trickblue
Not Old School...Old Testament...
- Messages
- 31,439
- Reaction score
- 3,961
Link
What the NFL labor pains are all about
Randy Hill / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 1 hour ago
While most of us were being distracted by Barry Bonds' performance in Transamerica 2, the NFL was busy lurching toward the brink of disaster.
For the record, this has nothing to do with playoff officiating.
The disaster at issue has something to do with a squabble co-starring the players and owners, and a sidebar disagreement between big-revenue owners and lesser-revenue owners.
Unless you're a budding capologist, it's all very confusing. Please note that, until recently, I thought a capologist was someone with the knowledge of when to keep the bill of a cap flat, when to crease it and when to turn it backward.
In NFL terms, a capologist is someone with enough math skill to advise a team on how to field a reasonably balanced squad without violating salary-cap rules. It's a tricky business.
This tricky business has something to do with the prevailing labor discord.
At post time, league owners were huddling in Dallas. On the agenda was a vote that would reject or embrace the latest offer by the players' association; according to published reports, the players want 59.5 percent of the revenues generated by the NFL.
The owners have been in favor of coughing up something less.
While this debate rages, the aforementioned lesser-market owners want a bigger piece of the revenue-sharing pie.
This disturbance in the force sort of puzzles the majority of fans who are aware that — thanks to the late Pete Rozelle — all 32 teams have equal shares of the national TV revenue pot. Unfortunately for some, not all luxury-suite money and local radio deals are created equal.
So, those with lesser outside revenue streams would like a larger percentage of the total purse. The players believe that any reluctance to give them their 59.5 percent could be eliminated if the owner vs. owner dispute could be settled.
The stalemate is upsetting to most of us because the NFL has seemed to possess a greater deal of wisdom than its pals in Major League Baseball and the NBA.
For example, while NFL owners surrender big money for signing bonuses, almost all of their contracts are not guaranteed. If a player stinks in the second year of a multi-year deal, he's a goner. In the eyes of fans, this employment uncertainty can secure more desire in the players they pay to watch. It also allowed us to wave bye-bye to Ryan Leaf much earlier than if he'd been a basketball player.
In MLB, which features a luxury tax instead of a salary cap, one team can have a payroll of $200 million, contribute mightily to a tax pool and watch as teams refuse to invest this windfall in their on-field product.
In the NBA, guaranteed contracts can lead to Penny Hardaway — with his astonishingly lucrative and expiring deal — ranking as the most marketable commodity at the trading deadline.
Just what does the NFL's current predicament portend?
Well, if a deal is not reached, the 2006 season will be conducted with less room under the cap than needed. This means that star players may be dumped because they're unaffordable. Talented free agents should be abundant, but few teams will have the resources to hire them.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and some
other big-market owners are pitted against
some small-market owners in the
current dispute.
For a quick analogy, imagine lining up for a smorgasbord with a saucer instead of a full-sized plate.
To survive this potential cap disaster, some teams and star players already are restructuring existing contracts.
It has been reported that the Indianapolis Colts have reworked their deals with quarterback Peyton Manning and receiver Marvin Harrison.
According to insiders, Manning is attempting to help his team by agreeing to be compensated with meat.
Without this type of creative cap strategy, some teams may have security guards listed as fullbacks on the depth chart.
But things could become even more disturbing in 2007.
Without a players-owners accord, the '07 season would commence with no salary cap at all. NFL experts believe the lack of a salary limit might promote anarchy.
The major anarchists would be revenue-stream hotshots like Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and Daniel Snyder of the Washington Commanders.
It is believed that without a payroll cap, Snyder would spend enough money to hire a $5 million backup kicker, with Ray Lewis working as the captain of special teams.
But, based on his track record, Snyder may use this open market to employ guys like Lawrence Taylor and Dan Marino.
Anyway, while most observers insist that Snyder's not smart enough to buy a Super Bowl championship, the non-cap issue will be a subsequent (and alleged) lack of parity.
At present, the NFL is sort of reveling in its parity. League proponents point out that, in any given year, a recently crappy team is capable of rising to the level of Super Bowl contender.
The playing field has been leveled by regulating spending for on-field talent.
The playing field also doesn't seem to offer the same quality as before. But I may not be able to quantify that opinion.
What does seem obvious is the lack of truly superior teams. These superior teams used to provoke something that often propels great interest in a sport.
That something is hate.
Even though the Oakland Raiders still are trying to fill that role, the NFL now lacks a team you can truly despise.
Hate is compelling. Villains are necessary.
For example, the NBA seemed a lot more interesting when Kobe and Shaq were begging to be hated in L.A.
George Steinbrenner and Simon Cowell provide villain-esque intrigue for the New York Yankees and American Idol, respectively. Where would McDonald's be without the Hamburglar?
In recent years, an inability to pay for quality depth has turned most teams into mediocre interpretations of past great teams. But as the quality has spiraled down, interest has risen. A similar phenomenon has been haunting the popularity of The Sopranos.
Any conjecture may be moot if the owners and players are able to muster an accord.
Based on the caliber of its replay decisions, I'm hoping that any potential NFL contract is not subject to review.
Veteran columnist Randy Hill is a frequent contributor for FOXSports.com.
What the NFL labor pains are all about
Randy Hill / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 1 hour ago
While most of us were being distracted by Barry Bonds' performance in Transamerica 2, the NFL was busy lurching toward the brink of disaster.
For the record, this has nothing to do with playoff officiating.
The disaster at issue has something to do with a squabble co-starring the players and owners, and a sidebar disagreement between big-revenue owners and lesser-revenue owners.
Unless you're a budding capologist, it's all very confusing. Please note that, until recently, I thought a capologist was someone with the knowledge of when to keep the bill of a cap flat, when to crease it and when to turn it backward.
In NFL terms, a capologist is someone with enough math skill to advise a team on how to field a reasonably balanced squad without violating salary-cap rules. It's a tricky business.
This tricky business has something to do with the prevailing labor discord.
At post time, league owners were huddling in Dallas. On the agenda was a vote that would reject or embrace the latest offer by the players' association; according to published reports, the players want 59.5 percent of the revenues generated by the NFL.
The owners have been in favor of coughing up something less.
While this debate rages, the aforementioned lesser-market owners want a bigger piece of the revenue-sharing pie.
This disturbance in the force sort of puzzles the majority of fans who are aware that — thanks to the late Pete Rozelle — all 32 teams have equal shares of the national TV revenue pot. Unfortunately for some, not all luxury-suite money and local radio deals are created equal.
So, those with lesser outside revenue streams would like a larger percentage of the total purse. The players believe that any reluctance to give them their 59.5 percent could be eliminated if the owner vs. owner dispute could be settled.
The stalemate is upsetting to most of us because the NFL has seemed to possess a greater deal of wisdom than its pals in Major League Baseball and the NBA.
For example, while NFL owners surrender big money for signing bonuses, almost all of their contracts are not guaranteed. If a player stinks in the second year of a multi-year deal, he's a goner. In the eyes of fans, this employment uncertainty can secure more desire in the players they pay to watch. It also allowed us to wave bye-bye to Ryan Leaf much earlier than if he'd been a basketball player.
In MLB, which features a luxury tax instead of a salary cap, one team can have a payroll of $200 million, contribute mightily to a tax pool and watch as teams refuse to invest this windfall in their on-field product.
In the NBA, guaranteed contracts can lead to Penny Hardaway — with his astonishingly lucrative and expiring deal — ranking as the most marketable commodity at the trading deadline.
Just what does the NFL's current predicament portend?
Well, if a deal is not reached, the 2006 season will be conducted with less room under the cap than needed. This means that star players may be dumped because they're unaffordable. Talented free agents should be abundant, but few teams will have the resources to hire them.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and some
other big-market owners are pitted against
some small-market owners in the
current dispute.
For a quick analogy, imagine lining up for a smorgasbord with a saucer instead of a full-sized plate.
To survive this potential cap disaster, some teams and star players already are restructuring existing contracts.
It has been reported that the Indianapolis Colts have reworked their deals with quarterback Peyton Manning and receiver Marvin Harrison.
According to insiders, Manning is attempting to help his team by agreeing to be compensated with meat.
Without this type of creative cap strategy, some teams may have security guards listed as fullbacks on the depth chart.
But things could become even more disturbing in 2007.
Without a players-owners accord, the '07 season would commence with no salary cap at all. NFL experts believe the lack of a salary limit might promote anarchy.
The major anarchists would be revenue-stream hotshots like Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and Daniel Snyder of the Washington Commanders.
It is believed that without a payroll cap, Snyder would spend enough money to hire a $5 million backup kicker, with Ray Lewis working as the captain of special teams.
But, based on his track record, Snyder may use this open market to employ guys like Lawrence Taylor and Dan Marino.
Anyway, while most observers insist that Snyder's not smart enough to buy a Super Bowl championship, the non-cap issue will be a subsequent (and alleged) lack of parity.
At present, the NFL is sort of reveling in its parity. League proponents point out that, in any given year, a recently crappy team is capable of rising to the level of Super Bowl contender.
The playing field has been leveled by regulating spending for on-field talent.
The playing field also doesn't seem to offer the same quality as before. But I may not be able to quantify that opinion.
What does seem obvious is the lack of truly superior teams. These superior teams used to provoke something that often propels great interest in a sport.
That something is hate.
Even though the Oakland Raiders still are trying to fill that role, the NFL now lacks a team you can truly despise.
Hate is compelling. Villains are necessary.
For example, the NBA seemed a lot more interesting when Kobe and Shaq were begging to be hated in L.A.
George Steinbrenner and Simon Cowell provide villain-esque intrigue for the New York Yankees and American Idol, respectively. Where would McDonald's be without the Hamburglar?
In recent years, an inability to pay for quality depth has turned most teams into mediocre interpretations of past great teams. But as the quality has spiraled down, interest has risen. A similar phenomenon has been haunting the popularity of The Sopranos.
Any conjecture may be moot if the owners and players are able to muster an accord.
Based on the caliber of its replay decisions, I'm hoping that any potential NFL contract is not subject to review.
Veteran columnist Randy Hill is a frequent contributor for FOXSports.com.