Skip to content

NFL on 2011 rules: We are considering a wide range of alternatives

NFL Labor Football AP

Most people have been assuming that if the courts forced the owners to end the lockout and start the league year, the NFL would use the same set of rules in 2011 that it used in 2010. But the NFL has now confirmed that it’s considering a number of options beyond just going back to the 2010 rules.

“Our goal has at all times been the same — to operate under a negotiated set of procedures that are agreed to by the clubs and the NFLPA,” the statement said, via Jason La Canfora of NFL Network. “The current litigation has created a significant amount of uncertainty and we are therefore considering a wide range of alternatives depending on developments.”

Basically, that means the league is saying it hasn’t decided what it will do — and confirming the report from Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal that alternative plans are on the table.

So if the players succeed in getting the lockout lifted, they’ll go back to work in an NFL whose rules are yet to be determined. Which just adds one more layer of uncertainty to this most uncertain of years in the NFL.

Permalink 27 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
27 Responses to “NFL on 2011 rules: We are considering a wide range of alternatives”
  1. dansnyder says: May 9, 2011 4:25 PM

    lol Chad Henne

  2. beastofeden says: May 9, 2011 4:36 PM

    If the NFL stopped existing today people wouldn’t bat an eyelash. Cancel the whole season already.

  3. bfridley says: May 9, 2011 4:39 PM

    Wait… I thought the NFL was going to shut down…

    And if the NFL can just go ahead and impose rules for the year, why are we going through all of this, again? This should have been Step 1!

  4. hawkeye6 says: May 9, 2011 4:43 PM

    Translation:

    “We have nothing to report.”

  5. smackingfools says: May 9, 2011 4:46 PM

    Go ahead and do away with kickoff returns so I can hurry up and be done with the NFL.

  6. willycents says: May 9, 2011 4:48 PM

    Wise move by the league. Depending totally upon the outcome of the litigation process, the NFL will issue rules to fit the situation. The one thing that they will certainly do is take a course of action that will decrease their exposure to the anti-trust case. The other alternative, expose themselves to anti-trust issues, makes a player win likely in the short term, and the dissolution of the league imminent in the long term. The players will certainly destroy the league just to prove that they can. They will prove the old axiom, given the chance, to be “dead right”

  7. pack93z says: May 9, 2011 5:01 PM

    It is bad enough that we the fan base have been disregarded by the two principle parties in the squabble.. both pretending to have the fans interest at heart.

    Now we come to read the updates to find a plethora of rumors and page fillers in place of any substance. Albeit hardly the website owners, bloggers and NFL media types doing.. as the uncertainty is running rampant.

    I seriously doubt the players nor the NFL fully understands the damage they are inflicting upon the NFL this off season.

    Tis’ a shame.. it was a beautiful setup and profitable for both bodies upon the fans dime.. my hope is the parties on both sides feel the damage in the pocket books post this nonsense.

    9 Billion a year and can’t agree upon a reasonable split.. pathetic.

  8. staff2cj4td says: May 9, 2011 5:03 PM

    when they start up again, will Calvin Johnson still have to be holding the ball from the touchdown he caught in week 16 to count???

  9. djstat says: May 9, 2011 5:20 PM

    Here is where the owners should be smart and make changes they know the players will hate: 20 regular season games
    No Health Insurance
    No Pension
    Mini Camp and OTA’s Unlimited
    Extended Training Camp Practices
    *No Minimum Salary
    *Salary Maximum of $500,000 for all new contracts

    Use the leverage you have. The players have used all of their levergae, fight fire with fire to get them back to the table/

  10. cytofed says: May 9, 2011 5:25 PM

    If the late gene upshaw was still alive this would have already been resolved.

  11. manderson367 says: May 9, 2011 5:32 PM

    I’d like the NFL to say if they don’t have a new CBA by July 31st, they’ll cancel the 2011 season. Maybe then the players would get serious about working on a deal.

  12. narutofan10 says: May 9, 2011 5:39 PM

    beastofeden says: May 9, 2011 4:36 PM

    If the NFL stopped existing today people wouldn’t bat an eyelash. Cancel the whole season already.
    ——————————————————
    sorry to tell you this but you are on a very small boat dude do not speak for the real fans who love football

  13. packerfan12 says: May 9, 2011 6:11 PM

    Hey while we’re making rule changes….can we get rid of the tuck rule?

  14. jleimer says: May 9, 2011 6:57 PM

    If we had more of a respectable voice for the PA instead of D Smith we wouldnt of been talking about this right now. Unfortunately we are playing a 9 billion dollar game of chess that no one will win.

  15. footballrealist says: May 9, 2011 7:10 PM

    The fact that there is no CBA means that the 32 teams are essentially 32 independent businesses competing with each other. They will run into trouble if they try to impose a set of rules that governs the employment of players. They can impose rules that govern the rules of the game and the ‘eligibility of teams’. They could impose rules on the teams that ‘impact’ player contracts without ‘governing’ them. ie. No more than 15% roster turnover in one year. no more than 10% of team salary spent on 1 player. Otherwise the team pays a ‘fine’.

    then let them operate as 32 businesses.

    Currently the owners are under NO OBLIGATION to share the pie, let alone the percentage players are fighting for.

    -They can release depth players and offer to sign them back BELOW the veteran minimum.

    -They can sign players to contracts with morality clauses.

    -They can increase the number of practices and fine players or release them with cause for failing to to perform.

    In essence, they can operate under the conditions the players seem to be trying to threaten.

    Gene Upshaw squeezed the owners into a CBA that favoured players during good or bad economic times. This is an economic correction.

  16. trottime says: May 9, 2011 7:23 PM

    It would appear that the player’s association has significant conflicts of interest that make it virtually impossible for it to represent all the players. High profile players such as Brady have tremendous bargaining power and can exact top dollars. But if they are successful in doing so, the money left for the less talented players will be substantially less. The antitrust complaint attacks the draft and other rules which are designed to provide a leveling of talent among large and small markets.
    It is hard for me to see exactly what it is the players association is trying to accomplish. And if its objective was made clear, I think it would lose substantial support.

  17. vahawker says: May 9, 2011 8:20 PM

    remember the housing bubble? How people gambled that housing prices would continue to rise? Don’t you see the NFL financial prognosticators in a bit of the same light? They just assume that income will continue to rise, rise, rise..9B-12B-20B… Could make for a mighty implosion if they continue to alienate the fans and revenues crash crash crash.

  18. laeaglefan says: May 9, 2011 8:29 PM

    If even ONE regular season game is missed because of the lockout, then the entire season should be cancelled. If they play a shortened schedule, then the entire season will be a waste.

  19. istateyourname says: May 9, 2011 8:44 PM

    Mendenhall Rule: Do not embarass the league by divulging your love for terrorists, keep it to yourself.

  20. duffer58 says: May 9, 2011 9:03 PM

    Willy Smith and Jleimer,
    Owners are destroying league not the players. Players want to play they are being locked out. What has D Smith done wrong? He is doing his job.

  21. duffer58 says: May 9, 2011 9:07 PM

    DjStat,
    How big of idiot are you? The players could say fine no draft, and no salary cap. the players are the game they can not be replaced like UPS drivers clown.
    The players want to play under the agreement owners made.
    Owners are demanding players give back. Players are correct not the owners.

  22. carolinethedog says: May 9, 2011 9:12 PM

    staff2cj4td says: May 9, 2011 5:03 PM

    when they start up again, will Calvin Johnson still have to be holding the ball from the touchdown he caught in week 16 to count???

    ************************************

    That was week one. Daaaa Bears

  23. istateyourname says: May 9, 2011 9:22 PM

    Rothelisberger Rule: Don’t rape anybody.

  24. bronco1st says: May 9, 2011 9:34 PM

    Making new rules to play the 2011 season hints at one thing, that the Judges have informed the NFL they plan to remove the temporary stay and are giving the NFL time to prepare new rules to continue “business as usual” before they actually issue their decision. Makes sense.

  25. willycents says: May 9, 2011 10:03 PM

    djstat says:May 9, 2011 5:20 PM

    Here is where the owners should be smart and make changes they know the players will hate: 20 regular season games
    No Health Insurance
    No Pension
    Mini Camp and OTA’s Unlimited
    Extended Training Camp Practices
    *No Minimum Salary
    *Salary Maximum of $500,000 for all new contracts
    —————————————————-
    The limit on salaries would be a anti trust violation. Instead of an individual player salary limit, insert a total annual team compensation per active roster on game day of say…$40,000,000…teams can pay any amount that they want, but limiting the active game day roster gross salary would probably pass the “smell” test. DeSmith would crap his pants if that came out….lol….

  26. patpatriotagain says: May 10, 2011 1:15 AM

    minimum wage should get them to the table

  27. 6thsense79 says: May 10, 2011 6:28 AM

    Willycents,

    I believe what you’re advocating for is a league wide team salary cap which is still a major anti trust violation. After reading some of the rules suggestions you guys are putting out here I now believe you all don’t fully understand how difficult it will be to get around an anti trust issue. Something such as the $40 million mandatory team salary cap or any league wide team maximum on player contracts exposes teams to anti trust lawsuits.

    Just because you wish something were so doesn’t make it so. I’ve said plenty of times on these boards that is not necessarily based on what you consider fair or just but rather what’s legal.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!