We’re not so sure about that one.
The practice of placing individual restrictions on a player’s movements and activities away from the field sets a dangerous precedent, the kind of precedent that the NFLPA may not want to set. (We’ve contacted the union for its position on what we’ll call until we come up with something better the Rules of 88.)
None of it is football related. A nightly midnight curfew. No strip clubs. An approved list of night clubs. A rotating three-man security team. While a team has limited ability to take action if a player gets into trouble away from work, there’s nothing in the CBA that allows a team to impose such proactive measures.
Then there’s the fact that having a full-time security detail could give rise to salary-cap issues, given that folks providing security won’t be doing it for free. (We’ve contacted the league for its position on this specific aspect of the Rules of 88.)
So while Bryant has plenty of reasons to submit to these rules at the request of the Cowboys, the Cowboys arguably shouldn’t have asked. And if the Cowboys are paying for the security team, the value of that service probably should count toward Bryant’s total cap number for 2012.
Then there’s the fact that it may not be effective. The last time the Cowboys tried the full-time babysitter approach, with cornerback Pacman Jones, Jones got into a fight with a member of his security detail, prompting another suspension.