If Lockout Lifted, Do The 2010 Rules Apply?

Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by CloakNNNdagger, May 4, 2011.

  1. CloakNNNdagger

    CloakNNNdagger Site Contributor

    Apr 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Opinions are all over the place.

    Many fans are taking to for granted that we go back to 2010 rules. However, now that the players have decertified, it seems that the ultimate decision would be solely in the hands of the owners as to what rules will be in place.

    This Cowboys thread (and, NO!, I am NOT a Cowboys fan!) has some interesting discussion on the subject for a springboard. : http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208593
  2. keyser

    keyser Hall of Fame

    Sep 24, 2006
    Likes Received:
    My understanding (based in part to the judge's response to the NFL from their folllowup request for clarification) is that (a) the owners can basically set up any rules they feel like, but (b) they are open to getting punished if those rules are deemed to violate labor laws. Unfortunately, almost all the rules could be construed to be illegal collusion in one way or another in the absence of a bargaining agreement with the players.

    The option that would open them to the least risk of being judged as violating labor laws would be to basically throw out all rules, and every team would be on its own. Contracts would still have to be honored, but that's about it: no tags, no draft, no salary caps, no salary minimums, no restrictions on free agency, nothing. Teams would negotiate whatever contracts they felt like with players. This is actually close to what the players are arguing for in court, as I understand it(!!). However, I think the owners see this as a course of action that would basically destroy the league, and are not willing to go with it (if they were, they could just accept what the players are arguing for). Honestly, I don't think the players really want something this extreme either, but they're staking their position that way for legal arguments. I think that in this scenario, the league would still be able to dictate things related to the game play - e.g. number of players active on game day, and maybe by extension could still have some effect on the team, such as a limit on total number of players on the team.

    However, if you assume that's not an option, then the safest course of action for the owners is to stick with the 2010 rules. By doing this, they are not opening themselves up to too much risk, since this was a set of rules that the players agreed to operate under. Players would have to make the case that they had agreed to a set of rules at one time that now they say violate labor laws, and as I understand it, that is a tough case to make. So, this seems to be the option most likely to occur if the lockout is lifted.

    Finally, the owners could make changes, however they felt like. However, any of this would really open them up to punishment for collusion and whatever else that is limiting the players illegally. This would be a very risky course of action for the owners, and would actually give the players more leverage.
  3. badboy

    badboy Site Contributor

    Apr 19, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Clear Lake
    Everything I've heard supports McClain's P.O.V. I would benefit Texans to have 2010 free agency rules as it keeps Leach, Jacoby and Butler on team without using tags. Foster would also fall under this as only two years. I want all of those back. If we signa WR, we could then trade JJ if we wanted.
  4. infantrycak

    infantrycak Mod. Staff Member

    Apr 29, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Austin, TX
    It is highly dubious that any provision of the former CBA can be enforced against the players. That agreement was with a now defunct entity. Now the owners can suggest the 2010 rules but I see no reason the players would go for it. 450 or so of them wouldn't get a chance at free agency. Which also gets into who it wouldn't benefit the Texans. Yeah we could save 1 starter but it also means the free agency pool for the Texans is cut to almost nothing.

Share This Page