POSTED 7:45 p.m. EST; LAST UPDATED 8:31 p.m. EST, March 3, 2006

 

VINCE TACKLES WONDERLIC ISSUE

 

Nearly a week after notching, as we've heard, a seven and a 16 in two tries at the Wonderlic test, ESPN reports that Texas quarterback Vince Young describes the reports as "disrespectful."

 

"It hurts a little bit," Young said of the reports, "and I think it's very disrespectful.  But it's cool, it's cool.  I know what I can do, and I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.

 

"A rumor is a rumor to me, it's just like high school, they say you kissed some girl, but you really didn't, so that's how I feel about it."

 

But in this case, Vince kissed the girl.  The question is whether is was a peck on the cheek or whether they played lip lacrosse.  

 

Young took the test.  Twice.  The scores are what they are. 

 

It was leaked to NFL personnel at the combine that he got a six.  Then it was reported (by his own agent) that he took the test again the next day and got a 16.  We've heard most recently that the first test was re-scored, and that he actually got a seven.

 

The more troubling issue, to us, are reports that his agent, Major Adams, did nothing to prepare Young for the Wonderlic.

 

"People are going to try to bring him down between the Rose Bowl and the draft day," Adams said on Friday, according to ESPN.  "They will try to take shots at him, and he hasn't done anything wrong, so we just take it with a grain of salt."

 

But if Adams hadn't taken with a grain of salt the Wonderlic itself, Vince might not be having to try to explain away the reports of his low scores.  

 

TEARS OF JOY IN CAROLINA

 

One of the things we're hearing in the aftermath of the first wave of cap cuts is that some of the players in Carolina are happy to see defensive tackle Brentson Buckner go.

 

Though always good for a compelling quote, a lot of his teammates didn't like him.

 

Buckner had toyed with the possibility of retiring, but had decided to play another year, at least.  If he's going to do so, he'll need to find another team.

 

WAYNE'S DEAL TRACKS 30 PERCENT RULE

 

We can barely keep up with the news of the past week or so, and we frankly don't know whether anyone else has reported the full contract numbers for Colts receiver Reggie Wayne.

 

Regardless, here they are.  And they provide a good example of how the 30 percent rule is factoring into the negotiation of contracts in the last capped year of the CBA.

 

The signing bonus, as reported elsewhere, was $12.5 million.  Initial reports pegged it at $13.5 million.

 

But signing bonus doesn't count for the purposes of determining the application of the 30 percent rule.  The key number is his 2006 salary of $2.6 million.  This means that the deal cannot increase in 2007 or beyond by more than $780,000 in any one year.

 

In 2007, Wayne's base salary moves to $3 million and he gets a roster bonus of $380,000, putting him at total pay of $3.38 million, which represents a $780,000 increase over his 2006 pay.

 

In 2008, his salary goes to $3.5 million and he receives a roster bonus of $660,000.  This puts him at $4.16 million, for a $780,000 increase over his 2007 pay.

 

Ditto for 2009, when his base salary is $4.94 million, exactly $780,000 more than his 2008 pay.

 

The deal concludes with salaries of $5.47 million in 2010 and $5.95 million in 2011.  Under the 30 percent rule, the contract could have promised a max of $5.72 million in 2010 and $6.5 million in 2011.

 

POSTED 5:18 p.m. EST, March 3, 2006

 

NEW DEAL FOR DROUGHNS

 

One of the few teams with plenty of cap money in 2006 has spent some of it before the start of free agency.

 

A league source tells us that the Browns have reached an agreement with tailback Reuben Droughns on a three-year extension worth $12 million in new money.

 

Droughns was scheduled to make $1.15 million in base salary in 2006, the final year of his contract.

 

In doing the deal, Droughns opted for certainty over the possibility to hit the market in the uncapped year, assuming no extension to the CBA.

 

But his decision might be a reflection that players are beginning to realize that the uncapped year won't be the bonanza that many believed it would be.  Sure, there will be no salary cap -- but there also will be no salary floor, either.  As a results, some teams might decide to spend less than what would have been required instead of more than what would have been permitted.  In the end, the total money spent on players in 2007 without a cap could be less than what the teams would spend under a system involving a maximum and a mandatory minimum.

 

POSTED 4:07 p.m. EST; UPDATED 5:08 p.m. EST, March 3, 2006

 

"CASH OVER CAP" A NEW TWIST IN CBA TALKS

 

A league source tells us that the NFL is asking the NFLPA to agree to a firm limit on "cash over cap" as part of the new CBA.

 

The term "cash over cap" refers to total player payments in a given year that exceed the salary cap for that year.  Through devices like signing bonus prorations and incentives, teams have at times paid to players more actual dollars than the cap limit for that year, while at the same time staying under the cap.

 

The NFL now wants to rein in that practice, limiting the total cash payments in a given year to a set percentage above the salary cap for a given year.

 

In our view, this looks more like an effort to address one of the concerns raised by low-revenue teams regarding the extent to which the big-money teams can possibly disrupt competitive balance.  Owners such as Dan Snyder of the Redskins can pour cash into players' pockets, spending dollars well in excess of the cap limit but staying under the cap for that year via the various available accounting devices.

 

We first heard the general concerns regarding the concept of "cash over cap" from Chris Mortensen of ESPN, who mentioned it on ESPN Radio this morning.

 

EXTENSION DUE TO SYSTEM CRASH?

 

Although we've heard speculation that the primary purpose of the 72-hour extension of the start of the league year should be regarded as a sign that the league and the union will get a deal done on a new CBA, one league insider has shared with us an interesting theory on why the NFL pulled the plug.

 

"The system was crashing," said the source.  "What do you do when there's a run on the bank?  You close the bank."

 

In other words, the league office and the NFLPA were being flooded on Thursday with questions from teams and agents, respectively, who were trying to work out restructured deals in order to legitimately reduce salaries in light of the quirky rules of the final capped year.

 

As each minute passed toward the 10:00 p.m. EST deadline on Thursday for cutting players, a sense of panic was talking hold.

 

The source believes that, in some cities, owners finally got a splash of cold water in their faces when presented with the names of the guys who'd have to go in order to get on the right side of the $94.53 million spending limit.

 

But even though the reprieve might have been driven by a system overload, the thinking is that the experience possibly has given both sides a glimpse of the chaos that will unfold if the league year starts without a new CBA. 

 

THE PROBLEM WITH CHAD'S HAIR CUT

 

We're not talking about his real hair cut, which has more problems than we can adequately address in this space.  We're instead talking about the hair cut that the team wants him to take on his 2006 compensation package.

 

Scheduled to earn $9 million in 2006, the Jets reportedly want Chad to reduce his pay all the way down to $1 million as he tries to prove that he can get through a game or two without losing any appendages.

 

The problem, however, is the 30 percent rule.  If the Jets cut his salary to $1 million for 2006, the most he can earn under his contract in 2007 is $1.3 million.  And the most he can make in 2008 is $1.6 million.

 

Sure, the Jets could pull a wink-nod with Pennington and cut him in 2007 and re-sign him the next day for huge money.  But although other teams have tried similar maneuvers without scrutiny in the past (most recently, the Bears cut John St. Clair from a minimum-salary deal that could not be redone until the start of the 2006 league year and then re-signed him to a three-year deal the next day), it's likely that the league would take a closer look at such an outcome involving a high-profile player in a high-profile town featuring an aggressive local media. 

 

POSTED 12:47 p.m. EST, March 3, 2006

 

GANG OF NINE MORE LIKE ELEVEN OR TWELVE

 

As the NFL attempts to work out a new labor contract, we're hearing that there are as many as 12 teams opposed to an expansion of revenue sharing.

 

Previously, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said that nine teams are against the idea of an increase in the money that the 32 franchises currently divide.  We've recently identified five teams as the drivers of the bus in this regard.

 

But when it's time to count votes on any firm proposal to expand revenue sharing, we're told that either 11 or 12 are poised to say no way, Jose'.  

 

Only nine votes are needed to block any effort to push through a change, since 24 votes are necessary to impose new rules.

 

We're also told that the teams aligned against expanded revenue sharing have differing motivations.  Some of them (such as the Giants, Jets, and 49ers) are concerned that expanded revenue sharing will make it harder to pay for a new stadium.  Others are inclined to share revenues with teams that genuinely need help, and that are willing to try to grow revenues aggressively moving forward.  

 

And others just don't want to share their money.  Period.

 

BREAKING DOWN THE REVENUE DEBATE

 

Some of the teams that want expanded revenue sharing are framing the issue as one of "cost transfer."  They argue that the high revenues earned by some teams are driving up the player costs by expanding the pot of money that will be used to determine the team-by-team salary cap.

 

Because the discussion centers on revenues instead of profits, it's far easier in our view for teams raking in less total money to cry about the disparity.  But the simple truth is that the teams making more money usually have greater costs, too -- often as a result of their efforts to maximize their own revenue.

 

We've heard that, for example, while the Bengals are one of the teams complaining about the disparity in revenues, records produced in conjunction with the now-dismissed lawsuit filed against the team by Hamilton County, Ohio revealed that the Bengals are the most profitable franchise in the entire league.

 

The concern, then, is that those profits will be partially consumed by a salary cap number that is inflated by revenues generated by other teams.  But many of those "richer" teams also have other costs that eat into their own profit margins.  For example, the Bengals play in a free, publicly-funded stadium.  They have huge profits on lower revenue because they don't have the same costs that many of the other teams face.

 

Countering the attempt at increased revenue sharing is the notion among some that the teams that haven't been able to capitalize on the unprecedented strength of the NFL brand should either get off their butts and do so -- or sell the franchise to someone who will.

 

As any team will explain when cutting a veteran player or firing a coach, football is a business.  The problem, as we see it, is that some of these owners aren't applying that principle to themselves.

 

From what we can gather, some of the teams making the most money are indeed willing to help out the teams who aren't, if the owners of those teams are in turn willing to attempt to generate more revenues of their own.  The thinking is that, if teams not realizing high revenues are doing little or nothing to help themselves, why should the more successful franchises subsidize them?

 

We sort of hate to say it, but we agree.  Some of the teams that aren't earning less money might have valid excuses for their predicament, and thus might be entitled to a bigger piece of the total revenue pie.  But if there's not firm evidence that the team is trying to come up with ways to earn more money, then the team shouldn't benefit from the labor, ingenuity, and financial risk of others.

 

Here's our suggestion (and then we'll shut up about it, for now) -- why not require any team that wants to increase its share of the revenue to:  (1) demonstrate a quantitative need for it; and (2) commit to working with a league-level department aimed specifically at helping the teams identify new revenue streams and enhance existing ones?

 

Without both objective proof of a cash crunch and subjective proof of a willingness to do something about it, no team should be entitled to another penny of the 80 percent of revenues that already are shared. 

 

POSTED 9:18 a.m. EST; UPDATED 9:45 a.m. EST, March 3, 2006

 

VINCE'S "REAL" SCORE ON FIRST WONDERLIC

 

A league source tells us that, indeed, Texas quarterback Vince Young's Saturday Wonderlic was re-scored due to a grading error.

 

And the "real" score was higher than the six that spread through the scouting combine like a flash fire in a balsa wood factory.

 

But before Vince or agent Major Adams or Longhorns coach Mack Brown uncork the bubbly, the "real" score doesn't quite grant Young unfettered access to the next annual meeting of Mensa.

 

After further review, he got a seven.

 

We'd previously questioned the reasoning behind declaring the Saturday report erroneous due to a scoring error, and then giving him the test again on Sunday.  Common sense suggests that, if everything is on the up-and-up at the combine, they merely would re-score the first test.

 

Now, it all makes sense.

 

Published reports indicate that Young had received no preparation for the Wonderlic, and that he had no idea he'd be expected to take it at the combine.  We reported on Thursday that Adams had been offered sample copies of the test in order to get Vince ready, but that Adams brushed off the possibility of allowing Vince to go to school on a test that might be a good indicator of whether he ever actually went to school.

 

VINCE GOT A DO-OVER, LITERALLY

 

Here's the last thing we'll say on the Vince Young Wonderlic fiasco . . . at least until we pick up some more information about it.

 

A league source tells us that Young's do-over actually was a do-over.

 

In other words, he got the same version of the test on Sunday that he had taken on Saturday.

 

There are multiple versions of the Wonderlic.  We've heard the NFL uses five or six; we've seen in print somewhere that there are as many as 18.

 

But Vince somehow pulled the same version on Sunday that he'd seen on Saturday.

 

Look, we're not in the business of sticking our fingers square in the eye of the NFL.  We love pro football, and we've been loyal followers of the NFL for decades.  So since that whole "if you express legitimate dissent then you hate America" thing has not yet migrated to pro sports, we feel free to reiterate that, if Young indeed got to take the same version of the Wonderlic on Sunday that he'd seen on Saturday, then this whole thing stinks to the highest levels of heaven.

 

In our opinion, there's ample proof here of a clumsy cover up that had more to do with mollifying Mack Brown and less to do with preserving the draft standing of Young.  And the reason for it, in our opinion, is to help the major colleges continue to push through the Dexter Manleys of the world, who somehow can be on track to graduate from a university without being able to read or to write.

 

The sad truth is that college football isn't about the college, but about the football.  These institutions make millions off of the toil and risks and the sometimes pretty faces of a bunch of guys who get pennies on the dollar in comparison to the revenue they generate.

 

Yeah, they get a free education.  But maybe 10 percent of them ever even would have wanted that education.  

 

And what is education without accountability?  As we've all heard over the years, student-athletes get plenty of "special treatment" in order to stay north of a 2.0 (or whatever the minimum GPA is).  

 

So the schools have little reason to change the guys who don't, never did, and never will want to learn.  They need to enable them in order to ensure that they will be eligible.

 

Part of the enabling includes having coaches who will scream and shout whenever there's objective evidence, such as Young's initial Wonderlic result, which might fuel the perception that many of these guys aren't going to class, aren't studying, and aren't learning.     

 

BIRK BODY SLAMS GENE

 

Vikings center Matt Birk, has taken aim squarely at NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw.

 

Birk was candid in his comments with The Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding the union and Upshaw's leadership of it in conjunction with the ongoing CBA negotiations.

 

"Don't put this in the paper ... no, wait, go ahead and put it in," Birk said. "Gene Upshaw is a piece of [insert colorful language here]."

 

And Birk isn't just some garden-variety pissed-off lineman spewing venom.  Birk's pedigree gives him plenty of credibility.  The dude went to Harvard, and he didn't get a six or a seven or a 16 on his Wonderlic.  

 

He's smart, he's perceptive, and he's very dangerous to guys who hope to manipulate others through emotion.

 

As to the status of the on-again, off-again labor talks, Birk said:  "It's a joke, it really is.  Everyone is making money.  A lot of money.  You think anyone wants to hear about the money problems of the NFL owners or players?  It's bad pub for the league.  It's bad for all of us."

 

Birk told us a few weeks back that the union has left the players "[p]retty much in the dark" regarding the status of the talks.  "One thing about the union, in my opinion, they're always watching out for the union," he told us.

 

Per Friday's story in The Star Tribune, Birk was at one point a player representative to the union, but he quit due to what he called "propaganda and poor leadership."