POSTED 7:58 p.m. EST; LAST UPDATED 9:15 p.m. EST, February 28, 2006

 

NFL NEEDS TO FIND SOME TURKISH MISSILES

 

Vince Young might not understand that headline.  Hell, we figure a lot of our readers don't get it, either.  After all, when a league insider expressed the sentiment to us a couple of weeks ago, we initially were scratching our heads (and our butts, but for entirely different reasons).

 

It's a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis from 1962.  In order to resolve the impasse that nearly blew up the world (which definitely would have caused an NFL work stoppage), the United States ultimately offered to pull some of its nuked-up own bottle rockets out of Turkey.

 

The key was that the presence of those Turkish missile meant a helluvalot more to the Ruskies than the absence of them meant to the U.S.

 

And that's what the folks who get paid lots of money to make the NFL machine run need to be looking for here -- a way for the big-money teams to make a concession that doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to the small-money teams who are clamoring for expanded revenue sharing.

 

Before we go any farther, we need to be clear.  We don't buy for a second the spin cycle that currently is trying to blame the cratering of the CBA talks on the NFLPA.  Supposedly, the league is offering to fund the salary cap with 56.2 percent of the total football revenue, and the union wants the number to be 60 percent.  Assuming annual NFL revenues of $6 billion (they were $5.8 billion in 2005), each percentage point is worth $60 million.  Spread over 32 teams, however, one point translates to less than $2 million in additional cap room per franchise.

 

In other words, the league and the union should be able to reach an agreement on the percentage.  Indeed, it's our understand that, privately, they have.

 

Now, back to the search for the Turkish missiles.  The teams earning less unshared revenue want to expand revenue sharing because their profit margins will artificially be consumed by a cap number based on the money earned by other franchises.  The teams earning money want the low-money teams to shut up and try to earn more money.

 

Here's our idea.  The league and the union should permit the low-earning teams to keep 100 percent of any new local revenue streams that they develop moving forward, in order to make up for the fact that their cap number is being inflated by the teams who already are realizing a local financial bonanza.  This way:  (1) the cap will be funded by the money that already is being harvested as a result of the current business efforts of the 32 teams; (2) the big-money teams won't have to give up any of their local revenue; (3) and the low-money teams will have an even greater incentive to identify new ways to make money, since all of it will stay in the hands of ownership.

 

On the surface, it's simple.  In order to sell the thing, the league and the union will have to come up with special formulas and calculations and thresholds in order to keep the thing fair for everyone.  Each year, the situation will need to be revisited based on how much money all of the teams earned the year before.

 

Still, the numbers should be crunched based on the premise that a certain amount of money is being earned league-wide based on the present business efforts of the 32 teams.  For the teams that stand to lose the most profit via the conversion to total football revenues, rewarding them for their extra efforts takes nothing away from the big-money owners or from the union, since that money isn't part of the equation anyway.

 

The owners will meet in New York on Thursday, ostensibly to hear the Commish "explain . . . how the NFLPA is overreaching," and "[t]here will be no discussion . . . of internal revenue-sharing issues." 

 

Bulldoodie.  

 

Once the owners are in the room, it'll be time for Paul Tagliabue to preserve his legacy by twisting some atrophied arms in order to get them all to reach a deal on the revenue conundrum.

 

But to get there Tags needs to be ready to find some Turkish missiles.  Here's hoping that, whatever the final idea is, the Commish comes up with a solid plan for building a final consensus.

 

FRANKEL ACKNOWLEDGES TAMPERING BY TEAMS

 

Judd Zulgad of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Vikings might not be interested in devoting some of their $24 million cap bulge to a big-name free agent.

 

In so doing, Zulgad inadvertently unearths an admission from agent Mitch Frankel that tampering by NFL teams occurs in the days leading up to free agency.

 

As to whether the Vikings are taking a look at running back Jamal Lewis, agent Mitch Frankel says:  "They have not expressed any interest.  Usually teams in general call to say, 'We're interested and when free agency starts we'll call.'  I have to assume they are not interested at this point."

 

Holy crap.  We're not hearing anything we didn't already know, but no one has ever acknowledged so publicly -- and nonchalantly -- that teams routinely disregard the fact that players are still the exclusive property of other franchises before the official launch of free agency.

 

It's tampering, period.  And Frankel's words indicate that it happens all the time.  It's simply the way business is done in the NFL.  It happened at the combine, and it has continued all week.  Since the league typically won't investigate tampering unless a team lodges a formal complaint, it's unlikely that anything will ever be done, since every team does it.

 

Still, Zulgad's story might have been impossible for the league to ignore if he'd asked a willingly talkative Frankel the next question:

 

"If the Vikings haven't called you to express an interest in Lewis, who has?"

 

TEXANS ADMIT FAILURE ON HOLLINGS

 

Less than three years after wasting a second-round pick on running back Tony Hollings in the supplemental draft, the Houston Texans have released the former Georgia Tech tailback.

 

Hollings appeared in 14 games as a rookie in 2003, but rushed only 38 times for 102 yards.  He played in seven games in 2004 and a mere two in 2005.

 

The problem is that Hollings was eclipsed in 2003 by Domanick Davis, a fourth-round draft pick in the standard draft of that same year.  Davis became the go-to back, rushing for more than 3,000 yards in three total seasons.

 

The move is further evidence that the Texans are planning to pluck USC tailback Reggie Bush with their first-round pick in the 2006 draft.

 

Hollings was set to earn $460,000 in base salary in 2006.

 

The Texans also cut safety Marcus Coleman and quarterback Tony Banks.

 

TUESDAY NIGHT ONE-LINERS

 

The Colts have sold the naming rights to their new stadium for $120 million over 20 years.

 

The Niners have reached an agreement in principle on a multi-year deal with K Joe Nedney; due to his one-year, veteran minimum deal in 2005, the contract can't be signed until March 3.

 

With his March 20 trial date looming, Redskins S Sean Taylor has added a couple of new lawyers to his defense team.

 

The Competition Committee might tweak the rule prohibiting replay review of fumbles wiped out via a call of "down by contact."

 

Packers WR Terrence Murphy might be forced to retire due to a narrow spinal canal.

 

The Pats will save $6.8 million under the cap if they cut LB Willie McGinest before a $3.5 million roster bonus comes due in early March.

 

The Browns are trying to lock up LT L.J. Shelton.

 

Jose' Miguel Romero of The Seattle Times takes a look at the Seahawks' needs entering free agency.

 

The Ravens would clear $900,000 by releasing OT Orlando Brown and $1.3 million by cutting LB Peter Boulware.

 

Coach Chin has plunked down a nice chunk of change for a chalet near Charlotte (Raleigh actually isn't all that close to Charlotte, but we really wanted to give a proper finish to the chain of double-lettered alliteration).

 

POSTED 4:56 p.m. EST, February 28, 2006

 

OWNERS TRYING TO HAMMER OUT REVENUE SHARING

 

As NFL owners confer by massive conference call in an effort to put to rest the extended CBA with the union, we've heard that the negotiations between labor and managements are fully and finally completed -- and that the only thing is a plan by the owners regarding the potential expansion of revenue sharing. 

 

But that issue is hardly an easy one to resolve.

 

The problem is that the salary cap funding mechanism in the new agreement encompasses all football revenue, including money that is not currently shared equally among the 32 teams.  As a result, teams who earn less money will be faced with a total spending limit that is pushed higher by the revenues generated by the teams making more of the dough that isn't chopped up into 32 equal servings.

 

To help things along, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw is spewing some more rhetoric regarding the lack of a deal.

 

"We met today and there's no deal and we're deadlocked," Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen.  "We were supposed to stick around and meet tomorrow, but that's not gonna happen.  That's it.  I'm headed back to Washington."

 

Based on things we've previously heard, we agree with the assessment of others in the media that Upshaw and Commission Paul Tagliabue are and have been working together to pressure the owners into striking an accord regarding revenue sharing.  

 

But we're now beginning to hear genuine concern that the owners might not be able to reach an agreement on revenue sharing, which would crater the entire deal, usher in the final capped year, and set the stage for an uncapped season in 2007.         

 

POSTED 12:11 p.m. EST, February 28, 2006

 

JETS MISUSING FRANCHISE TAG?

 

Through their obvious efforts to trade defensive end John Abraham, the New York Jets could be in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

Article XIV, Section 8 of the CBA requires that a team using the franchise tag "must . . . have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season."

 

Thus, the team that slaps the tag on a guy like Abraham must genuinely plan to have him on the roster in 2006, and to pay him, at a minimum, the money that he's due pursuant to the tender.  

 

In other words, the Jet can't use the franchise tag solely as a device to restrict Abraham's ability to become a free agent in order to derive trade value.

 

The challenge in this regard is to read the minds of guys like Eric Mangini and Mike Tannenbaum.  Both are smart enough to say, "Yes, we have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender" if/when the bird gets sucked into the engine.

 

So the proof would come from circumstantial evidence.  In this case, it's being reported within a week after the use of the franchise designation that the team is trying to trade Abraham.  But that's hardly dispositive.  Smooth-talking lawyer types like Tannenbaum would say that the team still has a good faith intention to employ Abraham, but that the organization is merely conducting its due diligence as to the possible trade market for him.

 

Short of an admission or an intercepted phone call or an e-mail that accidentally gets sent to a recipient outside of the organization, there likely will never be a smoking gun in cases of this nature.   

 

Besides, this isn't the kind of thing the NFL typically pursues.  Other players have been traded out from under the franchise tag in the past, without a peep.

 

The apparent remedy would be for Abraham to file a grievance aimed at invalidating the tender.  But by the time the grievance would be resolved the window for getting Abraham a huge free-agent payday might close, since the really big money flows in the first two weeks.

 

Our guess is that nothing will happen, and that teams will continue to violate Article XIV, Section 8 of the CBA without consequence -- unless, of course, the new CBA places greater limitations on the ability of teams to use the tag as a tool for trading guys who otherwise would be free agents.  

 

POSTED 10:18 a.m. EST; UPDATED 11:16 a.m. EST, February 28, 2006

 

OWNERS SHOULD GET READY FOR GOLD RUSH

 

One thing that we've learned in our discussions with league insiders is that the players who aren't scheduled to become free agents in 2006 don't give two shots of peach schnapps about the problems that players hitting the market will face in the last uncapped year under the current CBA.

 

But guess what?  If/when the CBA extension gets ironed out, and the salary cap pushes from an expected $95 million to as high as $110 million for 2006, there will be plenty of guys who have one or more years left on their deals who'll be suddenly talking about how their contacts need to be adjusted to reflect their relative value in the NFL's new order.

 

It's not an issue of whether or not the player has "overperformed," a term commonly used to justify asking for more money prematurely.  It's a question of whether the player is still receiving the percentage of cap pie that his prior deal reflected.  

 

We can hear the argument now.  "Jimmy signed his contract under the assumption that the salary cap would be funded only by the Defined Gross Revenue.  If we'd known that starting in 2006 the cap would be determined by Total Football Revenue, we would have asked for more money."

 

Never mind the fact that, to borrow Ravens G.M. Ozzie Newsome's recent quote regarding linebacker Ray Lewis, the guy signed the contract that he signed.  The existence of a binding legal document has never stopped guys from bitching about their money, or the perceived lack thereof.

 

In fact, look for guys like Lewis who already are unhappy with their current deals to become even more pissed if there's a new CBA -- but they don't get some new money.

 

So, yeah, there likely will be labor peace soon, in a broad sense.  But the fact that the NFL and the union will be striking a deal doesn't mean that everyone will be happy.  In some locker rooms, the thing could cause almost as many problems as it solves.  

 

MACK SOUNDS OFF

 

Texas coach Mack Brown is pissed.  We've suspected as much for the past couple of days, based on things we were hearing out of Indy.  

 

Why is he pissed?  Because his star quarterback reportedly got only six out of 50 questions right on his first try at the Wonderlic test.

 

And, of course, that outcome isn't particularly flattering to a university that is supposed to be educating these kids -- and that is supposedly admitting only those kids who are, you know, capable of being educated.

 

"Vince [Young] is very bright," Brown said on Monday.  "I hate that people had to take a shot like that that's unfair and untrue.  Also, I probably couldn't pass that test myself if I tried.  I've read it, and it seems really stupid to me."

 

First of all, Mack, it's not a pass-fail thing.  You answer 50 questions, and you get a certain number of them right (or, in the case of North Carolina guard Willie McNeill in 2005, you don't).  There's no letter grade, and there's no formula that compares guys getting the lower scores to one or more of the various species of four-legged mammals.

 

Second, it's really stupid (in our opinion) for Brown to call the test "really stupid."  It's a basic test of intelligence.  It's a way to see how well someone's mind operates.  The specific questions focuses on different aspects of brain power, including math skills, attention to detail, logic, etc.

 

Now, there might not be a correlation between a high score on the Wonderlic and success on the football field.  But that doesn't mean the test is stupid.  And it doesn't mean that a guy who gets a 6 is football stupid, either.   

 

DECISION-MAKING IS VINCE'S BIGGER FLAW?

 

In our discussions with league insiders regarding the Vince Young Wonderlic fiasco, a common theme has emerged:

 

More troubling than the reported score of six is the fact that Young hired an agent who doesn't know what he's doing.

 

It suggests that Vince, regardless of raw brain power (or lack thereof), "doesn't get it."  

 

And this is coming from folks who firmly believe that Young is objectively smarter than his reported scores of six on Saturday and 16 on Sunday.  The problem is that he wasn't made aware of the existence of the test or of the fact that he'd be taking it by the guy who has been retained to guide him through the pre-draft process.

 

Young chose a family friend to represent him, not someone who intimately understands the ins and outs of getting a quarterback drafted at the top of round one.  It was, obviously, a bad decision.

 

Apart from book smarts, the fact that the guy who'll eventually be called upon to make good decisions on a regular basis with the football made such a bad one with his own professional interests is the true red flag here.

 

So, Vince, it's time to call an audible.  Bring in an expert.  There's several of them out there who have handled plenty quarterbacks at the top of the draft.  This year, Leigh Steinberg has Leinart and Bus Cook has Cutler; David Dunn and Tom Condon are available.  There's also Mike Sullivan, and others whose names aren't coming to mind (but who undoubtedly will refresh our memory in due source).