The NFL & Tanking ….

I always chuckle a little bit when I see the words "independent counsel appointed by the NFL." No favoritism there is there (rolling my eyes)?

They sure don't want the facts of discovery part of the record, do they? Gee! I wonder why? They could exonerate them (chuckling to myself).
 
TW said:
I always chuckle a little bit when I see the words "independent counsel appointed by the NFL." No favoritism there is there (rolling my eyes)?

They sure don't want the facts of discovery part of the record, do they? Gee! I wonder why? They could exonerate them (chuckling to myself).
Click to expand...
Exactly and Jackson can’t admit it unless he gets full immunity from the Feds.
 
TW said:
I always chuckle a little bit when I see the words "independent counsel appointed by the NFL." No favoritism there is there (rolling my eyes)?

They sure don't want the facts of discovery part of the record, do they? Gee! I wonder why? They could exonerate them (chuckling to myself).
Click to expand...
well, the article sure isn't written from an unbiased point of view either. Not saying he's wrong, but the writer obviously is anti-NFL.
 
I always have a issue with tanking. I can't see players going out there to lose games saying hey lets play bad so they can draft our replacements. At best you can do is put the least talented team together that try as hard as they will on the field just can't compete against the more talneted teams.
 
HowardK4 said:
well, the article sure isn't written from an unbiased point of view either. Not saying he's wrong, but the writer obviously is anti-NFL.
Click to expand...
I would probably say anti owner but I get your point
 
FlaPack said:
I would probably say anti owner but I get your point
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand a) how the owners could influence the team to "tank", and b) why they would make out the Head coach as a "dupe". Did the coach actually "tank" the team?
That all said, I could take the approach that the head coach is paid to do what his boss tells him to. The question is whether that's what he did?
 
Last edited:
HowardK4 said:
I guess I don't understand a) how the owners could influence the team to "tank", and b) why they would make out the Head coach as a "dupe". Did the coach actually "tank" the team?
That all said, I could take the approach that the head coach is paid to do what his boss tells him to. The question is whether that's what he did?
Click to expand...
If the contract had “incentives”. This from the article …
“If I got that sent to me, the first thing I’d think was ‘Holy s---, this is, like, a tank bonus,’” one veteran coaching agent says.
And this…
The salary cap clauses called for the Browns to “rank in the bottom quarter of cash spend” in the plan’s first year and “carry over at least 15% of league cap” into the following year, referring to the fact that teams can carry unused cap space from one season to the following year. In the following years, the salary cap incentives shifted: In the second year, the carryover number went to 12.5% (it disappeared in years three and four).

Remember each team gets about $400m from the league from shared revenue to cover cap stuff and some things so if you limit spend you basically bank cash
 
Browns did not tank crappy coaching crappy talent Jackson is a joke looking for money.
 
GBP4EVER said:
Browns did not tank crappy coaching crappy talent Jackson is a joke looking for money.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? Clearly his contract had inventive not to be competitive.

“If I got that sent to me, the first thing I’d think was ‘Holy s---, this is, like, a tank bonus,’” one veteran coaching agent says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top