Giants, should be punished?

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by erickb, May 23, 2013.

  1. Idgit

    Idgit If you food, you gonna be ate. Staff Member

    46,028 Messages
    32,755 Likes Received

    BTW, good point on this being more of an adjustment to offset the previous benefit than it was a penalty. That's a more palatable way of looking at the whole thing.
  2. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    5,930 Messages
    5,457 Likes Received
    Yeah it's confusing. I was trying to find a way to word it without being absurd.

    Basically what I'm getting at is that it sucks and it doesn't make sense in a conventional sense (or even just plain common sense), but the NFL basically has enough ambiguous authority to do stuff like that because the 32 organizations have essentially signed on for that.
  3. RoyTheHammer

    RoyTheHammer Well-Known Member

    13,953 Messages
    890 Likes Received
    Its not a misconception at all.. we broke no rule. Furthermore, what the other teams did is known as collusion.. which is a serious offense. If anything, the Cowboys and Redskins were the only teams that didn't committ an offense.
  4. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,900 Messages
    13,071 Likes Received
    This is patently false. The new CBA only was effective from the day it was signed. The NFLPA filed suit because there was no retroactive agreement to a salary cap and then admitted to collusion. The NFL got away with it because the NFLPA waived their right to sue over prior collusion.

    Acting as a trust to fix labor prices absent a CBA is illegal in the US of America.

    There was no "rule." It was an arbitrary order put out by John Mara's committee and Roger Goodell after the fact.
  5. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    5,930 Messages
    5,457 Likes Received
    I rearranged the order to try to keep everything clear:

    You are technically right. There was no rule that was broken, presently or retroactively.

    But you understand why the Cowboys and Redskins were docked, right? It's not because they spent a ton of money during the 2010 season, it's was because of the effect of dumping salaries and front loading contracts in future seasons covered by the new CBA.

    If the Cowboys had've taken a veteran FA for a 25 million 1 year contract in 2010 there would have been no issue. But they didn't. They used 2010 as a way to gain leverage on future competition-- The Redskins more so than the Cowboys. are many other acts practiced by the NFL against its labor force, the players (example: the draft).

    The NFLPA filed suit because they suspected a secret salary cap of 123 million in 2010, which is probably a frivolous effort seeing how almost half of the NFL spent over 123 million that year, 11 of which spent over 130 million. (This is assuming I have relatively correct information, of course). So when did the owners ever admit to collusion? If there truly WAS collusion, couldn't Jerry and Dan just throw the other owners under the bus and win out easily?

    Overall, the Redskins and Cowboys were caught gaining an advantage and the competition committee set things straight by basically taking the advantage back. No side is innocent, and no side is guilty. DAL and WSH played the system and the competition committee did it right back-- using fire to snuff out the flame so to speak.
  6. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    5,930 Messages
    5,457 Likes Received
    To summarize/recap without forcing to read everything there ^

    1. We can all agree that both DAL and WSH gained an advantage, at least in opportunity.
    2. We can all agree that they were docked an opportunity cost as well.
    3. We can all agree that both sides took legal steps to getting their way.
    4. We SHOULD all agree that 1 and 2 cancel each other out.
    5. We SHOULD all just drop it and quit acting like victims.

Share This Page