CBA -- What exactly happens.

I'll be the first to admit I'm completely ignorant as to what happens if the CBA is(nt) signed. I'd like some explanation to what exactly happens if it is signed and if it isn't. Thanks!

i do not think anyone knows for certain right now. it is all speculation. inthe end, the nfl has too much to lose by not coming to an agreement, but the biggest schism is internal with the richer teams (houston, dallas, wash, new england, philly) not wanting to share the excess profits with teams not having those extra revenue streams

2006 becomes really tight with a modest cap increase,then 2007,the uncapped era begins.gene upshaw has made it clear that if the players reach 2007 uncapped,the salary cap as we know it is over.there are 7 teams holding up the c.b.a.with dallas,washington and philly being 3 of them.these 7 teams are grossing the most money among all n.f.l. teams and dont think its fair to have to share all revenues evenly amongst their peers

I don't have a clue what it all means, either. One thing I don't want to see though, is another strike.

That's what killed the NHL, and it took Major League Baseball quite awhile to recover from their strike as well. Some say that Mark MacGuire and Sammy Sosa's single season home-run record breaking race is what saved baseball.

I don't have a clue what it all means, either. One thing I don't want to see though, is another strike.

That's what killed the NHL, and it took Major League Baseball quite awhile to recover from their strike as well. Some say that Mark MacGuire and Sammy Sosa's single season home-run record breaking race is what saved baseball.


Actually, the NHL is doing QUITE nicley compared to the seasons before the strike. Attendance is up, the TV deal is dead which is a killer. Dont know if you're a hockey fan or not, but the way the game is played under the "new rules", I think its actually quite good and I was a really "Fringe" fan before the strike, and I've probably sat down and actually watched more hockey games this year than I have in my life combined.. Just my opinion though.

Actually, the NHL is doing QUITE nicley compared to the seasons before the strike. Attendance is up, the TV deal is dead which is a killer. Dont know if you're a hockey fan or not, but the way the game is played under the "new rules", I think its actually quite good and I was a really "Fringe" fan before the strike, and I've probably sat down and actually watched more hockey games this year than I have in my life combined.. Just my opinion though.

For the record, no, I'm not a hockey fan. Football is the ONLY sport I watch on television. And I don't go to sporting events, either.

I've heard from 'sports fans' in general who have said that hockey over the past several years is losing ground as America's 4th major sport. While apparently the rule changes have helped hockey regain some momentum, I'd say it's still well behind the NFL, college football, college basketball, the NBA, Major League Baseball, and NASCAR.

i do not think anyone knows for certain right now. it is all speculation. inthe end, the nfl has too much to lose by not coming to an agreement, but the biggest schism is internal with the richer teams (houston, dallas, wash, new england, philly) not wanting to share the excess profits with teams not having those extra revenue streams
Interesting. According to Gene Upshaw, the Redskins aren't a big part of the problem.
Upshaw placed blame for the lack of progress in both sets of deliberations on a group of owners of wealthy teams (he mentioned that the Washington Redskins' Daniel Snyder was an exception) who don't want to spend enough of the money they're generating on their players, in the union's view. "When you are trying to change the mindset of owners who don't want to share -- not only with the players, but with each other -- you have a problem," Upshaw said.

For the record, no, I'm not a hockey fan. Football is the ONLY sport I watch on television. And I don't go to sporting events, either.

I've heard from 'sports fans' in general who have said that hockey over the past several years is losing ground as America's 4th major sport. While apparently the rule changes have helped hockey regain some momentum, I'd say it's still well behind the NFL, college football, college basketball, the NBA, Major League Baseball, and NASCAR.

Oh yes, you're right. Its actually already way out of the #4 sport. I'd put Golf, College/Football&Basketball, NBA, and NFL, Nascar in front of it. I was just saying htat its actually doing better.

However, if you can belive it, the NFL is soon going to be taken over as the #1 sport by....NASCAR! IF you can belive that. Nascar is currently the #2 behind the NFL and gaining ground rapidly.

Oh yes, you're right. Its actually already way out of the #4 sport. I'd put Golf, College/Football&Basketball, NBA, and NFL, Nascar in front of it. I was just saying htat its actually doing better.

However, if you can belive it, the NFL is soon going to be taken over as the #1 sport by....NASCAR! IF you can belive that. Nascar is currently the #2 behind the NFL and gaining ground rapidly.

NASCAR is NOT a sport...unless you count competitions like chess and bowling as "sports".

The real problem with revenue sharing at this point is what exactly constitutes revenue? Should that include parking fees? Concessions? Local radio revenues? The other teams in the league want a broader interpretation because they argue that "large market" teams have an advantage with their larger fan bases contributing to more "local" revenues. The NFLPA and smaller market owners want those extra dollars counted toward revenues and ultimately, salary caps.

And as for hockey...here is a secret: it's actually more exciting to watch live than football. GO CAPS!

I can't see how anyone can put NASCAR before hockey.

NFL, NBA, Hockey, Soccer (world cup moves right behind NFL), College Sports, Curling, Womens Sports, Womens college sports, Baseball, Nascar.