Let's get Ted in uniform...

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Celeste:
  well, I know Rhett would agree with you on that...he says it all the time...
 

He probably says that because NASCAR has the worst payout formula of all sports.  You can lose the race and still make more than the winner because NASCAR provides owners incentives to keep the big names in the race.
 
 That theory won't work in any other sport and I don't think it works in NASCAR either.
 
 Sports is just like any other job - perform or you get fired.  The real problem is in guaranteed contracts, not athletes failing to perform.

[Celeste]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something.  

I'm surprised by this logic.  It's the best way to ruin a team sport.  Every man for himself on the ice to earn his keep - now who's going to pass and make $50 for an assist when they can make $100 for a goal?
 
 The back-up net-minder makes $3m for winning a championship - the same as the starting netminder who posted 3 shutouts?  That's even less fair than the current system. [/b]

well, sonick's comment needs clarification, then...he said every athlete is paid a "certain" amount...not that they are all paid the "same" amount...

[mankie]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something.  

I'm surprised by this logic.  It's the best way to ruin a team sport.  Every man for himself on the ice to earn his keep - now who's going to pass and make $50 for an assist when they can make $100 for a goal?
 
 The back-up net-minder makes $3m for winning a championship - the same as the starting netminder who posted 3 shutouts?  That's even less fair than the current system. [/b]

That's not what I meant smackie...I still say there should be individual contracts, but each contract should be 'perfomance based' as a team. If the team is failing miserable like the Caps are, then each player gets the minimum compensation based on his individual contract. Then the greater success the team has the higher up the pay-scale each player gets based on his contract. I think that would be great for sport because if a player is in a slump his team mates would have a personal interest in helping him out because their income is dependant on it.

[Yank]

Anyone see John Kerry in the hockey uniform?  Very presidental, indeed!  You know the man has never played hockey in his life because he still has all his teeth.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by mankie:
  That's not what I meant smackie...I still say there should be individual contracts, but each contract should be 'perfomance based' as a team. If the team is failing miserable like the Caps are, then each player gets the minimum compensation based on his individual contract. Then the greater success the team has the higher up the pay-scale each player gets based on his contract. I think that would be great for sport because if a player is in a slump his team mates would have a personal interest in helping him out because their income is dependant on it.

This from a footie fan?  Probably the most mismatched payscale sport in the world?
 
 Two words for you:  Players Associations.
 
 Like em or hate em, they were set-up to protect the players interests.  The truth is nearly all contracts have individual bonuses in them.  Very few "team bonus" based contracts would get players association approval.  One exception would be footie, but it's not the players contract that is effected, it's the transfer price.  Beckham's deal, for example, would not be an apporoved trade in any American Sport, because of the higher transfer fee should Real go further in the champions league.  Then again, the athletes in US pro sports aren't chattel the way they are in Footie.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Celeste:
  well, sonick's comment needs clarification, then...he said every athlete is paid a "certain" amount...not that they are all paid the "same" amount...

I am totally aware that i am not the first person who thought of this theory, and i am sure it wont work, but it would solve the problem that i personally cant stand.
 
  You wouldnt get paid for a goal or an assist like that. You would get paid, incentives. for winning.  Making the "team" more important.  
 
   Perhaps, the same amount is not fesible, but if the pay range was drastically dropped (cut everyones salary in half, or make a $50 million salary cap) then make the rest incentives.
 
   Basically, i have not the time or the energy to figure out the holes in the theory, just a speculation, and i think it would at least make a player more driven to win.

[thirsty moore]

According to a select few on this board, that just means that he's American.
 
 

Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
  Anyone see John Kerry in the hockey uniform?  Very presidental, indeed!  You know the man has never played hockey in his life because he still has all his teeth.

[mankie]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

[/b]

Beckham's deal, for example, would not be an apporoved trade in any American Sport, because of the higher transfer fee should Real go further in the champions league.   [/QB]

If a trade can be performance based then why can't the player's contract?
 
 I know I'm going to get hammered for this comment but what the hell....I think top flight footie players are much more mature than top flight American athletes, for the most part anyway. For example, Nicky Butt.....poor guy is asking to leave the greatest footie team in the world so he can get playing time, which will no doubt, mean a smaller salary at his new team. I can't see too many runny-catchy, hockey, hitty-runny, bouncey-nettie players doing that, they'd just sit on the bench counting their money rather than take less money to play for a lower team. I also don't blame the American athletes 100% for their attitude, because they don't want for anything when they show talent at a young age, so grow up spoiled little brats.

[sonickteam2]

wby would you take less money to play on a sucky team?  
 
 i am not sure even I get that!!!
 
 i would take less money to play on a better team or more money to play on a shitty one.
 
 no one wants to be poor and lose!!!
 
  - but two points here.
 
  1. Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya both took tremendous salary hits just to play on Colorado this year to try and win the cup (which they will).
 
  2. a VERY small portion of NHL players are "american athletes" and an even smaller portion are the ones that are making multi-million dollar contracts.  Most are Canadian/Swedish/Finnish or Russian.  esp the big money/holdout jerkoffs.  

[vansmack]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
  You wouldnt get paid for a goal or an assist like that. You would get paid, incentives. for winning.  Making the "team" more important.  
 
   

So Buckner's error costs everybody on the team their winning bonus, and this is supposed to help team chemistry and make everybody help everybody out and play better?  
 
 You guys are nuts.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by mankie:
 
 I know I'm going to get hammered for this comment but what the hell....I think top flight footie players are much more mature than top flight American athletes, for the most part anyway. For example, Nicky Butt.....poor guy is asking to leave the greatest footie team in the world so he can get playing time, which will no doubt, mean a smaller salary at his new team. I can't see too many runny-catchy, hockey, hitty-runny, bouncey-nettie players doing that, they'd just sit on the bench counting their money rather than take less money to play for a lower team. I also don't blame the American athletes 100% for their attitude, because they don't want for anything when they show talent at a young age, so grow up spoiled little brats.

Mankie, it will surprise you that I will be the one to hammer you the hardest.
 
 Who said this?  "He has that American thing: the ability to focus intensely; a will to train hard and be the best.  That's missing over here."
 
 Or this:  "They want to be number 1.  They want to be the best.  That's a pretty good way to look at life.  They have a certain selflessness that's missing among European players, who need to be eccentric and flambouyant."

[mankie]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  wby would you take less money to play on a sucky team?  
 
 i am not sure even I get that!!!
 
 

Because Nicky Butt is a true professional and wants to play the game not warm the bench, so he's willing to take a pay cut to get first team playing time elsewhere. He also plays for England and sitting on the bench at Old Trafford is doing his England career no good either.
 
 Having said all that I really can't see United letting him go, if they do then Fergie has completely lost his marbles, Becks and now Butt???

[mankie]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
  You wouldnt get paid for a goal or an assist like that. You would get paid, incentives. for winning.  Making the "team" more important.  
 
   

So Buckner's error costs everybody on the team their winning bonus, and this is supposed to help team chemistry and make everybody help everybody out and play better?  
 
 You guys are nuts. [/b]

This Buckner character, whoever he is...if he knew his team mates income was dependant on him, maybe he would've practiced more, trained harder and not fucked up.    It's called "teamwork"!

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

But the goal of boxing is to score the most punches. The goal of hockey is to score the most goals. Fighting is a necessity for boxing, it's just a stupid, ugly, non-neccessary sideshow for hockey.
 
    As far as NASCAR goes, there haven't been fisticuffs thrown between two drivers since the late 70's, whereas a fight in hockey is as standard as a mullet and missing teeth.
 
    And yes, there is some nudging that goes on in NASCAR. But it's typically limited to shorter, slower tracks where a crash would unlikely cause injury to a driver. And the nudging is typically minor enough to throw off the opponents car just enough to allow a pass, without causing him to lose control of the car.
 
 
 

Originally posted by mankie:
   

Originally posted by Mr. Unctuous:
  I make my case on the fact that fighting is an accepted part of hockey. Hell, they even have a penalty for it.
 
    In other more civiled sports, if someone gets into a fight, he gets suspended and fined thousands of dollars. In hockey he gets a five minute penalty, and cheers from the meatheads in the crowd.
 
    The fighting makes hockey more like a second cousin to pro wrestling than any other sport.

There's no penalty for fighting in boxing.
 
 Seriously Rhett, you should drop it because you're making yourself look like a complete moron, even by your standards. [/b]

[ggw]

Hot tempers, 1995: Two separate incidents spiced this season.
 
     Bill Ingle, the crew chief for Ricky Rudd at the time, punched Ted Musgrave as Musgrave sat in his car after finishing second in the spring Martinsville race. Ingle was upset that Musgrave spun Rudd earlier in the race. Ingle hit Musgrave on the left cheek and bloodied the driver's face. NASCAR fined Ingle $250.
 
     Later that year, Michael Waltrip punched Lake Speed as Speed sat in his car.
 
     Waltrip was racing Speed for position when Speed blocked him and Waltrip hit the wall. After the race, Waltrip drove past Speed and cut him off on pit road. Waltrip got out, undid Speed's window net and punched Speed twice. Thing is, Speed still had his helmet on. NASCAR fined Waltrip $10,000.
 
     Stewart's costly encounter, 2002: Tony Stewart's altercation with a photographer after last year's Brickyard 400 doesn't have the appeal of some of the sport's fights, but it remains memorable.
 
     Stewart, upset by fading late and finishing 12th at a race he so desperately wanted to win, hit a photographer as he walked out of the garage. Stewart's sponsor fined him $50,000. NASCAR fined Stewart $10,000 and placed him on probation.
 
 
 Recent cases of bad behavior by NASCAR competitors:
 
  Martinsville, Va., April 13, 2002: NASCAR officials call Kevin Harvick into the pits for rough driving during a Craftsman Truck Series race. After arguing with officials, Harvick is "parked" (suspended) for the following day's Winston Cup race.
 
  Indianapolis, Aug. 4, 2002: Jimmy Spencer knocks Kurt Busch into the wall, and Tony Stewart shoves a photographer in the garage area. Stewart is fined $10,000 by NASCAR and $50,000 by sponsor The Home Depot.
 
  Brooklyn, Mich., Aug. 17, 2003: Spencer punches Busch in the face after an on-track run-in. Spencer is suspended for one race and fined $25,000. Evidence surfaces showing Busch provoked Spencer.
 
  Bristol, Tenn., Aug. 23, 2003: Busch bumps Tennessee native Sterling Marlin's car, wins the race and is booed.
 
  Richmond, Va., Sept. 6, 2003: Harvick and his crew confront Ricky Rudd after Rudd spins out Harvick in the closing laps of the race. Two crew members are suspended for one race, and NASCAR hands out $62,500 in fines.