Tuco

Probably the Jest. Big city and all.

Dude's going to have so many tags on his bags they'll think he's carrying a peacock.

The game is already at 4:00. And we're talking about flexing into prime time at 8:30.

Here's a pretty good look at it- http://sports.morganwick.com/category/football/nfl/snf-flex-scheduling-watch/ NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17. The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time. Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was originally written with the 2007 season in mind and has been only iteratively and incompletely edited since then, hence why at one point it still says late games start at 4:15 ET instead of 4:25): Begins Sunday of Week 5 In effect during Weeks 5-17 Up to 2 games may be flexed into Sunday Night between Weeks 5-10 Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window. The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:15 p.m. ET. The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET. No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games. The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:15 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:25 p.m. ET. Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications. The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night. Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly. NFL schedules all games. Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night. Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks starting Week 11, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 in 2006 and 2011, because NBC hosted Christmas night games those years and all the other games were moved to Saturday (and so couldn’t be flexed), but are otherwise protected after Week 5; I’m assuming protections were due in Week 4 again this year, and the above notwithstanding, Week 10 is part of the main flex period this year, as it was in 2006 and 2011 (and yes I goofed up by not writing this post last week). As I understand it, during the Week 5-10 period the NFL and NBC declare their intention to flex out a game two weeks in advance, at which point CBS and Fox pick one game each to protect. Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC, although starting this year Week 17 is exempt from team appearance limits. No team starts the season completely tapped out at any measure; nine teams have five primetime appearances each, but only the Texans don’t have games in the main flex period, though they don’t have any early-flex games left either. NBC appearances for all teams: CAR 2 (1 flexible), DEN 3 (1 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), NE 3 (1 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), ARI 2 (1 semi-flexible), GB 3 (1 flexible), MIN 1, CHI 1, DAL 3 (1 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), KC 2 (1 flexible), PIT 3 (2 flexible), NYG 2 (1 flexible), IND 2 (flexible), HOU 1, SEA 3 (2 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), PHI 1 (semi-flexible), OAK 1 (semi-flexible), WAS 1 (flexible), NYJ 1 (flexible), CIN 1 (flexible). All primetime appearances for all teams: CAR 5 (1 flexible), DEN 5 (1 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), NE 5 (2 flexible), ARI 4 (1 semi-flexible), GB 5 (1 flexible), MIN 4, CHI 4, DAL 5 (1 semi-flexible, 1 flexible), KC 3 (1 flexible), PIT 5 (2 flexible), NYG 5 (1 flexible), IND 3 (2 flexible), HOU 5, SEA 5 (1 semi-flexible, 2 flexible), PHI 4 (1 semi-flexible), OAK 3 (1 semi-flexible), WAS 3 (1 flexible), NYJ 5 (1 flexible), CIN 4 (1 flexible), LA 2, SF 2, ATL 2, NO 2, TB 2, BUF 2, BAL 3, MIA 2, all other teams 1. Briefly, here are the current early-season games and their prospects for being flexed out: Week 7: Seattle (3-1) @ Arizona (2-3). A fairly mediocre contest, but nowhere near the sort of emergency that would warrant pulling the early flex considering the protection rules. No chance of being flexed out. Week 8: Philadelphia (3-1) @ Dallas (4-1). The Cowboys never, ever, get flexed out in any case; when it’s a matchup with the NFC East lead potentially on the line? No chance of being flexed out. Week 9: Denver (4-1) @ Oakland (4-1). Two one-loss teams fighting for the AFC West lead adds up to a game that won’t see any available game overcome the tentative game bias. No chance of being flexed out. Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions: Week 10 (November 13): Tentative game: Seattle @ New England Prospects: 3-1 v. 4-1, which is nearly impossible to beat. Likely protections: Broncos-Saints but probably nothing (CBS) and Cowboys-Steelers (FOX). Other possible games: Falcons-Eagles would be a strong contender against a weaker tentative (and might have been protected if the Cowboys were facing a weaker opponent), and Vikings-Skraelings finds itself lost in the shuffle. Packers-Titans is a dark horse. Week 11 (November 20): Tentative game: Green Bay @ Washington Prospects: 3-1 v. 3-2, not quite as hard to beat as Seahawks-Patriots, but pretty strong. Likely protections: Ravens-Cowboys or Eagles-Seahawks (CBS) and probably Cardinals-Vikings if anything (FOX). Other possible games: Besides CBS’ unprotected game, the only other options involve teams below .500, with Bills-Bengals and Buccaneers-Chiefs being the most viable, and Titans-Colts as a very dark horse. Week 12 (November 27): Tentative game: New England @ NY Jets Prospects: 4-1 v. 1-4. Very lopsided, but could be hard pressed to lose its spot under the circumstances. Likely protections: Chiefs-Broncos (CBS) and Cardinals-Falcons, Rams-Saints, Seahawks-Bucs, or nothing (FOX). Other possible games: Thanksgiving Weekend, paucity of good games, and this year seems to have gotten unusually lucky in terms of good teams on Thanksgiving and Monday night (across those four games only the Colts and Lions have three or more losses). Bengals-Ravens, Cardinals-Falcons, and Seahawks-Bucs are the best options. Week 13 (December 4): Tentative game: Carolina @ Seattle Prospects: 1-4 v. 3-1, with the Panthers’ struggles making this unfortunately lopsided. Likely protections: Texans-Packers (CBS) and Rams-Patriots, Giants-Steelers, or Eagles-Bengals (FOX). Other possible games: Chiefs-Falcons and Bills-Raiders are reasonably strong contenders, along with whichever game(s) are unprotected between Rams-Patriots and Giants-Steelers (I think the former is most likely). Racial Slurs-Cardinals is a dark horse. Week 14 (December 11): Tentative game: Dallas @ NY Giants Prospects: 4-1 v. 2-3 is not great, but the Cowboys never get flexed out of SNF under any circumstances and certainly not when they’re playing this well. Likely protections: Steelers-Bills if anything (CBS) and Seahawks-Packers (FOX). Other possible games: Native Americans-Eagles is good enough I considered listing them as an option for the protection, and Falcons-Rams is a good option as well. Broncos-Titans and Texans-Colts are dark horses. Week 15 (December 18): Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Cincinnati Prospects: 4-1 v. 2-3, like Cowboys-Giants not great, and the name value of the teams doesn’t insulate this game nearly as well. Likely protections: Patriots-Broncos (CBS) and Eagles-Ravens (FOX). Other possible games: The good news for this game is that the only remaining options also involve 2-3 teams: Titans-Chiefs, Colts-Vikings, or Bucs-Cowboys, with Lions-Giants as a dark horse. Week 17 (January 3): Playoff positioning watch begins Week 9.

That's how it used to be in the days before the salary cap. Teams could only have a 47 man roster plus injured reserve. No inactives or practice squads guys or anything. So they would stash young players and minor injured players on IR and bring them back later. All teams did it. With no salary cap and no disclosure of salaries teams could pay these guys whatever they wanted. IR basically acted as a practice squad. When the salary cap came in they had to do something so they said okay you can now have 53 on your roster but still only dress 47 on game day. That gives each team flexibility with short term injuries. They also created the practice squads. And also a special list (PUP) for guys who were injured from the previous season and weren't ready yet. At that time they said that should be enough roster availability for everybody (53+8+1+PUP list available). IR was then designated as gone for the season to avoid any further stashing. Then that wasn't good enough so they increased the size of the practice squads to 10. Then they allowed a IR-DFR. Then they allow the newest rule where you can pick the one who returns instead of pre-designating. All of this slowly chips away at the pool of money the players get. If you allowed them to put as many guys on IR as they wanted and bring them back when they wanted every team would have 8 high paid studs and 100 players making league minimum. So there has to be limits set forth in the CBA.

Even if he came back in bounds it would not be illegal touching. The "out of bounds and first player to touch the ball" rule only applies to kicking/punting team players and eligible receivers on forward pass plays.

Straight from the rule book- "The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession." He isn't touching the ground at the 2. He doesn't touch the ground until he's at the 1. And that's where the ball goes.

Yes, that's exactly what it's a case of. This type of call happens fairly often around the league. We've all seen it before, yet I'm always surprised by how many people always think it should be a touchback. SECTION 5 SAFETY ARTICLE 1. SAFETY. It is a Safety: (a) if the offense commits a foul in its own end zone or; (b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line. Exceptions: It is not a Safety: (1) If a forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone. (2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession. (a) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the end zone, it is a safety. (b) If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If he scores it is a touchdown. © If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or otherwise recovers the ball commits a foul in the field of play, and the ball becomes dead in the end zone, the basic spot is the spot of the change of possession. (d) If the spot where possession changed is inside the one-yard line, the ball is to be spotted at the one-yard line. Notes: (1) A ball in the end zone which is carried toward the field of play is still in the end zone until the entire ball is in the field of play (3-12-4). (2) The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behinds its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly t rest, or by batting or kicking any loose ball (3-17).

Because the rule says if you gain possession of the ball outside the end zone and your momentum takes you into the end zone, if you don't run it out you get the ball where you gained possession. SECTION 5 SAFETY ARTICLE 1. SAFETY. It is a Safety: (a) if the offense commits a foul in its own endzone or; (b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the endzone in its possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line. Exceptions: It is not a Safety: (1) If a forward pass frombehind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone. (2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession. (a) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the end zone, it is a safety. (b) If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If he scores it is a touchdown. © If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or otherwise recovers the ball commits a foul in the field of play, and the ball becomes dead in the end zone, the basic spot is the spot of the change of possession. (d) If the spot where possession changed is inside the one-yard line, the ball is to be spotted at the one-yard line. Notes: (1) A ball in the end zone which is carried toward the field of play is still in the end zone until the entire ball is in the field of play (3-12-4). (2) The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behinds its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly t rest, or by batting or kicking any loose ball (3-17).

Maybe he's just about to flunk another test and everybody in the league knows it.

There's another silver lining. We will gain about $2.5 mil in cap space, for whatever that's worth.

No, actually he always hated the practice. http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/06/the-ugly-fight-behind-one-of-footballs-first-stadium-naming-rights-deals/482556/

Keep cutting your own throat, eventually you'll run out of blood. -- Fred Smerlas

Wow--where to start? Yes, I said Brady broke a game day rule. Get this. There is a specific section in the game day rule book that prescribes the correct inflation of an NFL football. Breaking this rule, because it's an actual game day rule, led Mr Vincent to write in his letter to Tom Brady, -- "Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football." -- Conversely, while there are rules in the game day rule book regarding cheap shots and intentional injuries (along with prescribed penalties), there are no rules in the actual game day rule book regarding bounties, or beating your wife or your girlfriend. Therefore, there is a different standard of discipline allowed by the CBA for breaking actual game day rules compared to breaking other rules. And doing so falls under the bolded sentence above. That bolded part is important. It only appears once in the CBA - Article 46, Section 1(a) -- we'll simply refer to it as "section 1(a)" henceforth. It's the paragraph that deals with cheating during a game. This is the one section in the CBA that gives Goodell extra authority when it comes to "integrity and public confidence in the game." The reason it's important is because further down, in Section 2(a) it also says, "the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion." -- I freely admit, any other discipline, except for this one specific paragraph, gives the player the right to an arbitrator selected by mutual agreement. This part of the CBA gives Goodell the right. I know you've said we're not arguing that, but it goes further than that. Section 2(a) specifically says when a player is charged under section 1(a) the commissioner also has the right to hear the appeal. And whether you agree with it or not, the appeals court ruled that even if he does a lousy job of it, he still has the authority to do so. Anyway, you say it's only a fine for a football (and judge Berman agreed) and that's the basis for his appeal. Got it, thanks. Actually the NFLPA changed their stance on that halfway through the process. An item the appeals court found interesting. They also ruled on it anyway - "We conclude that the equipment provision does not apply and, in any event, the punishments listed for equipment violations are minimum ones that do not foreclose suspensions. . . . . . Article 46 gives the Commissioner broad authority to deal with conduct he believes might undermine the integrity of the game. The Commissioner properly understood that a series of rules relating to uniforms and equipment does not repeal his authority vested in him by the Association to protect professional football from detrimental conduct. We have little difficulty in concluding that the Commissioner’s decision to discipline Brady pursuant to Article 46 was “plausibly grounded in the parties’ agreement,” -- You and Judge Berman saying so doesn't make it a fact, as the Appeals court judges pointed out. That's the real truth you haven't yet stumble on. The Saints Hargrove and Smith were charged under section 1(a). Quite correct. This gave Goodell the authority to hear their appeal if he chose to. In his letter he did offer to hear appeals where the players could bring up new evidence. However, Scott Fujita was charged with "conduct detrimental to the league." This does not fall under section 1(a) and therefore Goodell did not have the authority to be the arbitrator. Likewise, the letter charging Jonathan Vilma simply stated "conduct detrimental." This of course, since the exact wording is missing, also does not fall under section 1(a). Since we had 2 out of 4 players who's charges did not fall under section 1(a) and therefore allowed to have an independent arbitrator, Goodell decided to allow all 4 players the independent arbitrator. He has that choice. The arbitrator disagreed with him. So be it. Now to your Greg Hardy paragraph. Yes, Hardy's suspension was reduced by an impartial arbitrator. He was given an impartial arbitrator because the CBA says he was allowed one. Why? Because, Greg Hardy was not charged under section 1(a). He was charged under the personal conduct policy and charged with conduct detrimental to the league (remember, that's different, and not covered under section 1(a)). Ray Rice was also allowed an independent arbitrator because he was also not charged under section 1(a). The arbitrator disagreed. So be it. And I'm not saying players aren't entitled to an impartial arbitrator. Clearly they are. Except for players like Brady when charged under section 1(a), who clearly are not. Should he be? Sure. But he's not. And the finding of the appeals court clearly says he's not because the NFLPA bargained that right away. And as for my really bizarre claim that " it doesn't matter if that is considered right, wrong or if the commissioner made mistakes or even if the commissioner wasn't impartial." Again, we're not talking about Ray Rice or any of the other players who's suspensions were reduced by independent arbitrators assigned to them by their rights under the CBA. We're talking about Tom Brady, who doesn't have that right under the same CBA. And it's not really my claim. It's a paraphrasing of the appeals court decision where they say, among other things- --These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority. Here, that authority was especially broad. The Commissioner was authorized to impose discipline for, among other things, “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence, in the game of professional football.” In their collective bargaining agreement, the players and the League mutually decided many years ago that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline. Although this tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox, it is the regime bargained for and agreed upon by the parties, which we can only presume they determined was mutually satisfactory. --We are therefore not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement, but inquire only as to whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority as defined by the collective bargaining agreement. I won't argue that if Mr. Brady was allowed an independent arbitrator he may very well have received a different level of discipline. My initial response was to your response claiming that under the CBA players have the right to an impartial arbitrator. That's true in most cases. But it's not true in the case of Tom Brady. He is not, by virtue of the CBA and held up by the court, entitled to an independent arbitrator since the commissioner's discipline falls under section 1(a) and the hearing under section 2(a). Nor is he allowed any recourse if he feels the commissioner was unfair or just plain wrong. All other players disciplined under different provisions are. You can argue until the cows come home that that's not how it should be, and many people would agree with you. But because the players gave up that right, that's how it is.

There is still a difference. While there are playing rules regarding intentionally injuring players, there are no rules stated in the rule book about bounties. That means technically, the bounties themselves, while wrong, were not, by themselves, breaking the specific rules of the game. Yes it's breaking rules of behavior and conduct. But the bounty, by itself, does not break a game day playing rule. We all know it's wrong but the technical distinction makes it different in the eyes of the CBA. That distinction is why the Saints were given an outside arbitrator and Brady was not. And I do know what the appeals were about. I was pointing out to you, and your comment about the player being entitled to an appeal by an impartial arbitrator, that there is a difference in those cases. And that difference is clearly stated in the CBA. I was further pointing out, as did the court, that in the case of breaking actual game day playing rules, the player is not entitled to an impartial arbitrator. He's entitled to an appeal to the very same commissioner who disciplined him the first time. And, as the court also pointed out, it doesn't matter if that is considered right, wrong or if the commissioner made mistakes or even if the commissioner wasn't impartial, because that power given to him via the CBA is very broad - and agreed to by the NFLPA. Therefore, no, when it comes to breaking the rules that are defined in the Playing Rules of The National Football League (different from bounties, not in any moral sense but legally), players do not have that right. They bargained it away. And that's exactly what the court decision says.

What the Saints did went against player safety and was immoral. But it was not cheating. What Favre did was reprehensible, but it was not cheating. Both of these act are considered detrimental to integrity of the league. Brady cheated. His act was one of conspiracy to undermine the rules of the game in order to gain an advantage in the game. His act was determined to be detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football. The CBA clearly states that in matters of discipline regarding integrity of, or confidence in, the game of professional football, the commissioner may serve as the hearing officer in any appeal under said section at his discretion. The NFLPA agreed to it, and the court has ruled it as valid.

Championship Game, 1988 season against the Bengals. Bruce Smith grabbed Boomer Esiason by the front of his jersey and yanked him down so hard the ref imagined Bruce grabbed him by the face mask. Fifteen yards kept the drive alive in a game we could have won. And of course the "just give it to them" game.

Went to my first game at Rich in 1973. Lots of tailgating. I also remember the Knox years and $8 end zone seats too. There was plenty of tailgating going on.

Is Ricky Williams there on the beach with him? That would explain a lot. Oh well, maybe he's invested well and doesn't need to play football. Good for him if that's what he wants.

Thanks for the laugh!

I wouldn't be so sure. The issue has always been hugely important to the league, and they will press vary hard to keep commissioner authority just like they always have. That means it's up to the players to push back. And while the Brady's of the league will be upset, the fact is the NFLPA is made up of about 1,800 players. About 900 of those players make a little over $500,000 per year, and many of those know they may only play a couple years at most, quite possibly even less. When push comes to shove, the union will complain about the commissioner authority just like they always do. They may even talk it up right to the bitter end. But in the end the majority of the players (by far) who don't have a problem with the commissioner's authority every year will far outnumber the very few players who do. Threatening a work stoppage or getting locked out (missing games) is not something the majority of fringe, lucky to be in the league for a short time players, is interested in doing just to protect the Tom Brady's of the world. Winning this battle in court would be great for the NFLPA. Losing it will make it even harder for them to convince the league or the majority of their own members to fight tooth and nail. Not when there's over $5 billion to be shared among them if they play nice.

If we look at it as just the average, his $21 mil deal averaged 3.5 mil per year. During that contract was the first salary cap of $34.6 mil. So (on average) JK's salary was $10.1% of the salary cap. So if he played this year and was in the middle if his contract and he took up 10.1% of the cap, his salary (average, of course) would be $15.68 mil. Or put another way, he would have signed a 6 year, $94 million dollar contract in around 2012 - roughly.

So the contract looks like this- * ---- Base salaries in 2016 and 2017 Fully guaranteed along with $16M signing bonus ** --- $8M of 2018 base salary guaranteed against injury but not for skill 2016 ----- $3M(BS*) + 3.2M(SB) = $6.2M Cap Hit 2017 ----- $9M(BS*) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $14.2M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut = $21.8M / If Traded = $12.8M 2018 - $9.25M(BS**) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $14.45M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $9.6M 2019 - $7.25M(BS) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $12.45M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $6.4M 2020 --- $7.5M(BS) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $12.7M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $3.2M Additional $5M available in incentives/performance bonuses.

Doesn't mean much. Players have been known to unretire. Which is fine. We're all worried he'll only play 5-6 games so let's just wait until week 9 and sign him then. It's all good.

Sure but just like in 2013 when there was $800 million in loans, add the $200 mil from Buffalo to the $200 mil for Los Angeles (which will be $400 million if they put 2 teams there, even if they use the same stadium) plus whatever other improvements teams make and maybe another stadium or two, and you're looking at another $800 mil or so. That's over $10 mil per team that they have a choice of giving it to the players and it's gone or loaning it out for stadiums that increase revenue and they get their money back eventually. As I said, there's only so many stadiums to be built and the time limit for this program is getting short fast. There's 5 years left and it's not happening this year so there's really 4 at the most. Yes the program could extend to the next CBA but these big businessmen would rather deal with the sure thing here and now. I believe that's the real reason some owners want a new stadium soon. But that's just me.