guy to me.....he wants what he "deserves" and is willing to holdout (go on strike) if he don't get it....

if a pro athlete does this the Dems whine about those mean rich people actin up, but if a large voting union membership does this, they complain that those mean business managers are not treating those workers fairly....

by the way - Crabs is a full-on idiot if he holds out because he won't get drafted in the Top10 again....ever lmao you're so silly WT, Millionaires arguing with billionairs haha dude go back to making dumb generalized statements of the status quo elites in industry.

OldBison75

08-06-2009, 07:31 PM

Crabtree has the tools to be a top notch receiver in the NFL, but I am beginning to wonder if he has the mental toughness and desire. Now is not the time to fight over contracts and he needs to find a 2 or three year agreement that maybe includes incentives to make it lucrative. If he then live up to the expectations of myself and many professional football people, he will get the hugh contract in a few years.

Threatening to sit out a year is not going to sit well with the NFL owners and I would bet that he will be looked on with much scepticism next draft and probably would not be drafted at all.

Come on Michael--get in camp and prove you want to play in this league and the bucks will roll in.

Emerson1

08-06-2009, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
He was, but he never lived up to the hype.

Maybe Crabtree can catch passes from Vick in the UFL,or whatever that new league is called.
Or Harrell in the CFL?

LH Panther Mom

08-06-2009, 08:31 PM

I know it's not quite the same, but it's funny that Crabtree is getting slammed for wanting his "fair market value" yet Benson held out on contract negotiations for over a month. I wonder what the difference is. :thinking: :thinking:

marler1972

08-06-2009, 09:19 PM

Electus Unus

08-06-2009, 09:20 PM

marler1972

08-06-2009, 09:32 PM

Where have you heard he wants the same or better money than DHB. I have looked all over and have not seen a quote from either crabs or his agent parker.

LH Panther Mom

08-06-2009, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by marler1972
It is called Longhorn homers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:1omg!: :1omg!: :1omg!: Surely you jest!!!!!!!!!

I know.....don't call you Shirley. :p

Electus Unus

08-06-2009, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by marler1972
Where have you heard he wants the same or better money than DHB. I have looked all over and have not seen a quote from either crabs or his agent parker. its quoted in the article...he's not going to get top 5 money like he wants.

marler1972

08-06-2009, 10:01 PM

There was not a quote from crabs that said anything about him sitting out it was his advisor that said that and his agent said there has not been a threat of sitting out. It is common for players to holdout not a big deal.

Txbroadcaster

08-06-2009, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
I know it's not quite the same, but it's funny that Crabtree is getting slammed for wanting his "fair market value" yet Benson held out on contract negotiations for over a month. I wonder what the difference is. :thinking: :thinking:

nothing is different..and I dont see where someone said it was

once again for some reason UT is brought into a discussion about a TTech player and by a Ttech fan

I am a UT fan and I want Crabtree in camp, I want him to have tons of success and bunch of pro bowls and hope nothing but 100% success for him as a former Texas college player, and because I was able to broadcast a game of his in HS.

LH Panther Mom

08-07-2009, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
nothing is different..and I dont see where someone said it was

once again for some reason UT is brought into a discussion about a TTech player and by a Ttech fan

Nothing gets past you, does it? :p Where was this same discussion from a UT fan about the UT grad? Or even better, from a Tech fan? :p Just saying..... ;)

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 08:43 AM

I'm a Tech/Crabtree fan, but this only proves one thing.
They should put a salary cap on rookies coming into the NFL.
I mean look at vince young. The Titans played something like 50 million for him and now he is riding the pine.:clap:

BuffyMars

08-07-2009, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm a Tech/Crabtree fan, but this only proves one thing.
They should put a salary cap on rookies coming into the NFL.
I mean look at vince young. The Titans played something like 50 million for him and now he is riding the pine.:clap:

there is a salary cap on the rookies..they slot them and teams only have so much they can spend on rookies

and once again, nice way for a TTech fan to take a shot at a UT player.

Pick6

08-07-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1

I mean look at vince young. The Titans played something like 50 million for him and now he is riding the pine.:clap:

Vince got paid for his draft position. Crabtree is wanting more than his draft position. Why is that so hard to understand for some tech fans.

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 08:52 AM

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Pick6
Vince got paid for his draft position. Crabtree is wanting more than his draft position. Why is that so hard to understand for some tech fans.

So spending 50 million on player just because he's drafted higher makes him worth it?
:confused:

Pick6

08-07-2009, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
There's no salary cap on rookies entering the nfl, and I was using him as an example.:rolleyes:

She was right when she said they can only spend so much on rookies. So in a sense there is a salary cap.

Pick6

08-07-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
So spending 50 million on player just because he's drafted higher makes him worth it?
:confused:

It happens every year. Vince wasn't an exception.

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Pick6
It happens every year. Vince wasn't an exception.
No, just an example.
Along with Ryan Leaf, and Andre Ware.
All high draft picks, and all a bust.

marler1972

08-07-2009, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by BuffyMars
there is a salary cap on the rookies..they slot them and teams only have so much they can spend on rookies

and once again, nice way for a TTech fan to take a shot at a UT player.

Ok here is the 08 contracts there are guys that got drafted a few picks later that are making more that guys that got picked ahead so sloting the pay is not right.

Signing status of 2008 NFL Draft first-round picks
NFL.com

Pk Player Pos. Team Status Contract
1. Jake Long OT Miami Signed 5 years, $57.5 million ($30M guaranteed)
2. Chris Long DE St. Louis Signed 6 years, $56.5 million ($29M guaranteed)
3. Matt Ryan QB Atlanta Signed 6 years, $72 million ($34M guaranteed)
4. Darren McFadden RB Oakland Signed 6 years, $60 million ($26M guaranteed)
5. Glenn Dorsey DT Kansas City Signed 5 years, $51 million ($23M guaranteed)
6. Vernon Gholston DE N.Y. Jets Signed 5 years, $50 million ($21M guaranteed)
7. Sedrick Ellis DT New Orleans Signed 5 years, $49 million ($19.5M guaranteed)
8. Derrick Harvey DE Jacksonville Signed 5 years, $33.4 million ($17.177M guaranteed)
9. Keith Rivers LB Cincinnati Signed 6 years, $23 million ($15.6M guaranteed)
10. Jerod Mayo LB New England Signed 5 years, $18.9 million ($13.8M guaranteed)
11. Leodis McKelvin CB Buffalo Signed 5 years, $19.4 million ($12.6M guaranteed)
12. Ryan Clady OT Denver Signed 5 years, $17.5 million ($11.5M guaranteed)
13. Jonathan Stewart RB Carolina Signed 5 years, $20 million ($10.795M guaranteed)
14. Chris Williams OT Chicago Signed 5 years, $16 million ($10M guaranteed)
15. Branden Albert OG Kansas City Signed 5 years, $15.8 million ($9.2M guaranteed)
16. Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie CB Arizona Signed 5 years, $15.1 million ($9M guaranteed)
17. Gosder Cherilus OT Detroit Signed 5 years, $15 million ($8.9M guaranteed)
18. Joe Flacco QB Baltimore Signed 5 years, $30 million ($8.75M guaranteed)
19. Jeff Otah OT Carolina Signed 5 years, $14.4 million ($8.965M guaranteed)
20. Aqib Talib CB Tampa Bay Signed 5 years, $14 million ($8.2M guaranteed)
21. Sam Baker OT Atlanta Signed 5 years, $13.5 million ($7.8M guaranteed)
22. Felix Jones RB Dallas Signed 5 years, $10.5 million ($8M guaranteed)
23. Rashard Mendenhall RB Pittsburgh Signed 5 years, $12.555 million ($7.125M guaranteed)
24. Chris Johnson RB Tennessee Signed 5 years, $12 million ($7M guaranteed)
25. Mike Jenkins CB Dallas Signed 5 yaers, $9.7 million ($7M guaranteed)
26. Duane Brown OT Houston Signed 5 years, $11.4 million ($6.5M guaranteed)
27. Antoine Cason CB San Diego Signed 5 years, $12.03 million
28. Lawrence Jackson DE Seattle Signed 5 years, $11.25 million ($6.1M guaranteed)
29. Kentwan Balmer DE San Francisco Signed 5 years, $11.5 million ($6M guaranteed)
30. Dustin Keller TE N.Y. Jets Signed 5 years, $12 million ($6M guaranteed)
31. Kenny Phillips FS N.Y. Giants Signed 5 years, $11.15 million

Headlines Chiefs make Succop 'Mr. Irrelevant' with last pick Stafford, Pettigrew out to win over skeptical Lions fans University of Miami's impressive draft streaks end | Blogs Jets QBs' friendly competition: Sanchez calls Clemens Jets trade up for first pick of Round 3, take RB Greene Browns trade down to stockpile picks, then take C Mack Raiders' No. 7 stunner: Taking speedy WR Heyward-Bey Crabtree falls to 49ers at No. 10 | Baldinger More Headlines >>

Farmersfan

08-07-2009, 09:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by marler1972
[B]Ok here is the 08 contracts there are guys that got drafted a few picks later that are making more that guys that got picked ahead so sloting the pay is not right.

I think you need to compare positions when looking at draft position. You can't compare a lineman to a QB or RB........

Pick6

08-07-2009, 09:17 AM

Look at the guaranteed money. Beside's Matt Ryan they are all less than or right at the person in front of them.

marler1972

08-07-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by marler1972
[B]Ok here is the 08 contracts there are guys that got drafted a few picks later that are making more that guys that got picked ahead so sloting the pay is not right.

I think you need to compare positions when looking at draft position. You can't compare a lineman to a QB or RB........

But that is not was said. It was comparing the draft position being sloted for a certain amount of money. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize a qb is going to make more money.

BwdLions

08-07-2009, 09:22 AM

Come on Tech fans, we know you're infatuated with UT, but let's stay on subject and leave Ced and VY out of it. :inlove:

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Pick6
Look at the guaranteed money. Beside's Matt Ryan they are all less than or right at the person in front of them.

You need to check the list again.
This time take off your orange colored glasses.:nerd:
:D

I still say there needs to be a salary cap on ANY player entering the NFL, no matter what position they play.

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by BwdLions
Come on Tech fans, we know you're infatuated with UT, but let's stay on subject and leave Ced and VY out of it. :inlove:
I'm pretty sure it was a ut fan who started this thread.;)

Txbroadcaster

08-07-2009, 09:27 AM

Dont look at the total or the years..those dont matter look at the GUARANTEED amount. That is the true value of the contract

except for Ryan it is less as the picks go down. Your picked at a certain spot your getting a little less than picks before you, and a little more than pick after you

Pick6

08-07-2009, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
You need to check the list again.
This time take off your orange colored glasses.:nerd:
:D

1st off, I wear Gold colored glasses.

2nd, show me where, besides M.Ryan, a player picked lower has a substantial amount more guaranteed money than a player picked before him.

BwdLions

08-07-2009, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm pretty sure it was a ut fan who started this thread.;)

So you're saying you can't start a thread about someone unless you're an alumni or fan of that school or team? Come one Eagle 1.:rolleyes:

BuckeyeNut

08-07-2009, 10:35 AM

yall are looking at this all wrong all this means is the 49ers lost therer first row pick WOOTWOOT that is cause to PARTY!!!!!

:D :D

marler1972

08-07-2009, 10:44 AM

He will sign if I saw correct there were still 6 unsigned players in the top 10 of the draft.

Emerson1

08-07-2009, 03:21 PM

I started this as a NFL fan, I'm not sure what Crabtree has to do with Tech he doesn't play for them anymore.

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Dont look at the total or the years..those dont matter look at the GUARANTEED amount. That is the true value of the contract

except for Ryan it is less as the picks go down. Your picked at a certain spot your getting a little less than picks before you, and a little more than pick after you

So after they are payed the "GUARANTEED" money, then the rest dont matter. Yea right.
The "GUARANTEED" money only comes IF the player fulfills their end of the contract and play the entire number of years they are under contract. Do you know how rare that is?

"In 1970, the average NFL player lasted nearly five years in the league. By 1986, he had a three-year stay, a downward trend that continued as the league adopted more pass-happy formations, such as the West Coast offense, according to the NFL Players Association. A vested NFL player (meaning they get their pension after retirement) has to play a least 4 years. It's a short stay for most and this is why you see athletes trying to get the most money from NFL owners."

Besides, I'm pretty sure the signing bonus is a factored percentage of the whole contract. Meaning, the more a player gets in the contract, the more money they will get up front.

I still say there needs to be a salary cap on ANY player entering the NFL, no matter what position they play.

I started this as a NFL fan, I'm not sure what Crabtree has to do with Tech he doesn't play for them anymore.
whatever....:rolleyes:

DaHop72

08-07-2009, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Emerson1
I started this as a NFL fan, I'm not sure what Crabtree has to do with Tech he doesn't play for them anymore. No dog is this fight, but maybe they got the idea from this:thinking:

Originally posted by Emerson1
I wonder if Leach still thinks Crabs isn't a diva?

Pick6

08-07-2009, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
So after they are payed the "GUARANTEED" money, then the rest dont matter.

Yes genius that is correct. The original contract will be renewed or the player will be cut before he gets the money for the total contract, hence the words GUARANTEED MONEY :rolleyes:

Txbroadcaster

08-07-2009, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
So after they are payed the "GUARANTEED" money, then the rest dont matter. Yea right.
The "GUARANTEED" money only comes IF the player fulfills their end of the contract and play the entire number of years they are under contract. Do you know how rare that is?

"In 1970, the average NFL player lasted nearly five years in the league. By 1986, he had a three-year stay, a downward trend that continued as the league adopted more pass-happy formations, such as the West Coast offense, according to the NFL Players Association. A vested NFL player (meaning they get their pension after retirement) has to play a least 4 years. It's a short stay for most and this is why you see athletes trying to get the most money from NFL owners."

Besides, I'm pretty sure the signing bonus is a factored percentage of the whole contract. Meaning, the more a player gets in the contract, the more money they will get up front.

I still say there needs to be a salary cap on ANY player entering the NFL, no matter what position they play.

whatever....:rolleyes:

uhh no Eagle

when it says Guarantee money that is how much they will be paid no matter what period end of statement. They dont have to play out the contract or anything

When TO was let go by Cowboys he was given a check for rest of guaranteed money..That is why money locked up into players who are not on the team is called DEAD MONEY for teams

Dallas had dead money with TO and Roy Williams when they let them go.

Electus Unus

08-07-2009, 05:34 PM

Crabtree is completely wrong for what he is doing and is putting his NFL career in jeopardy if he decides to sit out a year because he don't get the money he wants. Teams will not want to draft him next year because he sat out a year and didn't want to sign due to money.

I also think that Texas Tech is slowly becoming the new Aggie.

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
uhh no Eagle

when it says Guarantee money that is how much they will be paid no matter what period end of statement. They dont have to play out the contract or anything

When TO was let go by Cowboys he was given a check for rest of guaranteed money..That is why money locked up into players who are not on the team is called DEAD MONEY for teams

Dallas had dead money with TO and Roy Williams when they let them go.

So if T.O. had quit during his contract, Dallas would have still had to pay him the "guaranteed" money?
:thinking:

Txbroadcaster

08-07-2009, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
So if T.O. had quit during his contract, Dallas would have still had to pay him the "guaranteed" money?
:thinking:

yes they would...unless they tried to recoup it like Atlanta did with Vick but that was because he was arrested and all that

Eagle 1

08-07-2009, 10:17 PM

I'm sure there is some kind of incarceration clause which would prevent a team from having to pay a player, but I seriously doubt if the player just up and quits they will still get paid.

Electus Unus

08-07-2009, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm sure there is some kind of incarceration clause which would prevent a team from having to pay a player, but I seriously doubt if the player just up and quits they will still get paid. I guess you don't get what guaranteed means then lol. They get the guaranteed money regardless unless its due to legalities but the rest is not a guarantee.

skins4life

08-08-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Emerson1
I wonder if Leach still thinks Crabs isn't a diva?

Crabtree could very well be the most hated player among players in the NFL right now. This will greatly push for a rookie salary like the NBA has.

No way he sits out, because he should know there isn't anyway he is drafted on day 1 in the 2010 draft.
Sounds like another TO & OCHO CINCO to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

IrishTex

08-08-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by skins4life
Sounds like another TO & OCHO CINCO to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Question for you Skin. How does a good ol boy from Snyder Texas become a Skins fan? I'm truly interested how this happened. Do you have a friend or relative on that team? Just curious.

skins4life

08-08-2009, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by IrishTex
Question for you Skin. How does a good ol boy from Snyder Texas become a Skins fan? I'm truly interested how this happened. Do you have a friend or relative on that team? Just curious.
Grew up in Lampasas in the '60's & '70's. Had about 10 family members rooting for Dallas all of the time. One game back in about '69 or '70 I was going to root for the underdog and that game it just so happen to be the 'Skins. I got to reading about them and found out they were division rivals and the rest it history.Not to mention it P_ _ _ _ _ all of my family off.

Trashman

08-08-2009, 09:41 AM

skins4life

08-08-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Trashman
Great day in the morning! You answered your own question when you said he was from Schneider!:rolleyes: :D

Not actually from Snyder, even tho I've been there 30 yrs. We call it home now. 3 boys have gone thru the SHS, 1) is a head trainer at another school in N.Texas, 2) is in the USA stationed in KY and 3) has a full academic scholarship to TTech and will start in the fall. So, I guess living in Snyder isn't all that bad. Not all of us are trouble makers and trashman talkers!!!!

Eagle 1

08-08-2009, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Electus Unus
I guess you don't get what guaranteed means then lol. They get the guaranteed money regardless unless its due to legalities but the rest is not a guarantee.

Its a contract between both parties.
If one or the other (team or player) quits, Im sure it forfeits the contract.
Guaranteed money just means the team will pay the player at least this amount as long as he doesnt up and quit.

Back to the list:
10. Jerod Mayo LB New England Signed 5 years, $18.9 million ($13.8M guaranteed)
11. Leodis McKelvin CB Buffalo Signed 5 years, $19.4 million ($12.6M guaranteed)

If both Jerod Mayo and Leodis McKelvin fulfil their 5 year contracts, then Leodis will make more than Jerod.
Therefore, the "guaranteed money" has nothing to do with it.
Its not rocket science.;)

None the less thats way to much money for any rookies in the NFL.

STANG RED

08-08-2009, 03:59 PM

I like Crabtree, and think he would make a great NFL reciever. But if he doesnt get his butt in camp, and shut his mouth, I hope he never sees a down of pro football. If he proves he's worth more on the field, he'll get it in due time.

Trashman

08-08-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by STANG RED
I like Crabtree, and think he would make a great NFL reciever. But if he doesnt get his butt in camp, and shut his mouth, I hope he never sees a down of pro football. If he proves he's worth more on the field, he'll get it in due time.

:iagree:

Eagle 1

08-08-2009, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by STANG RED
If he proves he's worth more on the field, he'll get it in due time.

Exactly.

Pick6

08-08-2009, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Its a contract between both parties.
If one or the other (team or player) quits, Im sure it forfeits the contract.
Guaranteed money just means the team will pay the player at least this amount as long as he doesnt up and quit.

Its not rocket science.;)

The team still owes the player the guaranteed money if he's cut or retires early. They can sue for part of the signing bonus paid if the player quits or retires before the end of the contract.

You're right it's not rocket science :thinking:

OldBison75

08-09-2009, 12:18 PM

Guaranteed money in a Pro Contract is based upon a number of requirements in each case. The player has to be on the roster for the year year that is guaranteed, may have to play in a certain number of games, may have to participate in a certain number of other camps and promotional events, etc. The guaranteed part of the contract is a certain amount of money each year and has minimum performance standards to earn the money.

There may be a certain guarantee for keeping the contract in plae if they are injured or whatever-but the whole amount won't be paid except for when they are traded or fired.

Eagle 1

08-09-2009, 04:36 PM

Here is what commissioner Roger Goodell said about the issue on ESPN Radio:

"It's really had a dramatic impact on the way we pay our players and the way teams are built in the draft. ... It's not that I'm opposed to the rookies getting money, I think that's great. But I think the veterans that have proven themselves on the NFL Level deserve the bulk of the compensation. When a player is drafted and doesn't make it and he takes that money out of the system, that's a disadvantage to the other players in the league. That's what I keep trying to get across. We need to keep the money in the system and it needs to go to the veterans that deserve it. ... It's a relatively simple fix if we sit down and address it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its time to fix it.

The team still owes the player the guaranteed money if he's cut or retires early.

I doubt if a player retires early they will get anything.
If I had retired early from the military, I wouldn't have gotten anything.

Emerson1

08-09-2009, 04:39 PM

I some how agree with Eagle 1.

You guys are making it sound like a player could sign his contract then fly off to mexico and never play again and be paid his $30 million.

There has to be a clause somewhere in the contract to prevent this or we would have seen it happen already.

Pick6

08-09-2009, 05:28 PM

Here is what I found when I googled NFL contracts

The NFL Players Association has constantly turned its back on its former players. Yet, when these rookies first come into the league you hear about the contracts being signed. Like the one signed by Matt Stafford the first pick in the NFL draft for 2009. Stafford signed a six year $78 million contract with $41.7 million of guaranteed money.

That guranteed money is the best thing to happen to the NFL. Not because the players are being greedy, but in case they retire early they have money that they can use because they probably will not be receiving any kind of disability from the NFL.

Unfortunately if the player isn't a rookie and does not get any portion of the contract guaranteed they are stuck if a career ending injury occurs. It means that they could be struggling to make ends meet. This happens frequently and the NFL Players Association often turns its back on these players.

It is time for the NFL to at least make a minimum contract that is guranteed regardless of if the player is a rookie or not.

Eagle 1

08-09-2009, 07:08 PM

LINK (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/216492-why-rookie-contracts-are-the-best-contracts-in-the-nfl)

The rest of the article:

The rookie contracts in the NFL are currently the best contract an NFL player can receive at this point. The reason being is the guaranteed money that comes with the contract.

NFL contracts for players are not currently guaranteed, meaning that let's say a offensive linemen signs a contract for seven years for $35 million, with a majority of the money coming in the fifth, sixth and seventh years the first four years the player will be able to collect the money.

Throughout his career he suffers injury after injury and eventually retires after the average length of an offensive linemen in the NFL, which is three and a half years. Now the question is since the player retired due to injuries what is their option to gain an income? What happens to the player if the injuries are so severe that they are not able to work? What can these ex-players do to better themselves?

This is where it gets sickening. Due to the fact that the average age of death for an NFL player is 55 years of age, they do not even get a chance to use their pension. This is because in order to take out a pension, a player needs to be 55 years old.

If the player collects the pension early there's a major penalty.

So, even though the NFL is growing and making billions of dollars every year, the ex-players are not getting the disability support they need. Brian DeMarco is one former player who had no food in his home but with the generosity of programs such as the Gridiron Greats Foundation, he was able to get the supplies he needed.

But these stories don't always end well for former players. There's the example of Mike Webster who committed suicide. Another example is of another player who had 13 surgeries on one leg and was still denied disability. Another player who actually got disability suddenly found that after his case was reviewed without any notification his disability was gone. He was forced to live in the streets.

bigwood33

08-09-2009, 09:38 PM

As part of each contract NFL players should negotiate insurance policies that would make their contract whole in the event that they have a career ending injury or injuries. I know these types of policies are expensive so as part of the contract the team should be on the hook for the policy.

Txbroadcaster

08-09-2009, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
LINK (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/216492-why-rookie-contracts-are-the-best-contracts-in-the-nfl)

NFL contracts for players are not currently guaranteed, meaning that let's say a offensive linemen signs a contract for seven years for $35 million, with a majority of the money coming in the fifth, sixth and seventh years the first four years the player will be able to collect the money.

and THAT is why contracts now instead of just saying 7 years 35 Million will say 7 years 35 million with say 20 of it guaranteed. That means that player will get 20 million no matter what

Emerson1

08-09-2009, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
and THAT is why contracts now instead of just saying 7 years 35 Million will say 7 years 35 million with say 20 of it guaranteed. That means that player will get 20 million no matter what
So you really think their is no clause or wording that prevents a player from signing then retiring and sitting at home collecting $20 million?

IMike Vick had guaranteed money he is no longer getting too if you want to go to that angle.

Farmersfan

08-10-2009, 08:39 AM

It doesn't make much sense to talk about all the sad stories and ex-players living on the streets on the thread about Crabtree. The "Stars" of this league are WAYYYYYY overpaid and if after receiveing even a couple of million dollars a year for a few years they should have their retirement taken care of just like you and I would be expected to. These players make millions and millions of dollars for a few years and then lose their ability to play and expect they should be taken care of for the rest of their lives. It's ridiculous. It doesn't happen anywhere else in life so way would it happen in the NFL?????
It's the roll players who make modest money to destroy their bodies that should get some attention. Not the stars or high draft picks................

BreckTxLonghorn

08-10-2009, 10:22 AM

From usatoday
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-04-23-first-round-money_N.htm

* — guaranteed money includes signing, option and first-year roster bonuses, plus first-year salary and money guaranteed after the first year.

So arguments here both right in a way, two parts of the money are a signing bonus and optional bonus by the club, another is a bonusfor when they officially make the opening day roster, and the last part is a bonus for making it through a first year.

The kicker is, the teams do not tell how much is appropriated to each section, so some teams could put most toward the one year bonus, and some could put it all on a signing.

However, after one year, a player could pretty much just retire and be done with it, all the money he received was from bonuses not from the contract, and he fulfilled his part to receive them. Again, this is assuming there are no morality clauses or anything like that. (ie Vick)

Emerson1

08-10-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It doesn't make much sense to talk about all the sad stories and ex-players living on the streets on the thread
It's not today's stars that people are sad about, it's the ones who played 20-30 years ago who were barely making any money. Hence why these people are dieing right now at age 55.

Balcones fault

08-10-2009, 10:47 AM

"San Francisco 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree is prepared to sit out this season and re-enter the NFL draft in 2010, David Wells, Crabtree's cousin and adviser, said Thursday."

There's the problem. DW has a rather, er, interesting history. I'll see if I can find linkage.

Here we go: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2009/08/07/michael-crabtrees-advisr/

themsu97

08-10-2009, 08:16 PM

I have read this entire thread and not at any place do I see a quote from Crabtree himself...
for all we know that could be some half breed drunk cousin who knows absolutely nothing and hopes that his cousin gets paid so he can go buy another gallon of George Dickel...

STANG RED

08-11-2009, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by themsu97
I have read this entire thread and not at any place do I see a quote from Crabtree himself...
for all we know that could be some half breed drunk cousin who knows absolutely nothing and hopes that his cousin gets paid so he can go buy another gallon of George Dickel...

And yet Crabtree is in fact setting out now. That alone speaks volumns, no matter what he is or is not saying publicly. All he needs to do, is get his butt on the field and prove his worth. At the moment he is only proving to be more trouble than he is worth.

PPSTATEBOUND

08-11-2009, 01:28 PM

Crabtree = overrated, he will be exposed when he plays his first season.:cool:

BreckTxLonghorn

08-11-2009, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Crabtree = overrated, he will be exposed when he plays his first season.:cool:

In 2010?

pirate4state

08-11-2009, 01:40 PM

BreckTxLonghorn

08-11-2009, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by pirate4state
you got something against half breeds? :twitch: LOL i'm sorry that was just funny

Watch your language; they prefer to be called mubloods.

Eagle 1

08-11-2009, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Crabtree = overrated, he will be exposed when he plays his first season.:cool:

Yea your probably right. :p

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3297/techvstexas361.jpg

ziggy29

08-11-2009, 02:44 PM

When did Scott Boras start representing football players?

PPSTATEBOUND

08-11-2009, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Yea your probably right. :p

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3297/techvstexas361.jpg

LOL...yeah your boy needs to sit down, shut up, and play ball...no more kiddy gloves will be worn like old Leach has in his closet......its the NFL which stands for "NOT FOR LONG when you act like a child!:hand:

marler1972

08-11-2009, 03:25 PM

First round picks hold out all the time he will sign. The 49ers are hurting at wr now more than ever and will probably pay more now.

LH Panther Mom

08-11-2009, 06:48 PM

How many of you have ever negotiated with a potential employer before agreeing to accept a new job? :thinking:

Eagle 1

08-11-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
How many of you have ever negotiated with a potential employer before agreeing to accept a new job? :thinking:

;)

ziggy29

08-11-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
How many of you have ever negotiated with a potential employer before agreeing to accept a new job? :thinking:
At the peak of the dot-com boom or in THIS job market? :)

LH Panther Mom

08-11-2009, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by ziggy29
At the peak of the dot-com boom or in THIS job market? :)
Any ;)

Highschoolfan78

08-11-2009, 10:17 PM

Singletary has his hands full with the irritable, starting TE Vernon Davis. They will be better off without Crabtree.

BobcatBenny

08-11-2009, 10:37 PM

Hmmm ... if Crabtree is such a prima donna, why doesn't Maybin, the Buffalo Bill's draft pick, #11 overall, go ahead and sign a contract and quit holding out?

Why not? Because he does not want to get underpaid!

Why is Maybin not a prima donna for not signing?

Big Papa

08-11-2009, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Hmmm ... if Crabtree is such a prima donna, why doesn't Maybin, the Buffalo Bill's draft pick, #11 overall, go ahead and sign a contract and quit holding out?

Why not? Because he does not want to get underpaid!

Why is Maybin not a prima donna for not signing?

maybe you should start a thread about it

BobcatBenny

08-11-2009, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Big Papa
maybe you should start a thread about it
Maybe I should also start a thread about Andre Smith and his hold out because he doesn't want less money than Heyward-Bey also?

Isn't that one of the driving factors behind Crabtree's contract problems?

Big Papa

08-11-2009, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Maybe I should also start a thread about Andre Smith and his hold out because he doesn't want less money than Heyward-Bey also?

Isn't that one of the driving factors behind Crabtree's contract problems?

perhaps... you should so that way we can have a thread for them

BobcatBenny

08-11-2009, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Big Papa
perhaps... you should so that way we can have a thread for them
Naw ... but until #6 and #11 complete their negotiations and sign contracts, there is not much room in criticizing Crabtree.

However, the media ought to be criticized for being arsonists by publishing something one of Crabtree's distant cousins spouts off and then createing a media firestorm for themselves.

The sports journalists are all standing around with their hands in their pants, watching their self created story like a bunch of pyromaniacs.

The only real fact about Crabtree that matters is the fact that he danced into the endzone ... keeping the Longhorns out of the National Championship game! :D

Big Papa

08-11-2009, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Naw ... but until #6 and #11 complete their negotiations and sign contracts, there is not much room in criticizing Crabtree.

However, the media ought to be criticized for being arsonists by publishing something one of Crabtree's distant cousins spouts off and then createing a media firestorm for themselves.

The sports journalists are all standing around with their hands in their pants, watching their self created story like a bunch of pyromaniacs.

The only real fact about Crabtree that matters is the fact that he danced into the endzone ... keeping the Longhorns out of the National Championship game! :D

i guess it was good while it lasted

SintonFan

08-12-2009, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
How many of you have ever negotiated with a potential employer before agreeing to accept a new job? :thinking:
.
It IS tough because there is less money out there. Period.:(

Eagle 1

08-12-2009, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
It IS tough because there is less money out there. Period.:(

Wow, you think?
With democrats as the majority in the house, and one in the white house?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the subject.
Benny, you know the only reason this whole thread has evolved is because Crabtree did dance his way into the endzone that night.;)

ziggy29

08-12-2009, 08:19 AM

The only real fact about Crabtree that matters is the fact that he danced into the endzone ... keeping the Longhorns out of the National Championship game! :D [/B]
I think UT's non-conference schedule did that as much as Crabtree and Tech did...

Txbroadcaster

08-12-2009, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1

Back to the subject.
Benny, you know the only reason this whole thread has evolved is because Crabtree did dance his way into the endzone that night.;)

or maybe because Crabtree is from Texas..just throwing that out there

LH Panther Mom

08-12-2009, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
or maybe because Crabtree is from Texas..just throwing that out there
LMAO! Riiiggghhhhtttttt.

Txbroadcaster

08-12-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
LMAO! Riiiggghhhhtttttt.

Well for me personally as I stated before, I commented on this thread simply because he is from Texas..Yep he made the great catch that beat the team I root for, but I dont wish ill will or a bad pro career for him simply because he played for TTech.

And honestly if ANY I repeat ANY fan of a college team roots for pro failure on a player of a college team they dont like then that fan is immature, pathetic and sad.

Emerson1

08-12-2009, 10:50 AM

It's so funny that after a season of Tech fan making fun of aggie fan for celebrating upsetting Texas like they had just won the NC, they are now doing the exact same thing.

STANG RED

08-12-2009, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by ziggy29
I think UT's non-conference schedule did that as much as Crabtree and Tech did...

So you think Texas would have still been left out of the NC, had Crabtree not scored that last TD?:confused:

Emerson1

08-12-2009, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by STANG RED
So you think Texas would have still been left out of the NC, had Crabtree not scored that last TD?:confused:
They wouldn't have been left out had they had a harder OoC schedule. They still would have had a high chance so it's not like Tech winning put them out of the running 100%

BobcatBenny

08-12-2009, 12:15 PM

Or they wouldn't have been left out ... if the Tech game were scheduled much earlier in the season ... like this year! LOL

That is what I call, "The Just In Case" schedule adjustment. :D

Txbroadcaster

08-12-2009, 12:21 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Or they wouldn't have been left out ... if the Tech game were scheduled much earlier in the season ... like this year! LOL

That is what I call, "The Just In Case" schedule adjustment. :D [/QUOTE

LOL of course TTech has to AGREE to the time change..and I think it was ABC wanting it moved, not UT or TTech

BreckTxLonghorn

08-12-2009, 12:23 PM

Tech beating Texas did not keep the Horns out of the NC.

Tech losing by 44 to OU: that's what kept Texas out. It increased OU's human polls and decreased Texas' SoS more than OU's (since OU's only loss was to Texas, whose only loss was to a team OU beat by 44). The Tech loss hurt, but if they even would have lost to OU by a reasonable amount, say 10, the polls would not have changed as much, and pollsters could have said it was home field advantage that caused the loss.

STANG RED

08-12-2009, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Emerson1
They wouldn't have been left out had they had a harder OoC schedule. They still would have had a high chance so it's not like Tech winning put them out of the running 100%

I have to 100% disagree with that. Had Texas won that game, the schedule would have been completely immaterial. The head to head win against OU would have taken care of that.

DDBooger

08-12-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
Tech beating Texas did not keep the Horns out of the NC.

Tech losing by 44 to OU: that's what kept Texas out. It increased OU's human polls and decreased Texas' SoS more than OU's (since OU's only loss was to Texas, whose only loss was to a team OU beat by 44). The Tech loss hurt, but if they even would have lost to OU by a reasonable amount, say 10, the polls would not have changed as much, and pollsters could have said it was home field advantage that caused the loss. that's a good angle on it
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c268/FCarrejo/scoreboard_medium.jpg
Thus Tech really stuck a fork in Texas title hopes twice with this debacle

Eagle 1

08-12-2009, 12:49 PM

Well since we are completley off the subject;
I still say OU and UT should have to play each other in Austin or Norman every year.
Both teams (minus the fans) know they have a better chance of beating the other team every year at a neutral site.
UT would lose more games in Norman, just as OU would lose more games in Austin.
Its their way of getting over on the BCS.

BreckTxLonghorn

08-12-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Well since we are completley off the subject;
I still say OU and UT should have to play each other in Austin or Norman every year.
Both teams (minus the fans) know they have a better chance of beating the other team every year at a neutral site.
UT would lose more games in Norman, just as OU would lose more games in Austin.
Its their way of getting over on the BCS.

Agree to disagree here. I just don't see how switching to home & home helps either teams BCS chances consistently. Beating a ranked team on neutral ground says a lot more about them than winning a home game, and is the extra push from winning on the road worth the increased risk of the loss?

BreckTxLonghorn

08-12-2009, 01:12 PM

And to get back on the subject, I don't think people are griping about Crabtree because he's still a hold out. I think it's because not only is he holding out, but he let his manager/representative/whatever go public about him sitting out a year. Because Crabtree has not gone public rebutting that (at least from what I've seen, if I'm wrong please let me know), he has allowed that thought to spread like wildfire, and that is why people are going bonkers.

BwdLions

08-12-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Well since we are completley off the subject;
I still say OU and UT should have to play each other in Austin or Norman every year.
Both teams (minus the fans) know they have a better chance of beating the other team every year at a neutral site.
UT would lose more games in Norman, just as OU would lose more games in Austin.
Its their way of getting over on the BCS.

I don't understand with this way of thinking. First off, why should you care where the two teams play? You obviously have never been to the state fair and seen that game. It's an enviroment like none I've ever seen before.

The case you make about Texas losing more games in Norman and ou losing more games in Austin is senseless. One team loses in Dallas every year too.

How is it their way of getting anything over on the BCS? The game has been played there since 1900 (with the exception of 3 years due to a world war). :rolleyes:

JasperDog94

08-12-2009, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by BwdLions
How is it their way of getting anything over on the BCS? The game has been played there since 1900 (with the exception of 3 years due to a world war). :rolleyes: Because Nostradamus predicted the BCS hundreds of years ago. UT and OU officials knew this was coming a hundred years in advance and made the decision to have the game at a neutral site "to avoid suspicion". Gosh...don't you know anything?;) :D :D

BobcatBenny

08-12-2009, 02:49 PM

Just checked Twitter and Crabtree appears to be holding out until just before the first regular season game.

If true ... seems like the smart thing to do.

STANG RED

08-12-2009, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Just checked Twitter and Crabtree appears to be holding out until just before the first regular season game.

If true ... seems like the smart thing to do.

If he pulls a hamstring or turns an ankle, or any freakish injury, it sure wont look very smart then. I'm assuming of course, he's not just setting around eating twinkies during this hold out.

Txbroadcaster

08-12-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Just checked Twitter and Crabtree appears to be holding out until just before the first regular season game.

If true ... seems like the smart thing to do.

I am sorry but how is that smart? If he was a 5 year vet and already knew the playbook and had worked with a QB for the last few years, then yes it would be smart

But a rookie WR almost ALWAYS struggles no matter what, and now he would be coming into the team right before season starts.

If he does that, he will basically be a non-factor for this year or at least most of the year.

Eagle 1

08-12-2009, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by BwdLions
I don't understand with this way of thinking. First off, why should you care where the two teams play? You obviously have never been to the state fair and seen that game. It's an enviroment like none I've ever seen before.

The case you make about Texas losing more games in Norman and ou losing more games in Austin is senseless. One team loses in Dallas every year too.

How is it their way of getting anything over on the BCS? The game has been played there since 1900 (with the exception of 3 years due to a world war). :rolleyes:

Like I said, "minus the fans".
If I'm not mistaken OU is number 1 in home games since Stoops took over, (54-2) and UT is not far behind them since Brown took over.
The best offense is a good defense. Therefore if you never have to play at the other teams turf, you have just increased your odds.
Understand now?
I'm sure both programs have figured that out.;)

BobcatBenny

08-12-2009, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
... But a rookie WR almost ALWAYS struggles no matter what, ...
You answered your own question right there ... or at least part of it.

Txbroadcaster

08-12-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Like I said, "minus the fans".
If I'm not mistaken OU is number 1 in home games since Stoops took over, (54-2) and UT is not far behind them since Brown took over.
The best offense is a good defense. Therefore if you never have to play at the other teams turf, you have just increased your odds.
Understand now?
I'm sure both programs have figured that out.;)

So by your reasoning..Lets say the home and home series would give the home team a 70% chance of winning

So you think coaches would rather take a chance year to year with far less lowers % of neutral EVERY year instead of flipping every year into what you say would be an almost guaranteed win every other year.

Sorry I dont think that at all. The State Fair game is if all things equal a 50/50 crap shoot..and the fact it is nuetral has helped the underdog FAR more than it helps the favorite.

BreckTxLonghorn

08-12-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Therefore if you never have to play at the other teams turf, you have just increased your odds.

Yes, every other year. But every other year you miss out on a chance to play on your own turf, decreasing your odds.

JasperDog94

08-12-2009, 03:41 PM

Neutral field means the best team normally wins.

Eagle 1

08-12-2009, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster

Sorry I dont think that at all. The State Fair game is if all things equal a 50/50 crap shoot..and the fact it is nuetral has helped the underdog FAR more than it helps the favorite.

50/50 EVERY year is better than a 70/30 every other year.
The teams home records prove that.

Big Papa

08-12-2009, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
50/50 EVERY year is better than a 70/30 every other year.
The teams home records prove that.

so..
home: 70/30
away: 30/70

2 year total: 50/50

not that big of a difference except with a nuetral site you NEVER get home field advantage

Eagle 1

08-12-2009, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Big Papa

not that big of a difference except with a nuetral site you NEVER get home field advantage

Nor does the other team.

SintonFan

08-12-2009, 10:19 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I find it hard to respect a guy that is gonna make million$ irregardless, and not be there for his new job and team from day one. Character counts.
I also can't stand the "Fruity Whiners"...
so there.:doh:

BreckTxLonghorn

08-12-2009, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Nor does the other team.

So I think I'm confusing myself.

How, again, does going to a home & home help a team's BCS chances consistently.

Eagle 1

08-13-2009, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
So I think I'm confusing myself.

How, again, does going to a home & home help a team's BCS chances consistently.

Let me see if I can simplfy with one question.
UT comes in highly ranked this year with hopes of a national championship. They have one of the best qb/receiver combinations in college football. On the defense they have their young defensive secondary coming back with a year of experience. Tech, the only team that beat them last year is in a rebuilding year and will play them in Austin, so there is not much of a threat there. Everything is looking promising for UT this season.
Now my question.

Would you rather play OU in Dallas or Norman?

The answer is obvious, and for the right reason.
NOT having to play OU in Norman is one less hurdle in UT's quest for another national championship.
The roles can be reversed if OU were in high expectations this year as UT is.
And that my friends is how UT/OU are increasing their odds in the BCS system.
:thinking:

BreckTxLonghorn

08-13-2009, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Let me see if I can simplfy with one question.
UT comes in highly ranked this year with hopes of a national championship. They have one of the best qb/receiver combinations in college football. On the defense they have their young defensive secondary coming back with a year of experience. Tech, the only team that beat them last year is in a rebuilding year and will play them in Austin, so there is not much of a threat there. Everything is looking promising for UT this season.
Now my question.

Would you rather play OU in Dallas or Norman?

The answer is obvious, and for the right reason.
NOT having to play OU in Norman is one less hurdle in UT's quest for another national championship.
The roles can be reversed if OU were in high expectations this year as UT is.
And that my friends is how UT/OU are increasing their odds in the BCS system.
:thinking:

Let me simplify my rebuttal to you in one question.

OU has the same high expectations. If not for UT, they would be #2 and have a few more first place votes. Odds are the winner will have the inside track to the national championship.

Would OU rather play in Dallas or Norman?

So, really, it doesn't help both teams. It's a luck of the draw. UT may get a slight edge this year, but at the same time, the were screwed over in the same manner last year. Had they gone to Norman and won last yearn in Norman, maybe the Tech loss would not have stung so bad overall. Maybe it still would have, no way to know.

One team is increasing their odds every other year, but every other year, it gets worse. So again, how does this help either team consistently in the BCS?

JasperDog94

08-13-2009, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn

One team is increasing their odds every other year, but every other year, it gets worse. So again, how does this help either team consistently in the BCS? Because you "consistently" have the same chance of winning every year. Your chance of winning does not fluctuate from year to year....hence consistent.

BreckTxLonghorn

08-13-2009, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Because you "consistently" have the same chance of winning every year. Your chance of winning does not fluctuate from year to year....hence consistent.

You're right, I mis-asked my question. I meant, how does a home & home series consistently better the BCS chances of what UT/OU have now? I don't think it does. It helps every other year, and hurts every other year.

jockcity33

08-13-2009, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
You're right, I mis-asked my question. I meant, how does a home & home series consistently better the BCS chances of what UT/OU have now? I don't think it does. It helps every other year, and hurts every other year.

And what does this have to do whith Crabtree signing or not?

BwdLions

08-13-2009, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I still say OU and UT should have to play each other in Austin or Norman every year.

It still amazes me that you say things like "should have to play each other in Austin or Norman." I think the real reason is, you hate it that this is one of the biggest games every year. It's on a big stage and your school isn't part of it. Get over it Eagle.

BreckTxLonghorn

08-13-2009, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by jockcity33
And what does this have to do whith Crabtree signing or not?

Thread moved in a different direction after awhile. There are still some talking points about Crabtree, but you'll have to read the thread first.

Eagle 1

08-13-2009, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by BwdLions
It still amazes me that you say things like "should have to play each other in Austin or Norman." I think the real reason is, you hate it that this is one of the biggest games every year. It's on a big stage and your school isn't part of it. Get over it Eagle.

Actually your wrong.
I think this game is a great rivalry every year, even though UT is not my favorite team.

Would OU rather play in Dallas or Norman?

Of course they would rather play in Norman.

Now did you answer my question?

BreckTxLonghorn

08-13-2009, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1

Of course they would rather play in Norman.

Now did you answer my question?

The answer is obvious, but ask them next year and the answer will change. Staying on a neutral field prevents human polling bias on the excuse of 'home field advantage.'

Plus it brings the schools constant money every year, it brings Dallas constant money, and it gives HUGE exposure to both schools and the game. That's why Tech is playing aTm in Jerryworld this year; to bring the same exposure.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Deal?

Eagle 1

08-13-2009, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
The answer is obvious, but ask them next year and the answer will change. Staying on a neutral field prevents human polling bias on the excuse of 'home field advantage.'

Plus it brings the schools constant money every year, it brings Dallas constant money, and it gives HUGE exposure to both schools and the game. That's why Tech is playing aTm in Jerryworld this year; to bring the same exposure.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Deal?

Staying on a neutral field prevents human polling bias, therefore staying on a nuetral field also helps UT/OU in increasing their odds in the BCS system.
Your words. ;)

I think its Baylor that Tech is playing in Jerryworld, but I'm not sure. I suppose both of these teams have caught onto the neutral site trend too.;)

And yes we can agree to disagree.;)

LH Panther Mom

08-13-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Well for me personally as I stated before, I commented on this thread simply because he is from Texas..Yep he made the great catch that beat the team I root for, but I dont wish ill will or a bad pro career for him simply because he played for TTech.

And honestly if ANY I repeat ANY fan of a college team roots for pro failure on a player of a college team they dont like then that fan is immature, pathetic and sad.
IMO, the thread was started because it is a former Tech player. Again, there was no big to-do on here when Benson sat out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he from Texas as well? And I wasn't necessarily speaking of your motives for posting, rather for the reason for all the drama.

Who cares if he's holding out? It happens every since year!

Big Papa

08-13-2009, 07:43 PM

Txbroadcaster

08-13-2009, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
IMO, the thread was started because it is a former Tech player. Again, there was no big to-do on here when Benson sat out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he from Texas as well? And I wasn't necessarily speaking of your motives for posting, rather for the reason for all the drama.

Who cares if he's holding out? It happens every since year!

I dont think it was as big of a deal because no one in his camp said he would just sit out the year and reenter the draft. THAT is the boiling point it is why it made headlines on all the National sports sites like espn, yahoo sports, sporting news and was on NATIONAL sports talk radio.