Questions about uncapped NFL season answered...

[duckmeat]

Know this is a long read, but it answers alot of the questions I had. IIRC I've seen people confused about what this would mean on here. So here it is.

BTW, I'm an ESPN Insider(where this came from) so if yall ever want anything posted on here from it just shoot me a pm or ask me on here and I'll post it.

---------------------------------------
The squeeze is on

By Seth Wickersham

That was fun, wasn't it? There was the September rise and December collapse of the Broncos, and the November collapse and January rise of the Jets. Peyton Manning won his fourth MVP award, Chris Johnson ran for 2,000 yards, Bill Belichick made the mother of all fourth-down calls. We watched Kurt Warner for the last time and Brett Favre for another last time. We loved the Who Deys and Who Dats.

We just hope you cherished every last moment, because the fun won't last. Are you ready for some sloppy football in 2010? And a draft where nobody wants to pick? And a bunch of angry players embroiled in nasty contract disputes? How about a work stoppage in 2011?



As you've no doubt heard, the NFL and the players union are embroiled in a labor dispute. At the heart of the conflict is how to split a revenue pie of about $8.5 billion. The owners want a bigger piece; the players want to keep the slice they've got. If an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached by midnight on March 5 -- and nobody, not even commissioner Roger Goodell, is holding out hope -- the league will play the 2010 season under the Final League Year rules, otherwise known as the uncapped year. And that's just the beginning of the madness. Because, as labor disputes go, this one is a reverse of the baseball, basketball and hockey wars we've witnessed over the past 15 years: The union wants to keep the salary cap, while the owners want to scrap it. "Sounds crazy," says former Packers exec Andrew Brandt. "But that's where we're at."

Truth is, NFL owners were never fans of the current CBA, which was signed in 2006. The way they see it, they caved in the 11th hour of negotiations by giving players a 59.5% share of the league's football revenues pool. (In the previous deal, signed in 2002, the players received a larger cut of a smaller pool.) Why did the owners blink? Well, they figured that the money they conceded to the players would be offset by additional revenue streams such as luxury boxes and higher ticket prices. Hey, it was 2006, after all; optimism was currency. But four years and one global economic meltdown later, the owners' 40.4% split -- which is used to pay player bonuses, coaches, executives, scouts and staff, along with other operational costs -- is no longer enough to fund competitive teams and produce a fair profit.



Or so they say. Because owners refuse to show the union their books, it's impossible to know who's making what. Most NFL insiders believe what Forbes recently reported: that on average teams are comfortably profitable. They also know that every franchise is more valuable than when it was bought or started, and that owners benefit from all kinds of tax breaks (for example, new owners can write off player salaries among other assets). But with league-wide attendance down 2% last year, and with 13 more blackouts than in 2008 (22 versus nine), owners can at least credibly claim that their earnings are down. So the suits have proposed three solutions to improve their bottom lines: 1) a rookie wage scale that would lower the monster salaries awarded to high draft picks; 2) adding one or two more regular-season games; and 3) an 18% cut to the players' share of the revenue pool. For the players, that last part simply translates to an 18% cut in their salaries. The owners counter that those extra games, among other factors, will grow the size of the revenue pool, making up for the players' decreased share. In other words, Yeah it's a smaller percentage slice ... but the pie is bigger! And union chief DeMaurice Smith isn't buying it. As he says, "How do I go in front of my players with information from Forbes that teams average a $31 million profit and justify an 18% pay cut?"
He won't even try. That means a deal probably won't get done by the March 5 deadline, triggering an uncapped year. Now, we know what you're fearing: The NFL without a salary cap (now $127 million) will become like major league baseball, with big spenders like the Cowboys' Jerry Jones, the Redskins' Dan Snyder and the Jets' Woody Johnson trying to buy a Super Bowl ring, in Yankee-esque fashion. But that's unlikely to happen. Outside of the Redskins, no team has been in a mood to splurge for a while; Washington's $100 million deal with defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth was the only blockbuster contract last off-season. Says one club executive, "I'd be shocked if an owner tries to just buy an entire lineup."



Here's what you (or at least some of you) should really fear: the loss of the salary floor, which is currently $111 million. Without it, small-market teams such as the Jaguars and Bucs will be free to spend as little as they want, resulting in payrolls closer to $90 million. That's enough money to rebuild with young, cheap talent, but if that talent doesn't develop, those teams will be on the fast track to becoming the Royals of the NFL, an uncompetitive farm system for the richer clubs.



Of course, if you're a fan of a team that has smartly managed the cap (Eagles, 49ers, Vikings), the uncapped year should bother you too. Reason: It essentially serves as a get-out-of-jail card for teams that spent money without conscience. For example, the Redskins owe Haynesworth a cap-busting $29 million in 2013. Under the 2006 CBA, if they decided that Haynesworth wasn't worth the dough they'd have to renegotiate his deal and swallow a "dead money" cap hit. But in an uncapped year, the Skins can restructure with a lower future cap number, penalty-free. Likewise, teams will be free to cut overpriced, underachieving players, since there's no cap for their salaries to count against. This is good news if you're a Cowboys or Pats fan infuriated by disappointing imports like safety Ken Hamlin or linebacker Adalius Thomas; they'll likely be gone. But we have bad news for LaDainian Tomlinson fans who want him to retire as a Charger. Forget it. He's a goner. Says former Raiders executive Michael Lombardi, "The uncapped year will define the replaceable parts from the irreplaceable parts."



That's not all the uncapped year will do. Take free agency. Since 1993, a player has needed four years of accrued service to become an unrestricted free agent (UFA). But without a cap, the requirement shifts to six years, meaning that 212 players in their prime this off-season will most likely be restricted free agents (RFA), virtually unable to hit the open market. "An uncapped year," says one team exec, "is the end of free agency as we know it."



Why? For starters, all teams have the right of first refusal with their RFAs and receive high draft picks as compensation if those players depart. It's a steep price for acquiring talent, which is why no RFAs moved last off-season. And so instead of signing long-term deals loaded with guaranteed money, this year's RFAs -- led by Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman, Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall and Titans defensive tackle Tony Brown -- will be greeted with one-year "tenders" (a nonnegotiable offer), ranging from $1.1 million to $3 million. "I had always looked forward to free agency, knowing that I could do some things for my family," says Jets receiver Brad Smith, a likely RFA. "Now, I just hope both sides reach a deal."



Unrestricted free agents are likely to take a hit this off-season too. The uncapped rules limit them to raises totaling no more than 30% of their 2009 salaries. Also, the maximum number of contractual bonuses that allow UFAs to increase their pay -- for statistical milestones, say, or Pro Bowl appearances -- have been cut from eight to three. That hurts.

And the outlook is just as grim for young stars like Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis and Niners linebacker Patrick Willis. This would normally be the stage of their careers when they could expect to sign a long-term deal. Not anymore. GMs can't draw up new contracts without a CBA to base it on. "How do you know the landscape," says a team exec, "when there is no landscape?"



We know, we know: Cue the violins. Rich players have it sooooo hard. But if you'd like your team to get better this off-season, those violins should actually be playing for you. With free agency no longer a panacea, the have-nots had better draft really well, or else last year's holes will become this year's gaping wounds. Meanwhile, this season's "final eight" teams -- Colts, Jets, Chargers, Ravens, Saints, Vikings, Cardinals, Cowboys -- face tortuous restrictions on how many players they can sign, and how much they can sign them for. For instance, they can't add new players; they can replace only ones they lose, at approximately the same salary. So for Ravens fans who hoped that their team would buy new receivers for QB Joe Flacco, prepare for another season of slogging out games.



It only gets uglier from here. In an uncapped year, the lone recourse for ticked-off restricted free agents is to not sign their tenders and to sit out as long as possible. They won't be fined for holding out, because they won't have a contract to hold out from. "Too many guys have earned the opportunity to be free agents and are angry that the rules have changed," says Falcons guard Tyson Clabo, a likely RFA. "So there's going to be a lot of buzz about the guys who won't be in camp."



Same goes for rookies. It's a given that the next CBA will include a rookie wage scale, a longtime goal of both owners and veteran players. The NFL wants to cap the salaries of high picks because they've been spiraling out of control; veterans want them capped because they're jealous of rich rookies, causing locker room friction. (Of course, it can be argued that vets benefit from overpriced rooks because the massive contracts drive up everyone's price tags.) And any rookie scale -- which might include three-year, $12 million-or-so deals for the high picks -- creates a loser's curse for teams holding top-seven slots in this year's draft. After all, no GM wants to be the last one to dish out escalated rookie salaries. So, come April, expect teams with high picks to desperately attempt to trade down. But no matter who drafts stars like Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh or Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen, they'll surely offer depressed contracts, leading to nasty negotiations that might prompt rookies to sit out until the midseason reporting deadline. "If the teams drafting in the top seven don't want to pay," says one agent, "then there will be seven holdouts."

This is not good news for those of us who enjoy quality football. With top vets and rookies sitting on the sidelines, inferior players will be forced into duty. And yet, when all is said and done, the actual on-field results, as far as the winners and losers go, will probably end up looking awfully familiar. That's because the teams best equipped to weather an uncapped year are the same ones that compete every year, because they evaluate talent the best. Yes, we're talking about the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens and Eagles. "Just because there's an uncapped year," says Lombardi, "doesn't mean that bad teams will start making good decisions."



So to summarize: nasty holdouts, lousy play, less parity. Disturbed? Well, now you know how the players feel. In fact, many of them are fuming at the prospects of a wage-killing uncapped year. "Our union leadership hasn't been effective at all, in terms of getting a new deal done," Clabo says. But the fact is, Smith doesn't have a lot of negotiating power. If he caves to the owners' 18% pay reduction demand, his players might revolt. If he stands firm, then the players suffer the consequences of the uncapped year. League insiders say the union's best hope for a favorable new CBA is that expensive players perform well during the uncapped year, and that a high-payroll team, like the Cowboys or Redskins, wins the Super Bowl. That way, Smith can show that money equals wins, which equals more money. The union's worst fear? A low-payroll team like the Chargers (yes, they'll be among the teams cutting payroll this off-season) wins the Lombardi Trophy, proving that players aren't underpaid. As Brandt puts it, "Can you compete with $80 million against $120 million? The union doesn't want to find out."



The twisted thing about this dispute is that the uncapped-year language was inserted into the 2006 CBA as an incentive for the owners to reach a deal so as to avoid a spending spree; instead, it has turned into a blunt weapon in their hands. Beyond the benefits of losing the salary floor and nearly 200 unrestricted free agents, teams won't have to fund numerous player benefit programs, like 401(k) and severance pay, saving an average of $10 million per club. Plus, whether there are games or not, DirecTV will pay the league $1 billion in 2011, to be distributed among all clubs. In fact, one league insider says, "Owners might make more money in 2011 without games than with them."



With owners wielding so much leverage, many GMs and team execs -- none of whom will speak on the record, for fear of being fined by the league -- are resigned to the fact that a lockout is coming in March 2011. Players would be banned from team facilities, meaning no minicamps or organized activities, while owners would enjoy their uncapped-year savings and TV millions.



Jeff Pash, the league's general counsel, says he has "no idea" if it'll come to that. "It's perfectly clear that there's going to be an agreement. It's just a question of when." And sooner or later, all work stoppages end. So in the event of a lockout, expect the league to restart negotiations in July 2011, right before training camp. A rookie scale, an expanded regular season and a salary cap similar to the current one are certain to be included. Owners likely will come off the 18% pay reduction demand, but not by much. Players, realizing that they're just getting older and that their window to make millions is closing, will probably blink. And the 2011 season will start in September. "Players just want to play," says the agent who earlier warned of holdouts. "Most don't have enough money to stay home."



Privately, the league will say it won. Publicly, both sides will say it was a win for the greater good of the game. And maybe, just maybe, after another fun, surprising season, we'll forget that a labor problem ever existed.

[Biggin]

this is from the latest ESPN the Mag, with Shaun White on the cover.

Read the story last night, and people have a tragic misconception of what an uncapped year would mean.
It DOES NOT mean teams will go out and spend millions upon millions, its the exact opposite. Teams will spend LESS, because the cap had a salary bottom, the least you could spend, whereas now, teams can spend as little as they want, meaning some teams could turn into the NFL Royals and Pirates.

It hurts Restricted Free Agents, Unrestricted Free Agents, Rookies, etc..

It hurts EVERYONE but the owners, including the fans.

So US, the fans, need to revolt and try and pressure the owners into dropping their outrageous demans, an 18% increase in their piece of the pie, which is ABSURD!.

[duckmeat]

They should drop all their demands but a rookie salary wage. That would benefit the game, and I think they could actually get that deal through. They would save money from this.

18 percent is ridiculous, especially when they are already profiting.

What they face is a lockout, which would deal a really heavy blow to the game (see the NHL and MLB which IMO never fully recovered). Plus all these other changes. The NFL is about to change drastically, and not for the better.

[Biggin]

A lockout could easily happen in 11 if nothing is done now. I dont believe it will happen, the players will eventually have to cave to make money, but they still are in the right here.

The owners will make billions WITHOUT a season in 2011, how ridiculous is that?

I agree with the rookie sliding scale tho, it needs to be done in all sports ASAP, it makes the vets resent rookies, and teams have huge cap hits for highly drafted players, even if they are a bust, i.e. Oakland and J. Russell

[red66]

So I guess Shane Falco should start getting into game shape?

[R13]

The only problem with him is that he's not even a has-been, he's a never-was.

[Biggin]

haha, only if Gene Hackman has been studying under Bill Belicheck or John Madden

[Rocky]

i would love to be able to play again. i wonder if i walked on and said i would play for about 50k if they would put me on special teams? : D

[imported_blue52]

If you decide to go Im in...Im not even as old as you haha

[sup-rbeast]

I don't have a problem with an uncapped season...salaries need to be brought down across the board. And, IMO, the owners should make most of the money, they are the ones that make and have made the NFL into what it is cuz they are the ones that fund it. I can remember pre-free agency football, and all in all, it's not a bad thing. If the players don't like it, there's always the CFL.