With two big-name college players whose seasons already are over making it known that they plan to crash the April 2010 instant millionaire party known as the NFL draft, it remains to be seen how many of the guys still playing in 2009 -- and who could still continue to play for one or two more seasons -- will make the cash grab sooner rather than later.

As Keith Arnold of NBC's Inside The Irish recently pointed out, Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis has acknowledged that quarterback Jimmy Clausen and receiver Golden Tate have a tough decision to make, since both will be eligible to bolt from South Bend.

(And, yes, I'm pushing the NBC Notre Dame blog today because I'm on the halftime show of the Notre Dame game.  We all know it.  So why not admit it?)

The problem, as we've recently explained at SportingNews.com, is that a flood of underclassmen will make it harder for any of them to get paid, since there are only so many big-money slots at the top of the draft.

The safer play for the players, then, might be to let everyone else rush for the cash, and to wait until 2011, when the pool will be less crowded.

Then again, if there's a work stoppage or an NBA-style rookie wage scale by then, there also might be something floating in the pool other than a Baby Ruth.

That's why we continue to believe that the NFL and the union should find a way to get these players to realize that they don't need to rush for the exits.  The best solution?  The league should agree to keep the current rookie compensation system in place, and the union should make an equivalent concession in some other area of the negotiations.

It might be much easier said than done, however.  Since paying rookies represents a significant aspect of the system for paying all players, and given that the league seems poised to revolutionize the current salary-cap approach, one can't be done without the other.
 

The good news emerging from the most recent collective bargaining session between the NFL and the players union is that, according to a source with knowledge of the talks, the two sides agreed to quit talking to the media about the negotiations.

The bad news, from our perspective, is that they agreed to quit talking to the media.

But, in balance, we'll take the good news.  We want to see a deal get done; even if it means that the information will slow to an enlarged-prostate intermittent trickle, we'll take it. 

Meanwhile, the source tells us that, finally, the two sides began to discuss financial terms, which surely will be the battleground in the broader effort to maintain 22 years of labor peace.

On Tuesday night, we caught wind of rumors that frustrations regarding the NFL's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the start of the uncapped year in March 2010 were giving rise to talk of a players strike for the playoffs.

When acknowledging the rumors, we also pointed out that it could never happen, due to a clear term in the CBA preventing a strike by the players or a lockout by the owners prior to the expiration of the contract that both sides signed.

On Wednesday, Patriots linebacker Adalius Thomas denied, strongly, that there has been talk of a postseason strike.

"To be blunt, it's a flat-out, bald-faced, capital-letters lie," Thomas told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports.  "We're not the ones who are interested in not playing.  We want to play.  We're not going on strike.  We signed this agreement and we're fine with it.  We're happy.  We don't want to stop playing football."

With all due respect, Adalius, it's not a "flat-out, bald-faced, capital-letters lie."  Or any other type of lie.  The rumor exists.  We heard it from a league source who has connections with many players, teams, agents, and -- yes -- the union.

Speaking of the union, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah declined to respond to Cole's request for comment on the rumors of a playoff strike.  And, frankly, that's disappointing.  All Atallah had to say was, "We fully intend to honor our contractual commitments."  [Editor's note:  To make it clear, Atallah didn't actually say this.  He just should have.]  His reluctance to say anything about the situation makes us wonder whether he feared a follow-up question that might have forced him to admit that, yes, all options have been considered and that, indeed, the possibility of a postseason walkout was discussed, but ultimately rejected.

So, as we had hoped, this rumor will apparently die a quick death.  But Thomas' words shed further light on the leverage that the owners possess in this situation.

"You play the entire season to get to the playoffs," Thomas told Cole.  "That's when, as a player, you want to play the most.  You want to go to the Super Bowl and you have four weeks to get there.  You think we want to stop that?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard."

In other words, the players want to play NFL football -- and the only way they can play NFL football is if the owners let them play NFL football.  As of 2011, the only way that'll happen is if the players accept whatever deal the owners are willing to give them.

Before we go any farther with this one, we need to point out that the chances of it happening are ridiculously small.

That said, the NFLPA's inability to coax the league into displaying a greater sense of urgency regarding the negotiation of a new labor deal prior to the start of the uncapped year in March 2010 has prompted new rumors that the union is considering the possibility of launching a walkout once the 2009 regular season ends.

The only problem?  The Collective Bargaining Agreement plainly states that a strike by the players or a lockout by the owners is not permitted during the term of the deal.  And since the deal currently lasts through the current season and the next one, the players simply can't refuse to work.

Of course, they technically can go on strike.  But the strike would be illegal, and the players would face multi-million-dollar fines and damage awards, if the action ultimately were to disrupt the postseason and prevented playoff games from occurring.

The mere fact that the rumor is being floated -- not necessarily by union leadership -- speaks to the level of frustration that many of the players currently are feeling.  They're now close enough to the uncapped year to see that it's a mirage.  With the NFL showing no willingness to finalize a new CBA before the uncapped year arrives, those who are desperate to avoid it have begun the process of throwing reckless ideas against the wall in the hopes of finding something that might stick.

A postseason strike simply won't.

Apart from being illegal, it would be a gigantic public-relations blunder for the players, who instantly would be viewed as villains by a public that has yet to cast blame upon either side.

Still, while it most likely will never happen, the talk is out there.  And the talk needs to go away as quickly as it bubbled to the surface.

Usually, captains of private industry who are dragged before Congress prefer that the nation's primary lawmaking body refrain from sticking its nose into the private industry's business.

This time around, the NFL is applying a much different approach.  The NFL is asking Congress to pass a law that will close a glaring loophole in the league's substance-abuse policy and testing program, due to drug-testing statutes in states like Minnesota.

In a transcript of the remarks that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will make to a Congressional committee exploring the StarCaps litigation, which has enabled multiple Vikings and Saints players to avoid four-game suspensions after testing positive for a banned substance, Goodell advocates "narrow and specific legislation that would confirm the primacy of federal labor law and respect agreements on this important subject."

We agree.  As we pointed out several days ago, "By passing a narrow law declaring that the terms of a collectively-bargained drug-testing program applicable to businesses operating in interstate commerce preempt any state laws that might otherwise apply, the loophole would be forever closed."

Our only regret is that the NFL continues to overplay its hand in this regard, incorrectly blaming the union for supporting a lawsuit that the union was compelled to support. 

As the league would have Congress -- and anyone else who cares -- believe it, the NFLPA betrayed the league by assisting the efforts of the members who faced suspension based on the consumption of StarCaps, an over-the-counter supplement that had been secretly spiked with a banned substance.  But the evidence in this case supports a finding that the league knew that StarCaps had been spiked with a prescription drug, that the league knew players had been taken StarCaps, and that the league issued no specific warning to the players that taking StarCaps could be hazardous to their careers -- and more importantly to their health.

As we've said many times in the past, the fact that the the internal appeal process tilts so heavily toward the league forced the union to help its members.  Failure to do so could have resulted in a potentially viable lawsuit for breach of the duty of fair representation.

So our preference would be for the league to take a big step back from the legal niceties of the case, acknowledge that the league's information regarding the truth about StarCaps should have been specifically shared with the union, and realize that the NFLPA's role in the matter didn't amount to slapping the league in the face with a white glove.

The union was merely doing its job.

If the league can't or won't accept that, then maybe we all really should be making alternative plans for the months of September 2011 through early February of 2012.  Indeed, if the league and the union can't get on the same page regarding such a basic concept, they'll never be able to hammer out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

On Tuesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA Executive Director De Smith are meeting at a Congressional committee regarding the StarCaps case and its impact on the league's steroids policy.

On Wednesday, the two men will meet for a fifth time as they continue the very early stages of working out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.  According to Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal, the talks will be held in New York.

The last time around, the two sides met at the union's headquarters in Washington.

In a statement released after the fourth session in late September, the union implied that the league had made a series of non-economic proposals.  At the time, the NFLPA suggested that a response would be provided at the next meeting.

The current labor deal expires after the 2011 draft.  The union recently has suggested making an intensive effort to work out a new agreement in January 2010, prior to the commencement of the uncapped year in March 2010.

Last week, NFLPA Executive Director De Smith suggested that the league and the union engage in five days of intensive negotiations in January 2010 in order to reach agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the start of the uncapped year in March 2010.

And the league has rejected this offer.

"We proposed a 'lock-in' to avoid a lockout," NFLPA president Kevin Mawae told Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal, "and we were met with, 'That is not going to happen."

Though the phrase "'lock-in' to avoid a lockout" might have some appeal to trial-lawyer types like Smith, it's misleading.  The labor agreement doesn't expire until after the 2011 draft.  The better title would be "'lock-in' to avoid a player mutiny once the uncapped year arrives and player salaries get dumped and teams cut spending as the salary floor evaporates and players who thought they were going to be free agents aren't free agents." 

But that's a bid too wordy.

We've pointed out multiple times that the best deal gets done when both sides agree that the clock is close to striking 12.  For the union, that moment appears to be the start of the uncapped year.  For the league, there's no sense of urgency to do a new deal before March 2010.

Comments from NFL spokesman Greg Aiello to Mullen confirm that the league is prepared to treat the expiration of the current CBA as the true deadline for doing a new deal.

"Our only goal is to reach an agreement, and in order to do so we will meet with the union as often and as intensively as possible," Aiello said.  "Artificial deadlines are not useful in collective bargaining and we don't think setting one here is in anyone's interest."

This doesn't mean that a deal can't get done before the start of the uncapped year.  But since the union has now demonstrated a clear desire to do a deal before the start of the next league year, look for the NFL to take full advantage of the resulting leverage, and to make an offer that tilts heavily toward the league's interests. 

If, as it appears, the union fears a player uprising in 2010 once the realities of the unfloored year begin to emerge, the union might take the last, best offer the league makes before March 1.

Many of you have asked us whether, upon the conclusion of his two-week suspension, the Chiefs will tell running back Larry Johnson to take the rest of the year off, with pay.

The Chiefs might prefer to do that, but they can't.

The Eagles' decision to suspend receiver Terrell Owens without pay for four games in 2005 followed by a paid suspension for the balance of the year caused the NFLPA to slip through the owners' collective five hole a CBA term prohibiting such measures moving forward. 

So, as of March 2006, a team can suspend a player without pay for up to four games at a time for conduct detrimental to the team.  But a team cannot suspend a player with pay.

Of course, if the player agrees to go home with pay, it's not an issue.  But since Johnson is a vested veteran, he'd get the balance of his $4.55 million salary if he's released.  He'd then be able to climb aboard the bandwagon of a playoff contender with a record far better than 1-6, and he'd be able to collect a salary from his new team -- and to keep the full amount of his termination pay from the Chiefs.

As a result, look for the Chiefs to try to find a way to keep Johnson, but possibly to marginalize him.  And if he chooses to be disruptive in the hopes of getting cut, they'll probably suspend him again.

At the end of the day, the Chiefs would at worst be required to pay Johnson if they lose the inevitable grievances.  But if they cut him, they'll pay him, too.  So why not come up with a way to pay him and keep him from getting to the playoffs -- and possibly winning a Super Bowl -- with a team that would be able to provide him with the kind of blocking that would allow Johnson to make good use of the remaining tread on his tires?

The possibility that Johnson decided to act up now in the hopes of getting cut will likely make the Chiefs even less inclined to give L.J. his way.  The only question is whether and to what extent the Chiefs are willing to tolerate the distraction.
 
Since there's no concern that any distraction will keep them from qualifying for the postseason, look for the Chiefs to dig in their heels, if necessary.
 

At a time when the NFL and its players union can't seem to agree on anything, they've finally agreed on something.

Per a league source, the two sides recently have come together on a "side letter" that formalizes the procedures that will apply if a team has a swine flu outbreak that requires the short-term call up of members of the practice squad.

The agreement, formalized on October 22, permits teams with six or more cases of confirmed or suspected swine flu to bring up members of the practice squad, pay them a game check based on the minimum salary based on their years of service, and then send them back down to the practice squad without exposing them to waivers.

And if the player suffers an injury during the game, he'll continue to be paid at the same rate until he is again healthy.

To implement these procedures, all practice-squad players have signed an addendum to their current contracts, which means they won't have to sign a new contract if/when they are needed on short notice.

It's hardly a groundbreaking negotiation, but it shows that, despite the rhetoric and chest thumping, these two parties can still communicate efficiently and effectively when needed.  Let's hope they direct some of that to the much bigger issues that need to be resolved in order to avoid a work stoppage in 2011.

Oklahoma State Dez Bryant, a day after being suspended for the rest of 2009 for lying to the NCAA, won't say whether he'll give up his 2010 eligibility and enter the draft.

But he doesn't have to.  Given the cash grab that underclassmen will be making in 2010 due to fears of a lockout or an NBA-style rookie wage scale in 2011 and his experiences with the entity that will be able to screw up his resumed college career in 2010, Bryant will be making the jump.

As a league source reminds us, even if Bryant says now that he plans to make the jump to the NFL, no agents are permitted to communicate with the underclassman until his team's final regular-season game, the team's conference title game, or December 1, whichever is latest.

(In contrast, agents may communicate with Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford now.  Even though he has one year of eligibility remaining, he is in his fourth year with the program.)

Meanwhile, yours truly invaded CFT last night to post a quick blurb regarding the NCAA's motivations in suspending Bryant for the balance of the year.

Put simply, the NCAA has limited investigative powers, and no control over those who don't fall within the scope of its jurisdiction.  So when someone within that jurisdiction doesn't tell the truth, it becomes even harder for the NCAA to do its job.

Two weeks ago, radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested that the NFLPA tried to "intimidate and frighten" the NFL into distancing itself from Limbaugh, via the connections between NFLPA Executive Director De Smith and the Obama administration.

Limbaugh's logic was flawed.  To date, the NFL has shown no fear of the union.  Indeed, the owners have been strident and bellicose regarding the current labor agreement, and regardless of whether it's a bluff (we think it is), the owners are sending out strong signals of a willingness to take a work stoppage.

But the NFL could be getting scared soon, if Smith is starting to make good on one of his prior threats/promises.

In May, Smith has said that he'll use his political connections to threaten the NFL's antitrust exemption as a collective bargaining tactic.  And, coincidentally, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives openly stated during today's Judiciary Committee meeting that the antitrust exemption should be revoked.

Said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) on Wednesday to Commissioner Roger Goodell, "I think it's time for Congress of the U.S. to take a look at your antitrust exemption.  You're an $8 billion organization who has not taken seriously your responsibilities to the players. . . .  I know that you do everything you can to hold onto those profits.  And I think the responsibility of this Congress to take a look at the antitrust exemption that you have and in my estimation, take it away."

Though the suggestion gained no traction during the hearing, it's hard not to wonder whether Waters' words were the first piece of tangible evidence in the campaign by De Smith to use his political juice to place pressure on NFL owners to do a fair deal -- and to stop thumping their chests about a possible lockout.

The House Judiciary Committee has convened today to discuss the topic of brain injuries in football.  Per Mark Maske of the Washington Post, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) opened the session with a personal observation.

"These injuries are not the types of risks most players or their families would ordinarily associate with the game of football. . . .  My 13-year-old son plays a game at 4:30. . . .  Today. . . .  The questions before us are several:  How serious is the problem?  What can we do about it?  And where do we go from here?"

Conyers also said that the NFL "has largely sought to discredit" reports linking chronic concussions to long-term health consequences.  That's a contention that the league has, for obvious reasons, disputed.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) generally advised restraint.  "While we need to take this issue seriously, we should not jump to any conclusions. . . .  Congress should not attempt to influence the upcoming collective bargaining process the NFL and its players' union are about to undertake.  We should also avoid the temptation to legislate in this area.  Football -- like soccer, rugby and even basketball and baseball -- involves contact that can produce injuries.  We cannot legislate the elimination of injuries from the games without eliminating the games themselves."

Commissioner Roger Goodell also testified at the hearing; the league has released a transcript of his remarks.

After reviewing the steps the NFL has taken regarding medical care for current and former players, Goodell addressed the issue at hand.  "We know that concussions are a serious matter than that they require special attention and treatment," Goodell said.  "And in this area I have been clear -- medical considerations must always come first.  Decision regarding treatment of players with concussions and when they can resume play must be made by doctors and doctors alone.  We are changing the culture of the game for the better."

Goodell also said that he has asked John Madden, who now serves as a consultant to the Commissioner, to help identify new practice techniques aimed at reducing the risk of head trauma in non-game conditions.

"Our goal will continue to be to make our game as safe as possible for those who love to play it and to give our retirees the support and respect they deserve," Goodell said in concluding his remarks.

We trust that he means what he says.  Regardless of how it all turns out, the fact that I've got my own 13-year-old who just finished his first year of playing the game makes me feel a lot better about the fact that the issue is being taken seriously.  Though many fans fear that scrutiny in this area will lead to dramatic changes to the sport, there surely are ways to enhance safety without altering the fundamental nature of the game.

In his always-informative Sunday morning Countdown column, John Czarnecki of FOXSports.com points out that one of the primary proponents of reeling in player pay isn't one of the obvious big-name owners like Bob Kraft, Daniel Snyder, or Jerry Jones, but Bob McNair of the Texans.

"McNair believes it is essential to make a reasonable profit," Czarnecki writes, "especially a new owner like himself who has a significant debt service because of his expansion fee and new stadium costs."

As to the first half of that quote, we agree.  Billion-dollar businesses don't strive to pay the bills and break even.  If no profit is generated, the overall value of the operation plummets -- and the folks who have the money to own teams will opt instead to invest in ventures providing an appropriate return via an acceptable profit.

As to the second half of the quote, the thing that's driving McNair to aim for higher profits also makes it harder for McNair and other high-debt owners to absorb a work stoppage.  And that continues to be the primary difference between 1987 and today.  The debt that some owners are carrying demands a constant stream of revenue in order to pay down the enormous debts that some owners (including those with $1.1 billion stadiums) are repaying.

With much talk about the quality of the coming pool of NFL rookies, there's a dynamic that could make the draft class even better.

A perception exists that, with the arrival of a new labor deal, the windfalls for incoming players will disappear.

And so the league and the NFLPA should come together now to find a way to close the potential floodgates.

For more, here's our midweek offering from SportingNews.com.

Former Giant George Martin is being installed as Executive Director of the NFL Alumni Association (which you may have gathered from the headline).

According to Alex Marvez at FOXSports.com, the position is newly-created and Martin, a former NFLPA president, was chosen from a group of 140 candidates. In his position, he will represent alumni interests on pension and disability issues in dealing with both the NFLPA and the NFL.

The creation of the NFLA is one of the most positive results that grew from the rancor raised by retired players in the past few years Martin, whose work in raising money for ailing 9/11 rescue personnel has been well-documented, seems a perfect choice given his past experience with the union and current good works in making sure those who sacrificed are well taken care of.

For the NFL, the notion of an 18-game schedule is past the "what if" stage and on to "we will make this happen."

Speaking last month to reporters at NFL headquarters, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the lack of fan interest in preseason games by saying, "That's what I think we're trying to address here by restructuring the season and giving [the fans] more of what we think they want.... It's clear to us that the quality of the preseason isn't satisfactory and that we need to do better. ... the reality is one of the best ways of doing that is take half the product away and make it real product and we believe that will make the two remaining preseason games more attractive."

With that as a backdrop, Judy Battista of the New York Times explored what the physical impact will be if the league adds two more games. A variety of sources broach ideas ranging from extended rosters to managing how much older players compete to abolishing two-a-days in training camp.

One of the key points made in the piece was delivered by Mackie Shilstone, the well-respected trainer of many NFL players who said that, in the event of an 18-game season,  "You'll probably see the career life span go down, and you're going to need a lot of bodies. Also, players will need a great disability insurance agent."

An interesting point of contention will come when the league's players realize they won't be getting paid more for those games. Sixty percent of gross revenues going to the players is 60 percent of gross revenues, regardless of how many games are played.

So while owners have the current economy as their trump card in dealing with players in ongoing CBA talks; players should make the notion of an 18-game season their rationale for not changing a thing about the current deal which is paying them more handsomely than they've ever been.

For months, the NFL Players Association has been a silent bystander regarding the question of whether chronic head trauma is causing long-term problems for retired players.

But in the wake of a renewed focus on the connection between chronic blows to the brain and possible long-term harm, the union is exiting the sidelines.

The NFLPA has announced the formation of a Concussions and Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, which will target two primary issues:  (1) the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of concussions and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in active players; and (2) "the long-term cumulative effects of isolated or repetitive TBI in NFL players as patients in order to discover how these effects can be reduced and eliminated."

The committee will be chaired by Dr. Thom Mayer, the union's Medical Director, and Cardinals receiver Sean Morey, who recently agreed to make his brain available for research.  (Presumably after he's done using it.)

"The health, safety and welfare of our players is never just an issue of collective bargaining," Executive Director De Smith said in a statement.  "While we have already raised this issue in the CBA negotiations and Dr. Mayer participated in the first meeting, this committee and the work we do around the health and safety of our players will extend much further.  The creation of this committee was designed to bring both independence and expertise to the ongoing analysis of serious head injuries so we can better protect our players.  I am confident that Sean Morey and Dr. Mayer will lead this team to gather more comprehensive data and provide real solutions for our players, both past and present."

We believe this is an issue that should transcend collective bargaining, and that the two sides should strive to do the right thing for all players -- and to resist the temptation to resort to the same old back-and-forth approach that requires every move to be treated as a potential concession, with some other ground to be gained in return.

Later today, union chief De Smith will be conducting a conference call with a total of 30 agents. 

A source with knowledge of the situation tells us that it was supposed to be kept confidential.  But word of the conference call was leaked.

And some of the agents are blaming Jack Bechta.

The dot-connecting process isn't very complicated.  Bechta is a contributor (and, as we understand it, a partial owner) of NationalFootballPost.com, which reported that the call would be occurring.  Bechta, we're told, is one of the agents who has been invited to participate in the conference call.

"We were all told to keep it quiet and we did," the source said.  "Except for the guy who owns a media company."

The meeting will include an update on the CBA negotiations, and it's good that Smith plans to include the agents in the process.  Many agents are lawyers, all of them have an interest in labor peace, and most of them are in position to influence the members of the rank and file.

But here's the reality -- if they continue to exercise looseness in the lip area, the agents won't be included in the process for long. 

To date, there has been a debate between the NFL and certain members of the medical community regarding whether and to what extent the repeated blows to the head suffered by football players might cause long-term health problems.

So where's the NFL Players Association in all of this?

"The NFLPA has some responsibility here too," one source with knowledge of the dynamics between the league and the union said.  "Recall the congressional study that was highly critical of the NFLPA for failing to monitor or maintain any records regarding the risks associated with head trauma, leading at least one person to call the NFLPA a one-issue union."

It's a great point.  And with the NFL and the NFLPA currently in the early stages of working out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, this issue should be one of the more important issues to be considered.

Still, it shouldn't be a point of contention between the two sides.  Management and labor should have an equal incentive to address the problem.

"If you accept the NFL's position that one of the primary reason for the steroid program is its concern for the health of the players, then there is no legitimate basis for that concern not to extend to the long term health risks of playing the game," the source observed.  "Disciplining players to protect against the debatable health risks of some PED's or diuretics cannot be reconciled with putting its head in the sand when it comes to the long-term impact of repeated head trauma."

Amen again.  And we're hopeful that the NFLPA will commit itself to keeping the league from ignoring this potentially important issue to the quality of players' lives in the many years (ideally) they'll be living after their football days are over.

Given the recent squabbles between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, any progress in labor talks is good news.

And, on Tuesday, the two sides apparently made some progress.  In a banker's hours session that wrapped long enough before 4:00 p.m. ET to permit the issuance of a press release by the NFLPA, the parties discussed "some non-core CBA issues."

In other words, they talked about issues that the league and the union regard as unimportant.  For example, the current CBA prohibits teams or the league from disciplining players for hair length.  The league has, at times, shown some interest in preventing the Samson/Gene Simmons look that several players are sporting.  So that's one issue that, if it was addressed, would be regarded as "non-core."  (And, of course, 12.6 percent of you will interpret this paragraph as an affirmative report that hair length was discussed.  And two of you will leave a smartass comment along the lines of, "So they discussed hair length?")

The NFLPA described the meeting as "good."

Perhaps more importantly, the statement released by the union closes with an indication that another meeting will be held "in the coming weeks" during which the union "will respond to the league's non-economic proposals." 

This implies that the league has presented the union with a list of things the league wants to see in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement unrelated to player compensation.  Despite the fact that the broader talks are expected to focus on money, there's a lingering sense that the union snookered the league in 2006 at a time when the owners were focused only on the 59-plus cents on the dollar that is paid to the players and the issue of revenue sharing.  As we heard it at the time, the league paid little or no attention to non-economic terms contained in the union's take-it-or-leave-it proposal.  

This time around, the league might want to recapture some of the ground that previously was lost.

Regardless, they're at least talking, which is good.  And hopefully the next meeting set loosely for "the coming weeks" will come before the first snowflake flies over FedEx Field.