-
-
-
2011-2012 Offseason: Mutiny On The Bounty
(System)
-
- May 1, 2012
At 10:27 PM CST
By Eric M. Scharf
-
- Fans of any professional sport that
includes a player draft always look to that event as a way to
officially start the season off right or better than the previous
one. The draft represents a chance to potentially lessen your
weaknesses and improve your strengths.
While you still must "coach what you catch" from the draft, you can
turn as many negatives into positives as your available resources
salary cap space and however many day-1 starters you can select
will allow.
Easier Said Than Done
I stated in the last edition of TTCF there must be a Mutiny on
the Bounty (system) . . . and it starts with players who are
determined to compete and win with courage rather than cowardice.
-
- This assumes that all players who enter the NFL have:
had a similar upbringing
had a similar education
- had a similar experience being
coached (from Pop Warner to professional)
had similar support from family, friends, and
acquaintances alike
had similar financial and human resources
led a similar way of life
similar personal interests and goals
similar group affiliations
similar charitable interests
similar political leanings
a similar love for the game and the fans
- a similar desire to value the
careers of their fellow union members at more than just $1,000-1,500
dollars
. . . and such an assumption could not be further from the truth.
-
- The only true given on the
list that seems to be common among all NFL players is the
fundamental way in which they have been coached from the moment they
decided they wanted to play football . . . until the day they are
signed to their first professional contract for the delivery of full-force physical
contact.
Beyond how players have been coached up and without a firm grasp and realistic (if privately held)
acknowledgement of the true origins of NFL players . . . any plan to
diffuse, dismantle, and repurpose the efforts behind a bounty system
will be easier said than done.
Know Thy Players
Fixing the bounty problem long-term if that is Goodell's true goal
involves knowing the members of the NFLPA well enough to magically
convince the majority of them to leave their seemingly boundless
personal baggage . . . at the league entrance.
Know thy players beyond their gridiron metrics . . . and more-so
than just the basic background checks teams and "NFL Security" perform now.
"Teams can just stop drafting the players that come from a bad
environment," you say?
That would be just another form of collusion from which the NFL
wants to be far, far away.
"They never seem to overcome their background even with
NFL-sponsored agents and advisors offering all sorts of careful
guidance to what they view as their long-term meal tickets," you
say?
"They continue to give the shrinking minority of well-intentioned
NFL players a bad reputation in the court of public opinion," you
say?
-
- Sure the NFL can paint the "troubled youths" of America as
unsalvageable, stop drafting them and, then, gain all sorts of new
and even more lucrative sponsorship deals than before. Renewed
corporate competition for stadium naming rights would be just the
start of a much bigger and better revenue stream . . . as long as
you have the equally-capable and extremely well-adjusted talent to
pull it off.
The sad irony is that many of the "troubled youths" who enter the
NFL . . . are, in fact, the most talented.
If you said, "No one would pay to watch a bunch of
reasonably-bright, mild-mannered, well-intentioned, somewhat
physically-limited men play professional football," you would be
half right. People might show up in the beginning out of curiosity .
. . but, then, they would find themselves yearning for the hard core
talents who have the physical latitude to play with attitude.
Stopping It Or Solving It?
Once you think you know your target audience inside and out and
you are ready to find a solution you are faced with the seemingly
ever-present challenge of rebuilding the still-tenuous trust between
players and owners.
The players involved in Gregg Williams' bounty program over the years
from Buffalo to Washington to New Orleans certainly and
knowingly followed his directives . . . unless Williams and head
coach Sean Payton were running an insidious blackmail scheme on a
much deeper level than anyone could imagine.
Should anyone be surprised by anything they hear reported about the
NFL anymore? It is only natural for the "greatest sport in the
world" to produce some of the most ridiculous stories, as well.
Some players from the outside looking in must be wondering how
the NFL allowed a coach like Williams to ply his trade in such a way
for such a long time without being caught much sooner. Players must
at this point feel like they are always waiting for the next
setup to show up like another dreaded high ankle sprain or untimely
hamstring pull.
Should anyone be surprised by anything they hear reported about the
NFL anymore? It is only natural for the "greatest sport in the
world" to produce some of the more believable stories, as well.
While privately stopping Williams years ago might have prevented
public embarrassment for the NFL and NFLPA, solving the
underlying problem did not seem to be on the agenda . . . until a
wide range of concussion-related lawsuits levied by numerous
retired players were announced. These various suits which may
have since been combined into a class action effort claim the NFL
had been withholding the truth about the real dangers of concussions
and the true effectiveness of protective equipment (provided to the
players) . . . since the day the league first opened its doors for
business in 1920 (as the "American Professional Football
Association").
Whether or not
the NFL is ultimately found liable for decades of concussions and
residual trauma sustained by more than 1,000 of their former star
and secondary players . . . the NFL certainly appears to be using
destructive player involvement in the bounty scandal to redirect this legal
headache right back at the players, for even more concussive damage.
-
-
- Should anyone be surprised by anything they hear reported about the
NFL anymore? It is only natural for the "greatest sport in the
world" to produce some of the most factual stories, as well.
The retired players may have had a legal leg to stand on with
regards to what the NFL did or did not know when determining the
quality and level of protective gear for their former employees . .
. but that legal leg was nearly lopped off when a number of past and
present Saints players were determined to be willing pawns in Gregg
Williams' belligerent bounty beat down.
Goodell and his NFL constituents are nearing the moment maybe this
week when they drop the hammer on those who chose to harm (and
in part personally fund the act of attempting to harm) their
fellow players. The NFL may certainly have more on tap by comparing
the "petty cash" payoffs with circumventing the salary cap. The NFLPA appears ready to go to battle over these
impending penalties, arguing that as in war the targeted members
of their union were only following orders like good little toy
soldiers . . . incapable of individual thought.
The NFLPA would be better off claiming the majority of their
membership are so uneducated on a great many social norms and OSHA
regulations for appropriate workplace conduct that they did not
realize they could simply say "No means NO, Coach Williams!"
Fans might actually believe that excuse . . . though the minority of
well-adjusted NFL players might struggle mightily to go along with
such a charade.
Instead, the NFLPA will claim Williams seduced his own players like
a pimp comforting his call girls on a bad night . . . telling them
"But NO always means YES with you ladies, err, men! Besides you
can use the money to make your alimony payments . . . for the
month! You can also use it to fight that DUI rap or domestic abuse
charge that has been haunting you!" What nonsensical NFL player could say no to such an amazing
gesture of goodwill?
Fans then, again might actually believe that excuse, too
though the minority of well-adjusted NFL players might actually,
finally feel the need to speak out against being labeled as
high-priced knuckle-draggers . . . simply because the majority of
their union brothers cannot seem to grow and mature away from the
gridiron.
The condemning fact (among others)
is that even though most defensive players have, indeed, been
coached to use hard-hitting, violent aggression since childhood
they have also been coached fundamentals from the old school . . .
even if they no longer think its cool. Most players have been shown
countless times by countless coaches on countless teams at
countless levels how to make a wrap up tackle, how to perform a take down
using body control and leverage . . . before ever having to use the
"kill shot," which is supposed to be a last resort. The players have
the knowledge, they choose how to apply it and for that they
have no retort. Proof of a warped reversal of that defensive
foundation to be sure is all over Goodell's report.
Nonetheless, the punishments will be parceled out, the appeals will
be heard and exhausted, the punishments will be enforced, and
professional football will go on unless you really want to find a
solution . . . rather than just stopping it and tabling another
angry food fight until the next offseason owners' meeting.
Anything
less than a long-term solution will prove temporary. The next time
players from opposing teams kneel down in a circle to hold hands and
pray after a game . . . they may just be praying the next bounty is
not on one of them (until a permanent solution is successfully
implemented).
Convenient Courage
-
- While a Mutiny on the Bounty
(system) needs to start with players who are determined to compete
and win with courage rather than cowardice that courage,
realistically, will still be one of convenience . . . or it may
cease to exist at all.
Generations of football people at every level ideally will have
to introduce coordinated change into many (but not all) aspects of
football . . . in order for the next generation of football
people to see that change as nothing more than normal.
Coaches as an important aside in elementary, middle, and high
school, as well as some colleges used to be "all for one and one for
all." Student-athletes used to have the same head coach for physical
education, track, wrestling, football, baseball, and basketball
among many exercise-inducing electives.
These combination coaches may have fed fewer football facts to
football players, but some of those players would have been actively
encouraged to combine their wrestling techniques with their approach
to tackling. Players some but not all would use body control,
leverage, and strength to (rather easily) take down an opponent . .
. without illegally holding or tripping.
A large percentage of today's football players rely heavily on a
punishing hit or woeful whiff kill-shot style. While this approach may knock out opponents, cause
a lot of excited chatter, and attract bounties like flies to fecal
matter, it does not even qualify as tackling to The Tortured Cowboys
Fan.
"ATTENTION: ALL Olympic wrestling coaches and
international Judo Grand Masters in search of a new revenue stream
should place an immediate call to your local NFL team! They need more
than a little spackle to fix their inability to tackle! They need
and want your help . . . but are too blind to yelp!"
-
-
-
-
-
- Who, indeed, would have the nerve to
abide by my aside . . . but I digress.
Such a coordinated change requires nothing less than convenient
courage to have even a prayer of getting the full attention of the
monetary majority . . . as opposed to the moral minority.
While the moral minority of players, coaches, and training staff may
be willing to "go back to formula" and potentially endure an
arduous decade or two of "reprogramming" much of how the game is
coached and played . . . the vast majority of NFL employees (from
top to bottom) want no part of such a deep-rooted retraining and
(potentially) financially taxing adjustment.
Though this type of cold-turkey
change is akin to regime change in a third world country, there is
still an understandable element of "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it."
Football like all other sports
was made.
Football unlike more than a
handful of sports was made violent.
That violence has been seemingly
enhanced every single year of the sport's existence until Roger
Goodell became NFL Commissioner back in 2006. Since that time for
better or for worse, for sincere concern over the players or legal
protection of the NFL, or for ALL OF THE ABOVE . . . he has steadily
decided enough is enough.
Goodell has decided that losing even
one superstar player to a season-or-career-ending collision of
cataclysmic proportions is losing one too many players . . .
regardless of their standing in the league. Such a loss can
(potentially) damage the performance of that player, damage fan
interest in that team, and damage fan interest in the NFL. Such an
improbable-but-not-impossible chain of events is not without dire
consequence.
Goodell in this case however, is
no different than the leader of a country . . . where that leader
objectively and subjectively adheres to available data, pursues
new research, and receives encouragement / discouragement from his
cabinet . . . or the NFL owners, the Competition Committee (upon
which some owners sit), their legal advisors, and their
wide-ranging, intensely-invested business partners.
Goodell and the Emperor (comprised
of those individuals and groups that
make up his
cabinet), together, "can rule the galaxy" . . .
organization-level
fines for allegedly circumventing the salary cap notwithstanding.
This is where the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and, coincidentally, the
completely unbiased John Mara (owner of the World Champion New York
Giants) gets
involved . . . but I digress.
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyone in the court of public
opinion or the court of law who would suggest that nothing can
stop Goodell from singularly wielding the ultimate power in the NFL
Universe is ignorant of the facts . . . or desperate to make Goodell
seem as ugly as those who got their hands caught in the Bounty Tip
Jar.
As long as those intensely-invested
partners television networks and other big-ticket buy-ins
continue their financial fight over the right to display kill-shot
might, the NFL will be strongly encouraged to just keep turning the
other black-and-blue cheek.
It takes uncommon courage to complete a short crossing route where
multiple headhunters monitor the middle like man-eating monsters.
Who knew the day would come when such uncommon courage would pale in
comparison to the concept of "convenient courage" . . . which NFL
participants can barely stomach any better than plain porridge?
So again what is the
magical solution . . . that does not look like a firing squad
execution? How do you turn this seemingly inoperable negative into a
utopian positive? You go back to the most common, genetic trait
shared among all participants but particularly the players. You
tap their collective human condition and stimulate their sometimes
insatiable desire for more of what makes the world go 'round . . .
money.
This utopian positive can be generated through one similar interest
shared by all players: the desire-or-need for more money than their
standard performance contacts allow . . . or their desire
for more money towards their special interests / charitable causes.
Compliance For The Cash
Goodell has an opportunity to flip this fault line from "Price On A
Player" to "Compliance For The Cash.
He can accomplish this using a two-part reward system that covers
the length of any given player's career . . . as some but not all
players go on to coaching or front office positions.
Part I of this system would encourage players to pool their own
monies together just like they would for a player bounty but
only to reward those players . . . who are as fantastic off the
field as they are great on the gridiron.
Part II of this system would involve an additional incentive clause
Boy Scout Clause to the standard NFL player contract . . .
which is typically (but not always) loaded with a variety of bonuses
and performance incentives. Bonuses are usually aligned with
signing, making the roster, making weight, and organized team
workouts. Performance incentives are usually aligned with all of the
game day measurables.
The Boy Scout Clause would be aptly named, because a player would
have to behave like a boy scout in order to reap the financial
rewards attached to it. This clause would be nothing like the
Loyalty Clause (Carl Pickens Clause) the Bengals Mike Brown began
including in player contracts in 2000. The Bengals Loyalty Clause
essentially prevented players from collecting bonuses if they
unreasonably disparaged the organization in public.
Whereas the standard NFL CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement)
bi-laws account for player behavior detrimental to their teams and
the league (through fines, suspensions, and loss of employment) . .
. the Boy Scout Clause would not punish a player for his mistakes.
-
-
- The Boy Scout Clause would involve a series of year-round
public-facing events (designed with input from the player, the
players agent, the players team, and the NFLs public relations
leadership) from casual to high profile . . . that if properly and
reasonably completed, would net a player an additional bonus for a
given fiscal league year.
The exact bonus dollar amount would be
proportionate-but-not-equal-to the size of a players current
performance contract payout. Nonetheless, players might earn (for
example) anywhere from $150,000 to $1,000,000 extra per year.
All the players need to do is arrive on time (with bodyguards if
necessary but without an entourage), dressed for success, smelling
like an Old Spice pitch man, showing off their pearly whites
(natural or veneers), and performing smoothly (with easy and
friendly guidance from the event coordinator). Players have always
been the true NFL public relations representatives that they rarely
admit to being . . . because it has been far easier to sit back and
stare at their bling.
Why do the Boy Scout events need to be public, you ask? The answer
is simple. If a player is caught (lying about fulfilling his Boy
Scout obligations), his effort is all for naught. If a player is
found to have skipped even one event, he will be forced to close up
his Boy Scout tent. If a player does fail to complete his Boy Scout
events, he simply forfeits the extra money that could have been . .
. without fear of reprisal.
The Boy Scout Clause as part of the NFLs Compliance For The
Cash PR Cleanup Campaign simply offers members of the NFLPA a
chance for (sometimes substantial) extra money . . . without concern
for the salary cap or the punishment flap.
Would a significant enough number of players be deeply troubled by
the public perception (brought on or reinforced by the Boy Scout
Clause) that they would do anything for (the right amount of)
money, you ask?
Society is reasonably aware of those NFL players who really
understand, respect, and uphold their standing as global PR partners
to the NFL, but perception is reality. The players are all about the
money, honey . . . when it involves breaking free of the bounty
mentality.
Why on Earth would the NFL owners
agree to invest even more money into players who they believe no,
insist already
receive quite enough of the profit pie," you ask?
If the owners knew they could grow
that pie by 30-50% (initially) receiving even more endorsement
deals on all levels, as well as a greater international following
simply by encouraging their players to behave better in public (and
carry themselves courageously on the clock, rather than
destructively) . . . the owners would absolutely jump at that offer.
The owners would have finally found
their silver bullet to beating back the NFLPA's behavior werewolf.
The money gained from all the new local, national, and international
endorsement deals would far outstrip the money spent on convincing
the players to part with their painful public patterns . . . and
become bought-off boy scouts.
-
-
-
-
-
- The NFL and NFLPA would undoubtedly
have to (begrudgingly) negotiate over how the expanded profit pie
would be shared but make no mistake each party would see
significant, even tremendous growth to their stake in the game . . .
and if they could not work it out and succeed fighting through
their natural tendencies toward greed they would have only
themselves to blame.
-
- Bottom Line: if
even one fan believes the NFL owners really enjoy seeing their
players their public representatives embarrassing themselves and
humiliating the league on what has become a weekly basis, then, that
fan must hail from a perverse alternate universe.
While the NFL owners are far from
perfect, they understand that a limited percentage of the NFLPA
membership
actually sees the clear correlation between good public standing and
an even greater revenue stream than has already been built. That
limited percentage seems in no imminent danger of growing anytime
soon, thus, bought-off behaviors using the Boy Scout Clause (or
something similar) are simply better than bludgeon-based bounties
. . . for everyone involved.
"Compliance For The Cash" may sound like an absolute pipedream, but
it may be the only way to ensure the veteran you sign or the player
you draft . . . respects his public persona as much as his
professional craft.
Will They Or Won't They?
-
- Will Goodell have a real long-term plan to
lead a more robust mutiny on future bounties in
NFL country?
Will Goodell have a real long-term
plan to positively engage the NFLPA on the deep-seeded, pre-existing issues that allowed bounty programs to take hold in the first
place or with the potential of legal action gaining traction will his efforts be more about saving face?
Will the NFLPA really develop a better way
based on a pitch to carve out more than just a niche for a new
wave of how to behave or will they, too, just want to go with the
status quo?
-
-
-
-
-
- Will the NFL owners and NFLPA really
be prepared for what (additional) dirty secrets may be exposed through
their ongoing struggle over player safety . . . or will their
collective lack of creativity just leave their efforts entirely
hosed?
Will either
entity ever really care as long as the fantastic funds keep flowing?
Will it ever really occur to them (outside of the pleading group of
retired players) that fans never enjoy seeing their gridiron heroes
not mentally knowing where they are physically going?
The NFL owners and NFLPA (and the fans)
know "who started it," but will either side be brave enough and
forward thinking enough to finish it
to the reasonable satisfaction of all involved in professional
football?
Will either side ever finally
figure out that they need not continue to collide when they can
still come together on their single-minded source of pride love of money
providing the perfect
(and mutually preferred) pathway . . . towards the progressive productivity
required to really ramp up the revenue reservoir?
We shall see. We always do.
|
