View Single Post
11-23-2012, 02:59 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
There are players like D. Boyle who see both sides as being intransigent.

For ages, agents have always espoused the principal that the "star" players drag the salaries of the rest of the group up. My take is that this is no longer the case in a linked, capped system. However, there have been quotes from agents since the 05 CBA that continue to espouse this line.

There can be some group think in the process where a minority can control the majority by marginalizing opposing opinion, even though the opposing opinion is that held by the majority (or plurality). Even though there have been conference calls by Fehr, it is entirely possible that a militant minority can control opposing opinion by effectively shouting down the opposition and the minority doesn't have to be controlled or directed by Fehr himself. And, Fehr's opinion is on the more militant side which would add weight to that minority.

Long ago, I was a volunteer subject in a replication of the Milgram experiment. I was not familiar with the experiment or its purpose before participating. The information presented to behave in accordance with the majority was presented as expert and the consequences of not going along was presented as not in my self-interest. I didn't go along and went back for their results to find that I was in a minority of 2% that didn't follow the "company" line.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote