Jerry Jones nominated for HOF

Diehardblues said:
Jerrys involvement in the NFL and the Cowboys has lessened my interest in the league .

There are no choices if you choose to play professional sports in this country .

I'm sorry you don't like the term but if fits. And why players have used it.

Would it make you feel better if they made less than you?
Click to expand...

Ironic choice of words here.

The athletes are making a choice to play the sport that they compete in. No one is forcing them to play football, basketball, etc. Just like any other profession, there are conditions of employment. In sports, the condition is that all entry level players are subject to a draft for their services. If the person is opposed to that, then they have three options - they accept the condition, and play in the city that selects them, they decline this condition, and do not play the sport, or they can band with other like minded athletes, and create their own league that would be free of that horrible condition. The beauty of this country is that they have the freedom to pursue any of those three options.

All employees in any walk of life are subject to work conditions and hiring conditions. It's a fact of life. To call the entry conditions for sports employment, "slavery", ignorantly trivializes what slavery actually meant to people that lived through it. Players have rights, as bargained for by their union. Players get paid, as per their contracts. Slaves got none of these options.

The term doesn't fit - not even close.

And, TBH, I couldn't care less how much a player gets paid - if someone is willing to pay them a dollar amount, then that is what they are worth. What a player makes has zero impact on my life - I make what I have been able to negotiate and earn. It's all on me to make that happen.
 
Plankton said:

Ironic choice of words here.

The athletes are making a choice to play the sport that they compete in. No one is forcing them to play football, basketball, etc. Just like any other profession, there are conditions of employment. In sports, the condition is that all entry level players are subject to a draft for their services. If the person is opposed to that, then they have three options - they accept the condition, and play in the city that selects them, they decline this condition, and do not play the sport, or they can band with other like minded athletes, and create their own league that would be free of that horrible condition. The beauty of this country is that they have the freedom to pursue any of those three options.

All employees in any walk of life are subject to work conditions and hiring conditions. It's a fact of life. To call the entry conditions for sports employment, "slavery", ignorantly trivializes what slavery actually meant to people that lived through it. Players have rights, as bargained for by their union. Players get paid, as per their contracts. Slaves got none of these options.

The term doesn't fit - not even close.

And, TBH, I couldn't care less how much a player gets paid - if someone is willing to pay them a dollar amount, then that is what they are worth. What a player makes has zero impact on my life - I make what I have been able to negotiate and earn. It's all on me to make that happen.
Click to expand...
You mentioned the 6 figure salaries so it appeared an issue with you.

My uncle played for a measly 10,000 a year. Given a1,000 tryout bonus. It was only a part time job for a few months a year in which he needed a regular job throughout the year. He was actually a walk on FA that was able to sign with whomever was interested in him much like today. Lilly, a team mate and lifelong friend only made about 400,000 for his entire career.

Fans obviously take issue with fans salary but honor owners who make billions. Go figure.

Best analysis Ive seen is many fans feel they could throw , catch or kick a ball but don't have the knowledge or financial backing to buy a team.

Fortunately for the players after their Rookie contracts are no longer held hostage by their drafted team.
 
UTmodisette said:
Then Dallas wouldn't have had the dynasty. Jimmy Johnson isn't being hired by any Dallas owner but Jerry.
Click to expand...

Jimmy was on Tex's short list to replace Tom Landry if need be, although he never would have accepted.

Jimmy was being courtedI by a half dozen teams and he wanted the team that offered him the most power,the only reason he chose Dallas.
 
[Jimmy QUOTE="plasticman, post: 6756636, member: 34988"]Jimmy was on Tex's short list to replace Tom Landry if need be, although he never would have accepted.

Jimmy was being courtedI by a half dozen teams and he wanted the team that offered him the most power,the only reason he chose Dallas.[/QUOTE]
Jimmy was the best and he built the Cowboys into a great team !!!!! When Jimmy took over the Cowboys were at the bottom of the league !!!!
 
plasticman said:
Jimmy was on Tex's short list to replace Tom Landry if need be, although he never would have accepted.

Jimmy was being courtedI by a half dozen teams and he wanted the team that offered him the most power,the only reason he chose Dallas.
Click to expand...

Based on what I know about Jimmy and jerry... It wasn't the ONLY reason.
 
big dog cowboy said:
Strange fact: Jimmy only won 44 regular season games as HC of the Dallas Cowboys. Not many.
Click to expand...
More facts:
Jimmy only won one game his first season and 7 in his second but won 36 in his last 3 years with the Cowboys not including a 7-1 record in playoffs in 3 years and back to back Super Bowl championships. 43 total wins in 3 years. Not many LOL.
 
Jerry the owner, hired the worst GM in the past generation and has mired this once great franchise in mediocrity - his pathetic record with a gifted franchise QB defines him as a failure, not a HOF candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 9,107 (members: 84, guests: 9,023)
Robots: 1,935

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
475,026
Messages
14,577,115
Members
24,214
Latest member
whoami2066
Back
Top