As we continue to process mentally (it takes a while) the consequences of Tuesday’s 32-0 decision by the NFL owners to terminate the Collective Bargaining Agreement two years early, we continue to realize that, to use technical terms, some crazy sh-t will happen.

Here’s one of the goofiest things that could happen — a player could go from being a franchise player in 2009 to a restricted free agent in 2010.

For players who were drafted in 2005 and who signed four-year contracts (or for those who signed three-year deals and are restricted free agents in 2008), their ability to become unrestricted free agents in 2009 could be limited by the application of the franchise tag.

If that happens, and if no long-term deal is reached, the rule requiring six years of accrued service for players to become unrestricted free agents in the uncapped year will make those franchise players restricted free agents in 2010.

For most of the restricted free agency tender levels, the impact would be significant but not huge, given the rule ensuring that a restricted free agent will earn 110 percent of the player’s salary from the prior season.  So if a guy gets $10 million as a franchise player in 2009, his one-year RFA tender for all levels that entail draft-pick compensation would be $11 million.  Under the franchise tag, his one-year tender would be $12 million.

But the real area of potential savings for a team arises with respect to the lowest RFA tender, which gives the franchise only a right of first refusal.  Per the CBA, the 110-percent rule doesn’t apply to the low tender, which means that the team could essentially get rights equivalent to the transition tag for $1.176 million — which is $10.8 million less than what the transition tag would otherwise cost, given that the 120-percent rule applies to transition and franchise tenders.

Of course, a right of first refusal generally is meaningless.  In an uncapped year, however, it’s a small price to pay for a chance at determining whether the player’s value to the team justifies matching the best offer made in a climate without a cap.

But, as usual, there’s a potential glitch in the CBA.  Even though the relevant terms of Article XIX expressly mention the 110-percent rule as to every RFA tender level above the right of first refusal, Article XIX, Section 2(f) seems to apply the 110-percent rule to every level.  The procedure seems to be that the club would offer the lowest tender, and then the onus would be on the player (or, more specifically, his agent) to affirmatively request a contract worth 110 percent of his 2009 salary.  If the player (or, more specifically, his agent) doesn’t make the request, the higher contract apparently wouldn’t be available.

In the case of a player who is franchised in 2009, the agent had better not screw that one up — unless he has $10.8 million in liability insurance.