O'Connell's Off Topic

Perfect world huh!

The Lib side would never lose a game........

....because they don't keep score.

John Wall? You use the name of the Wizards point guard to propose a divorce?

Also an interesting concept, a football game between Cons and Libs.

I suppose. first, the question of which TV network does the game. Mr. Wall mentions NBC but since Hollywood is also given, it seems like ABC (ESPN) and CBS also goes to the Libs. Also TNT. The Cons get to keep Fox News and Fox Sports. By the divorce decree, it appears most of the games will be on lib channels.

Now, who coaches the game? Famous political Cons like Jack Kemp, Darryl Royal or Tom Osborne? Perhaps. The Libs will probably take Barry Switzer.
Now, about the players? Since it's normally assumed all Republicans are Cons and all Democrats are Libs, the figures will need to be divided along Dem/Pub lines.

If it's team made up of college players, it'll be over 90 % black. Even though 40 % of college students call themselves independent, much more black students call themselves Democrats.
Switzer's Lib team will pick mostly blacks, except for J.C. Watts, who'll play for the Cons. The Cons get to pick from the Black Republicans and the 10 % of leftover white players.

The Lib college team would likely be favored.

However, if you pick the team from pro players, the demographics change.

I can promise you I would happily give up football for a country such as the one spoke of by John Wall! I would give up a lot of things for it actually.

Really?

That's a little distorted when you read John Wall's proposal.

The libs get Hollywood, the evil guys who bring you most of TV and Big Screen violence, the same guys who control most of the video game industry. Also he gives NBC to the libs but I'm sure he means "the mainsteam media" which includes HBO (and the evil lib, Bill Maher) which shows boxing. and ABC which is Disney (who are protested every few months by the Baptists for being kind to gays) so then you add ESPN (and it's multitude of violent sports) to the mix.

Lots of both sides of the mouth things going on. Hating Hollywood but loving violence? Doesn't equate.

you really don't get it do you? The people that would want this are people that could care less about the stuff you are talking about. The important parts are what he wrote about in the first place. If you are liberal would please tell me if you would be ok with what he said because you should be from what the liberals always talk. I am a conservative and love what he has written!

I did bring ABC and HBO into the discussion. True, Mr. Wall didn't mention it but why bring up NBC without ABC, the home of Oprah. But Mr.Wall did bring up Hollywood and the word "Hollywood" is synonymous with Disney, parent of ABC and ESPN.

As far as players not having any incentive to play in the Lib Nation, I question that.
In the Con nation, the only ones making money will be the owners.
Since they'll be no collective bargaining, the players will be Wisconsined and forced to play for pittances.
More later...

No, what I said was in the imaginary world of Con Nation vs Lib Nation the players would make more money in Lib Nation.

The assumption they'll make millions in Con Nation is false, unless the players own the teams. Why do I say that? It's because the players used to play in Con Nation. Before 1970 the players had no bargaining rights. The owners held all the cards. No unions, no collective bargaining. In the ideal world of John Wall, it's every man for himself. Let's take a look at some history:

NFL Salary History

The average NFL salary is close to $2 million, but players were not always so well compensated. In fact, for much of football's history, players often worked secondary jobs in steel mills, on ranches or as salesmen to make ends meet. The only time a player takes a "second" job now is on TV in the hopes of getting a career once he has hung up his cleats. The high salaries were won through decades of battles with owners as well as due to football's ascension to the status of America's favorite sport.

Red Grange

While paid players predate the formation of the NFL in 1920 by several decades, most players were paid on a per-game basis. In 1926, Red Grange changed that when he signed a 19-game deal with the Chicago Bears that earned him roughly $100,000. That was the first large NFL contract.

During the next few decades, player salaries depended on their star quality and the teams they played for. Some teams were stingy with money, while others paid in other ways--in the late 1950s, Baltimore Colts often got free beer after games. Starting around the late 1950s, players demanded a league minimum, but that fell on deaf ears. The average player at the time was getting less than $6,000 per season.

The Players Association finally won recognition in 1970, and the owners agreed to a $9,000 minimum salary for rookies and $10,000 for veterans. The minimum salary crept higher through the 1970s.
Salary Wars

Rival leagues often helped escalate salaries. In the 1960s, it was the AFL, followed by the WFL in the 1970s and the USFL in the 1980s. Salaries jumped due to bidding, including the famous John Brodie case where he was offered close to $750,000 to go to the AFL. He had been making $35,000 in the NFL.

The NFL strikes in 1982 and 1987 led to an explosion in salaries because the players won the rights to get more team revenues as well as the ability to bargain collectively. That helped average salaries go from $198,000 in 1986 to almost $800,000 by the start of the 1993 season.

So you see, Sooner in TN, the players might be more inclined to play in Lib Nation, where they can bargain collectively, won''t be frozen out by the owners, etc.

It's an interesting conundrum.

Zeeb,

The one year Red Grange experiment was a total exception. Guys were making under $ 3000 per year to play in his day.
The NFL players continued to make $ 5000 to 9000 average through the 50s & 60s.
Not until collective bargaining took place, plus competition from another league did FB players make appreciably more than average workers.

That was my point. A divorce between the good from cons and the good from libs won't work. Especially, when it comes to sports.
Well, I take that back. It won't work for team sports but it will for individual sports, somewhat.
All the pro golfers, pro tennis players, pro bowlers and rodeo pros will live in Con country.
Those are totally merit sports where the pay is prize money only.
However, to do endorsements or be in TV ads they'd have to make a trip to Lib country.
I'm sure something can be worked out.
I'm not sure where Tiger Woods would live.

Con country would have all the gospel and country music.
Lib country would have rock n' roll, jazz, r & b and comedy (except for Dennis Miller)

I guess that's equitable.