Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» 2018 Free Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis

Is Kirk Cousins the best free-agent quarterback in recent memory? Should Trumaine Johnson or Malcolm Butler have gotten the larger contract? And what makes a free-agent contract good or bad, anyway?

24 Sep 2010

The Week In Quotes: September 24, 2010


"Listen, I know I'm in the business where I can't please everybody. I know that; that's not what I'm here to do. I'm here to make a decision that I think is right for the team."

-- Eagles coach Andy Reid on why Kevin Kolb would be the starting quarterback for the Eagles. One day later, Michael Vick became the starter (CSN Philly)


"They call [Smith] 'The Lord of No Rings' for a reason."

-- Vincent Jackson's agent, Jonathan Feinsod letting his feelings be known about Chargers general manager A.J. Smith after Smith declined to trade Jackson (NFL Nation Blog )


"We whupped their behinds up and down the field. They can't stand up with us."

-- 49ers running back Frank Gore on the 49ers play against the Saints, despite losing 25-22 (CSN Bay Area)


"That wasn't what we came here to do, not at all."

-- Giants coach Tom Coughlin on the team's play in a 38-14 loss against the Colts (NY Post)


"Many in our community are glad that he is gone. He never really embraced the traditions, the values of the program or the community for that matter. And often his arrogant attitude turned people off. The bigger question in my opinion is, How does a guy like this end up with two jobs with historic football teams like Tennessee and USC."

-- Former University of Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer on current USC coach and former UT coach Lane Kiffin (Sports by Brooks)


"He had a chance to apologize, look like the good guy. But in giving it back and not apologizing, he just looks like an idiot again."

-- University of Washington coach Steve Sarkisian on Reggie Bush giving back the Heisman Trophy without admitting any wrongdoing (ESPN Los Angeles)


"I don't think Revis is out, well I'll believe it when I see it. Brett Favre retired, you guys told me that was for sure.

-- Dolphins coach Tony Sparano displaying skepticism at Darrelle Revis' injury prognosis for Sunday's game (Orlando Sentinel)


"I got my swag back and it's on. Once I got past the first wave, everything opened up. I felt good ... I was so amped. It was the [home] opener, planes flying over. Everything just got me amped."

-- Raiders wide receiver Johnnie Lee Higgins on his punt returning prowess after returning one for 53 yards against the Rams (Sacramento Bee)


"I don't have much of a chance, believe me. I passed Michigan on a general studies degree, so ... You know; he's one of those Harvard kids. We've had a few of those around here, but I wouldn't compete with that."

-- Patriots quarterback Tom Brady on his chances of outsmarting Bills QB Ryan Fitzpatrick on the Wonderlic test (Boston.com)


"It's real frustrating. I think there's too much hype around here. The Super Bowl's here, everybody's talking about the Cowboys being in the Super Bowl. We haven't even won a damn game yet. I don't even want to hear anybody talk about the Super Bowl anymore, really. Can we just talk about the next game? There's too much hype. It's a sense that you can just show up and win, and that's not the case. That never happens, I don't care who you have on your team. You don't just show up and win. You have to go out there and fight and battle."

-- Cowboys defensive back Gerald Sensabaugh on the team's 0-2 start (Cowboys Blog)


"I don't think he should be able to do that."

-- Browns lineman Alex Mack accusing Chiefs defensive lineman Shaun Smith of grabbing his genitals during a play near the end of the first half. (Cleveland.com)

Send a quote to Football Outsiders so you can say you participated, quotes-at-footballoutsiders.com.

Posted by: Rory Hickey on 24 Sep 2010

90 comments, Last at 01 Oct 2010, 4:34pm by Mr Shush


by jim's apple pie (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 12:22pm

I don't understand the whole Vincent Jackson thing. According to the rules established by the CBA, the Chargers have the rights to Jackson this year and A.J. Smith has made it known that he doesn't want to sign Jackson to a multi-year contract. Jackson may want to get a pay raise for performing well the last two years, but that doesn't mean that his boss has to give it to him. I find it odd that athletes always expect to be given pay raises and new contracts when they "outperform the old contract," yet they would never allow a pay decrease if they had a substandard year.

I also see no reason why Smith should trade Jackson if he feels like he is not getting commensurate value in return. Smith set his price for Jackson (based off what the Broncos received for Marshall, who is a comparable player); no one was willing to meet it. The Rams exec claimed that Smith's asking price was fair. Yet Jackson claims that Smith is "unethical" for not lowering his demands so that Jackson could be traded to the Vikings. It's almost like Smith is punished for simply telling people straight out what he's willing to accept. If Smith had asked for a first-rounder initially, and then "negotiated" with teams and lowered his asking price to a second rounder, I imagine he would be viewed in a more positive light. Calling Smith "The Lord of No Rings" for letting his price be known and not negotiating just seems petty.

Now, I'll grant that Smith sure seems like an arrogant ass. I probably wouldn't like him very much on a personal level. But he fights as hard as he can from a business perspective. Unfortunately, he's often dealing with people and not just faceless corporations. I think his no-nonsense, no holds-barred "this is a business" attitude is off-putting for a lot of players, agents, execs, and fans. I think the better long-term strategy is to keep people happy and motivated to work hard for your organization. If that means paying them a little more on occasion, then so be it.

by theshadowj :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 12:49pm

Actually, in football, players do take a pay decrease if they have a bad year or two and the team threatens to cut them.

While Smith might not have any obligation to trade Jackson, it makes little sense not to. If he doesn't, Jackson is just going to leave in a year anyway and the Chargers will get nothing for him.

by AlanSP :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 12:55pm

I find it odd that athletes always expect to be given pay raises and new contracts when they "outperform the old contract," yet they would never allow a pay decrease if they had a substandard year.

Actually, athletes do sometimes agree to pay cuts after not living up to their contracts. Off the top of my head, Alex Smith and Stacy Andrews come to mind. More commonly, players are simply cut when they perform poorly.

Jackson was casualty of the bizarre set of rules that went into effect in the last year of the CBA, as he would have been an unrestricted free agent in any other offseason. Jackson completed his previous contract with the team and was put in a position where he had to take their one-year offer or not play.

I'm not really sure why Smith chose this route to begin with. Jackson's a great player who's still fairly young. It seems that of the options of a) keeping him, b) getting a 2nd round + 4th or 5th round draft pick, and c) having neither Jackson nor another team's pick, (c) is easily the worst of those options for the team.

by dub_rex (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:31pm

Option (c) includes possibly getting a compensatory pick (3rd rounder in 2012), but I agree it is still the worst option.
However, I think there's too many moving parts to get a clear picture of what happened. For example, VJax and his agents certainly didn't help his cause. I believe he wanted (1) a him long term (5yrs/$50 mil) or (2) a one-year deal. He destroyed his chances of getting traded by not proposing a 2-3 year deal.
Only one team wanted to give the Chargers anything for a 12-game player.
Also, not sure if a 1 year deal for 6 mil (if that's what the Vikings offered) is so much better than a 1 year 3.5 mil deal (his tender) that it was worth losing a season over. Just a terrible decision on his part.

by ibrosey :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:02pm

There's and added complication of this weird, pseudo-bargained year. If VJax doesn't play at least 6 games this year, he remains a restricted free agent next year. Or the following year, if there is no next year. I believe Smith can offer him yet another reduced contract for those games. Pretty ugly all around.

by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:33am

It almost certainly won't be a 3rd round pick. Reports out of San Diego are that V-Jax is so upset that he will almost certainly sign a backloaded deal that pays him minimal money (perhaps even league minimum) in his first year, to minimize the draft pick compensation received by Smith.

Also, V-Jax explicitly didn't want a 1 year deal, which is all that AJ Smith was offering him. He wanted a multiyear deal. Not sure whether they explored 2-3 year options, but I don't think that was what was on the table. I am virtually positive that he was not exploring 1 year deals with the Vikings.

Also, there was more than 1 team interested in V-Jax, reports had at least 4 teams interested, despite the steep asking price (2nd + 3rd + long term deal with V-Jax to get him to stop holding out).

I'm also not sure I agree with you about this being a terrible decision on the part of Jackson. Injuries are so common in the NFL that he would have been rolling the dice big time with a 1 year deal. V-Jax has never made "#1 receiver" money, and so while he's probably got a million or two stashed away, even a low end long-term "#1 receiver" deal would make a huge difference in his future financial security.

Football players aren't exactly well suited for other careers after the NFL, so their NFL earnings are basically the goose egg they have to rely on for the rest of their lives. The risk-averse thing to do here was to hold out and wait for a long-term contract with a good amount of guaranteed money.

by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:25am

Actually, players regularly agree to pay cuts, because the alternative is being cut. The fact is that the multiyear aspect of contracts are only binding on players, not binding on the owners. Which gives all the leverage to owners, with players having only the holdout as their sole negotiating tool.

by Theo_103 :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:03pm

As I understand the situation, he could report in week 10 and still get credit for a years playing to qualify for free agency in the future. But what happens if he comes back and the Chargers just say, "Enhh, we're good", and never activate him for a game. Does he still get credit for the year?

Winners never quit and quitters never win. But if you never win and never quit then you are an idiot. (Still like the Lions though.)

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:24pm

I believe that, effectively, all he has to do is report to get credit for the time. Even if they don't activate him, he's still on the team. That is, unless they cut him. But if they do that after all this drama, that would be a new height of idiocy.

by speedegg :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:51pm

I get the feeling Smith feels burned Drew Brees went to the Saints for nothing and helped the them get to the Superbowl. He gave Brees a low-ball offer, Brees didn't sign, became a free agent and went to New Orleans. Smith probably doesn't want Jackson or McNeil to do the same to another team.

Being a San Diego fan, I have more sympathy for Jackson than AJ Smith: if AJ Smith is going to do everything within his rights, then he should expect the same back from the players. He's getting it and doesn't like it. Smith made it a point to say we have a list of players we will sign, but can't sign everyone. Indirectly telling Jackson (and McNeil) that they aren't important. Jackson and McNeil are saying if we aren't that important let us go.

If this wasn't the last year of the CBA Jackson would be free, but it's not the case this year. Jackson wants either a long term contract that matches his performance or traded to a team that will do that. If Smith's asking price is a high draft pick from other teams, then he believes Jackson is worth more than he's being paid. If Smith knows something other teams don't and Jackson isn't going to repeat his performance, then he should trade Jackson now while his trade value is high. The longer he waits, the less value in a trade.

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:03pm

except smith doesnt like it and Jackson doesnt like it. Jacksons agent goes and calls out the manager by calling him the lord of no rings? seems like jackson is much more upset than AJ about the whole process.

Anquan boldin got paid shit for beans for years in arizona and still played. No bad mouthing of their GM by the fans. Seems hypocritical to me.

by tuluse :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:12pm

seems like jackson is much more upset than AJ about the whole process.

Well no shit, but what does that have to do with anything?

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:16pm

the guy i was commenting on was implying it was the other way around.

by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:24am

Wait what? Do you even follow the NFL? Players routinely do "allow a pay decrease if they had a substandard year". It's called renegotiating the contract, and it happens frequently because the "non-guaranteed contract" is a binding contract on players but non-binding on owners, which means that if a player isn't living up to the value of the contract, the owner can simply cut the player and dissolve the contract.

Also, AJ Smith was reportedly offered a 2nd rounder in 2011 and a contingent 3rd in 2012 (contingent on the Vikings signing V-Jax to a long term deal). He declined, because he reportedly wanted a 2nd and a 2nd, with no contingencies. You know what he'll get when V-Jax walks? A 3rd or less (less because V-Jax is now almost certainly going to structure his next deal in a way that pays minimal money in Year 1, which is how draft pick compensation is determined; also with the CBA going out the window, the system of draft pick compensation may be scrapped or revised).

Yes, AJ Smith is an ass. This was all about "principle" to him, apparently of showing how tough he is to players, rather than maximizing return. Moreover, the "Lord of No Rings" line was originally developed by the San Diego media, in response to Smith's imperiousness.

Take off the blinders, champ, your facts are just about 100% wrong.

by Mr Shush :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 12:09pm

Why are we assuming Jackson won't be franchised? Is there a more valuable player whose contract is about to expire on whom San Diego will have to use the tag (assuming it still exists in the new CBA, assuming there is a new CBA)?

by Frank (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 12:47pm

Me too, Alex. Me too.

by Raiderjoe :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:05pm

L. Kiffin beong like sex offender is true. He is like one. Al Davis cranky old neighbor eho wen find out sex offender move into neighborhood Al Davis get mad and throw eggs at house. and put sugar in liffin gas tank.

by witless chum :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:45pm

Except cranky old neighbor hired Kiffin for a job he had, uh, less than perfect qualifications for on paper first.

by Raiderjoe :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:34pm

Right movr to hire l. Kiffib. Unfortuately didnt work out becayse l. Kiffin is bum. So then a. Davis make another right move whe-ln fire l. kiffin befroe more damage get done.

by Shattenjager :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:30pm

Cognitive dissonance and Raiderjoe have never met.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:09am

Good one! Not even raiderjoe with all his magic powers can make this one look good for Al.

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:48pm

classic witless fan. let me guess, kiffin isnt qualified (hes 2-0 at USC), leinart posted over a 100 passer rating in the preseason to "lose" his starting job to the great derek anderson (cardinals have the 4th lowest scoring team in the league), and bush is a bust (even though he is an awesome pass catching back and no different than the beloved matt forte).

Why doesnt everyone just openly admit that they hate USC and refuse to use their brain when it comes to anything to do with them.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:08pm

So you're saying Kiffin WAS qualified for the Raiders HC job at the time he got it?

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:24pm

Classic defensive overreaction.

It is no stretch to say that Lane Kiffin had less than perfect qualifications for a NFL head coaching job when he was appointed to that position by the Raiders. A short tenure as an assistant at Jacksonville and a stretch as an assistant at USC does not usually make an adequate resume for a top NFL job [insert usual snide comments about Oakland not being a top NFL job].

Leinart also clearly did not do enough to keep his starting job ahead of Derek Anderson for the Cardinals. For whatever reason that is, the coaches know more than you and I. He therefore lost the job.

As for Reggie Bush, while he is a very good pass-catching running back many people feel he has underperformed on an excellent offense relative to his draft status. Some people consider that the mark of a bust. I don't think he's a bust, but I do think he is and has been overrated - we'll find out if that's the case over the next six weeks, I guess.

That says nothing whatsoever about my feelings toward USC. I know nothing about college football, and have no feelings either way (in fact, I find the entire college scene bewildering as it's just not how things work here outside Oxford and Cambridge). I am a fan of Matt Cassell. I rate Troy Polamalu as quite possibly the best safety in the league at the moment. I thoroughly enjoy watching Clay Matthews and Rey Maualuga. The fact they played at USC has nothing at all do with it.

Assuming anybody who disagrees with your impression of Kiffin, Leinart, and Bush inevitably does so because they hate USC, and calling them witless because of that, is exactly the kind of brainless homerism you chide others for at the end of your post.

by Mr Shush :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:40pm

As far as Bush is concerned, it depends what you mean by a bust. He's clearly a valuable NFL player, but he's also clearly not valuable enough to justify either the second overall pick or the contract that comes with it. He's the best paid running back in football. He's not even one of the ten most valuable running backs in football, nor one of the three most valuable running backs in his own draft class.

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 7:19pm

This is exactly what im talking about. You assume you know what your talking about and back it up with a biased opinion. Who says leinart "clearly" didnt win the starting job must also concede that any other player that isnt starting "clearly is the inferior player. Does this make jamaal charles worse than thomas jones just because he lost his starting job to him? no. There are other factors, especially the amount of hatred from unintelligent fans, vengeful coaches and story hungry media sources.

Here is the one that really gets to me. People on this site say reggie bush is overrated. Did you know his dvoa last year was over 30%? thats higher than chris johnson and nearly any other runningback you can come up with. Yet the casual fan, the outsiders writer barnwell, and the opinionated fan with no basis to his argument (you) will just write it off as he got lucky or some other excuse. Bush is a good pro player. If you dont believe in innovative statistics then why be on this site? I know you do believe in the innovative statistics so it must be your bias getting in the way.

Nobody talks about how big of a flop mcfadden is, and he is a much worse player than bush. seems hypocritical.

My theory on why some usc players get a pass is because they are undeniably good. The problem is that they still dont get the recognition they deserve. For years polamalu has been dubbed the second best safety (all top player polls listed ed reed as a better safety) even though the difference he makes is astounding. Pittsburgh goes from an awful defense instantly to the best defense in the league just because they get him back. ed reed doesnt have nearly the same impact on his team defense. So despite your love for some usc players, they still dont meet the expectations of other schools similar players.

"Assuming anybody who disagrees with your impression of Kiffin, Leinart, and Bush inevitably does so because they hate USC, and calling them witless because of that, is exactly the kind of brainless homerism you chide others for at the end of your post."

ive stated why it must be your hatred for usc, im sure you will fire back with more grunting. and i called him witless because thats his name. get a clue.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 7:31pm

Good lord, you're right! I hate a college I know nothing about! How could I have missed it all this time?



by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 7:33pm

and thats the grunting i was looking for. thanks!

btw did you know leinart had a higher dvoa than vince young in his first 2 seasons? He got rewarded with no more playing time, while vince remained the starter. Why isnt vince a journey man but leinart is? btw leinart had a better rushing dvoa than vince too so its not because vince is rushing his way into the better quarterback gig. Vince young according to dvoa is a worse pro player than matt leinart.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 8:01pm

I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong suit?

Let's take this nice and slowly. Please read this one sentence at a time. I'll try to keep them short.

Who says leinart "clearly" didnt win the starting job must also concede that any other player that isnt starting "clearly is the inferior player.

No, whoever says Leinart clearly didn't win the starting job must also concede that anybody else who isn't starting didn't win the starting job. I said nothing about Leinart being a better or worse player than Anderson. I think Leinart is the better football player. The coaches preferred Anderson. They may have preferred him for reasons that are not entirely related to his ability to throw a football. I trust their judgement over my own. They know more than I do.

Does this make jamaal charles worse than thomas jones just because he lost his starting job to him? no.

Did I say it does? No.

Yet the casual fan, the outsiders writer barnwell, and the opinionated fan with no basis to his argument (you) will just write it off as he got lucky or some other excuse.

Please show me where I said that he got lucky? He had a very good year as a dual threat running back on one of the best NFL offenses I have seen. I already said I don't agree that he's a bust. That I feel he is overrated does not mean I don't think he's a good player. It means I don't think he's as good as the hype around him would suggest. The hype around Reggie Bush still suggests that he is the second coming of Marshall Faulk. I do not think he is or will be that good a football player. Hence, I think the hype overrates him.

Nobody talks about how big of a flop mcfadden is, and he is a much worse player than bush.

In my experience, nobody talks about McFadden at all. A player can't be overrated if he isn't even rated in the first place. For what it's worth, I think he is much closer to being a flop than Reggie Bush is. I don't think either is a flop or a bust.

ive stated why it must be your hatred for usc

All you have stated is that no matter what I type, you'll either twist it or pretend it says something else to back up your premise. Admittedly, that makes me replying to you largely pointless but never mind eh?

If you dont believe in innovative statistics then why be on this site?

If you don't believe in rational discourse why involve yourself in the comment threads? I assume you do because you wouldn't be here otherwise, but your posts suggest completely the opposite.

Now for the last time - please read this carefully, as you seem to have missed it before.

I have no interest in college football. I could not even tell you which college most of the players I like went to. I do not know the names of any current college football players. I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about college football, and do not care to know either. The world of college football is completely alien to me.

Now after that, if you STILL insist that I "hate usc" then I really don't know what else to say to you except to recommend that you see a doctor. Paranoia and delusions can be treated with the right help. It's far more important than posting on a football website message board.

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 10:53pm

"The hype around Reggie Bush still suggests that he is the second coming of Marshall Faulk. I do not think he is or will be that good a football player. Hence, I think the hype overrates him"

i dont know what hole you are living in. No one has thought he was the second coming of marshall faulk since 2007.

"In my experience, nobody talks about McFadden at all. A player can't be overrated if he isn't even rated in the first place. For what it's worth, I think he is much closer to being a flop than Reggie Bush is. I don't think either is a flop or a bust."

How is mcfadden not rated? he was the 5(?)th overall draft pick!! People talk about bush being a bust because he came out of USC. Whether or not this is personally your opinion was not what i was arguing, but that as a whole USC players are more scrutinized than any other school.

"I have no interest in college football. I could not even tell you which college most of the players I like went to. I do not know the names of any current college football players. I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about college football, and do not care to know either. The world of college football is completely alien to me."

not completely! you obviously know which players are from USC despite never watching college football. You obviously know something about college football since you have named about 7 guys from USC. Its clearly not alien to you.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 11:17pm

Good lord. I know they're from USC because they're well known players who say they're from USC on television before every frigging game they play. Even then, I had to google Matthews and Maualuga to check I'd remembered correctly.

Remove head from sphincter, then post.

by Big Johnson :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 11:18pm

Jesus christ. thats what im saying. Notoriously from USC. How many negative posts this summer have there been towards usc players and lane kiffin? Even pete carroll people said was gonna suck ass as a coach and wasnt qualified to get hired. Hes over .500 as an nfl coach and people still claim hes an awful coach.

remove your head from your boyfriends crotch, then post.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 11:48pm

What in the nine hells does that have to do with my (lack of) knowledge of college football?

You have spent an unnerving amount of time today asserting that I - that is, me specifically - possess an innate hatred of USC which colours my vision of certain NFL players. I'm asserting that your position is a load of bollocks. It is incredible that you then choose to tell me that I know enough about college football to be biased against USC because I happened to remember that Clay Matthews says USC after his name on FOX sometimes. Do I also hate Michigan because I remember Tom Brady went to college there?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the internet.

by Big Johnson :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:34am

No, you must be absolutely retarded. My first post wasnt even to you. My stance is the way it is even before i knew you existed. You couldnt be more of an ignorant buffoon. Your the one rolling into a post with your arms swinging. Seems odd you would retain knowledge like a savant when its a USC player and then ignorantly turn your head when the other 43 players are doing their intro.

Im just curious as to why 2 of the most hated sports teams for their given sport are from southern california. Lakers and USC are only rivaled by the yankees in hatred. Its no coincidence. And its not just cause they are good. There are lots of good sports teams (steelers, colts, pats) that dont get half of the hate the socal greats do.

Insult not particularly funny.... a television set.

by chemical burn :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 1:57pm

worst. thread. ever.

by Big Johnson :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 2:15pm

good. insight. makes. you. seem. smart. by. putting. periods. and. not. actually. commenting. on. the. post.(.)

is there any logic to why 2 of the 3 most hated sports teams in the world (yankees being the third) are from socal?

by Mr Shush :: Sun, 09/26/2010 - 10:37am

Dude, if you think two of the three most hated sports teams in the world are from Southern California, you have another thing coming. You may well be right about the Yankees, but hardly anyone outside of North America has even heard of the Trojans, much less hates them - and as a Brit who knows far more about US sports than most non-Americans, I don't even have a clue who the other team you're referring to is. Whoever they are, I promise you that they are less hated than, for example, the Pakistan cricket team or the England soccer team. Even if you really meant "most hated sports teams in the US", I have a hard time believing that USC are more hated than the Cowboys, and perhaps the Patriots too.

by Andrew Potter :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 2:20pm

Eek, hope you didn't waste your time reading all of that. If I wasn't involved, I'd have given up after about post 52/53.

by Andrew Potter :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 2:15pm

Right, here's that reading comprehension thing again. Go back and read what you've typed specifically to me. Do you see where you've specifically said that I, that is me, hate USC? Do you see where you've told me that I must know about college football because I can name a player or two from USC (and Vanderbilt, and Michigan, and even Miami of Ohio, Harvard, and Hofstra, but again you're deriding me for something I never said)? Are you now claiming you didn't actually type those to me? How else am I meant to understand them?

Can you also see why if you say something like "why can't everyone just admit they hate usc", people who don't might reasonably voice their objections to that? If you'd just said "why do so many people hate usc", that's a different question entirely and not likely to elicit such a response.

If your posts are anything to go by, you perceive that two of the most hated teams in their given sports are from Southern California because you simply refuse to accept that some people don't hate them. In fact, some people don't give a toss about them either way (I also know basically nothing about basketball - oh no that can't be true because I've heard of Michael Jordan and know Chicago's team is the Bulls, even though the only basketball player I could name apart from Jordan and Pippen is Shaq).

by Big Johnson :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 2:55pm

I figured you wouldnt take my sentence as literal truth and more as a slight exaggeration when i said everyone should admit they hate USC. I dont hate USC.

You make me sad when you say "cause i can name a player or two". thats just a blatant lie since you have named atleast maeuouluga matthews leinart and bush. Why should i argue with someone who is clearly a liar? I said my original post wasnt even to you, and it wasnt. You came in all defensive as if i had attacked you, which i hadnt, and then took the stance on your own. My beef is with the general opinion of the public and you have done nothing to show me that you are any different. I understand that some people dont hate USC. I am curious (and angry) that the general public not only hates USC, but that they deny they hate USC when clearly they do. IM NOT SAYING YOU SPECIFICALLY HATE USC. Im saying you are the victim. Havent you ever asked the question,"why do they put more emphasis on a player being from USC than from other colleges during the player intros?" Get it into your thick skull what my post is actually about.

by Andrew Potter :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 3:03pm

Havent you ever asked the question,"why do they put more emphasis on a player being from USC than from other colleges during the player intros?"

No, I haven't. I can't say I've noticed or agree with that at all. If anything the most emphasis during the intros comes from players at "THE Ohio State University" (whatever that's about).

by Big Johnson :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 3:24pm

yet had i asked (and you not had google in front of you), how many ohio state players do u know off the top of your head, I would be willing to bet it is a lot less than USC players.

by Andrew Potter :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 4:07pm

...because more top players are from USC than from Ohio State.

What's that got to do with anything?

by BigCheese :: Tue, 09/28/2010 - 7:46pm

First of all, I don't hate USC. I have played as them for a couple of seasons on NCAA Football (and 70% of what I know abotu College Football comes fom that game). The only two players not named above that I know are form USC are a QB I still have little faith in (Sanchez) and the greatest LT in the game (Muñoz).

But I do know the following things:

-Lane Kiffin is an incompetent bufoon who has no business being a HC. I also know this was the majority opinion long before he went USC. This is how he was thought of when he was at Tennessee and this is how he was thought of his last year in Oakland.

-Reggie Bush was heralded as the best RB to come out in a generation when he went into the draft, to the point where the Texans' GM LOST HIS JOB for not drafting him and EVERYONE was saying how lucky the Saints were when he fell to them. I also know he has not performed ANYWHERE near that level and he's not the best RB in the league, he's not a Top 15 RB in the league, and he's usually not even the best RB on the Saints.

-People constantly mention McFadden as part of a trinity of suck with Russell and Howard-Bey

-USC is not one of the top 3 most hated teams in the US (in the world? Not even top 100 probably). They can't even claim they are undisputedly the most hated team in College Football when Notre Dame and Florida are still around.

-Your grip on reality and self-awareness make Raiderjoe look like Descartes. And the fact that you really can't see how when you're arguing that someone who doesn't know anything about USC other than when some players mention they are fom there MUST hate USC just like everyone else who isn't a fan of USC, makes you look like a paranoid and clueless individual.

So please, STFU.

- Alvaro

by Big Johnson :: Wed, 09/29/2010 - 5:15am

Lane Kiffin is undefeated this year at USC, and looks to be a pretty good head coach at the moment. Im sorry but majority opinion that he sucks doesnt mean that its true. What he did to tennessee was no different than what saban did to the dolphins, yet Kiffin is dubbed an incompetent buffoon and Saban isnt.

Whats really awesome is that Kiffin is undefeated and Carroll is 2-1 with what a lot of people on footballoutsiders and the media dubbed a train wreck before the season started. 2 examples of USC affiliated people getting much less respect than they deserve.

Self awareness? That doesnt make sense.

With the hated college teams you are way off target with florida. Notre Dame is close to USC in directed hatred but I still dont think they are quite on par. Remember that Florida got pegged with a similar situation legally with one of its players getting paid. But they wont have near the consequences that USC had. The reason? Because there are more rabid fans backing up the NCAA's allegations towards USC while the fans could give a shit whether Florida gets penalized. Its hypocritical and quite sad. This alone shows that Florida and USC arent even close to level on the hate scale.

You apparently cant read because I havent said he hates USC. So your whole last paragraph is out of context. Although english probably isnt the main language for someone with the name alvaro, so I forgive you.

by Mr Shush :: Fri, 10/01/2010 - 4:34pm

"Reggie Bush was heralded as the best RB to come out in a generation when he went into the draft, to the point where the Texans' GM LOST HIS JOB for not drafting him and EVERYONE was saying how lucky the Saints were when he fell to them"

The rest of your comment is very sensible, but I really, really don't believe this is true. Kubiak had final say on all personnel decisions from the moment he was hired. Casserly was gone from that moment, but he was kept on the payroll until after the draft to stop him passing on the team's thinking to other franchises. There is no way that Williams was drafted without the blessing of McNair and the enthusiastic support of Kubiak. My view at the time as a Texans fan was that I wanted Ferguson, who I saw as a safer bet, but Williams was the next best thing thanks to upside. I would say that there was far more contemporaneous anger among Texans fans about passing on Bush for someone other than Vince Young than for passing on Bush per se.

by Independent George :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:36pm

Right, because everybody here is always hating on Polamalu, Tatupu, and Steve Smith Redux.

by Arson55 :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 2:48am

Shh...you're not allowed to make sense. He had a perfectly irrational argument and you ruined it.

by Big Johnson :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 4:39am

thats right, put big hairy andy in his place!

by Kevin from Philly :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:14pm

Did Kiffin have to register with the sherrif when he moved back to California?

by SWatson (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:05pm

I fully support players holding out for new deals when they've outperformed their contracts. Players are sacrificing their long-term health for a lot of money and they have a very limited amount of time to earn it. It's rare for a player to last ten years in the NFL and then they'll pay a long-term price and suffer a lot of pain for the remainder of their lives, so they have to get the money while the getting's good.

You criticize players for wanting to tear up contracts since they would never permit a new contract if they underperformed, but that's not true. If a team finds a player underperforms, they can just cut them and not pay them another dime, so teams renege on contracts constantly. Yet you fault players for wanting to do the same thing.

Players need to score that one big contract that will pay them enough to take care of them for the rest of their lives. In all likelihood, they'll have a tough time supporting themselves after football. Why would a player who knows he'd fetch a $50 million contract want to play out the final year or two of a contract for only $1-3 million per year? I know your inclination is to scoff at thinking that's not much money, but when you factor in the small possibility (small, but not remote) of the cost of a major injury, it makes perfect sense. Because then you've not only lost your health, but you've in all likelihood lost your $50 million contract. It will take years of high production just to convince another team to throw that kind of money at you. It's dangerous to risk your lifetime contract.

I remember Rodney Harrison of the Pats outperforming his contract. He graciously decided to play it out rather than insisting the Pats pay him for his ProBowl production. I remember thinking it was foolish of him. He was risking a lot, and sure enough he suffered several injuries two seasons in a row as he finished out his contract. As far as I know, he never had a big payday before he retired. He was simply too big a risk. Fortunately, he's found a job as an analyst, but he'll never see the kind of money he could have seen had he signed a contract that paid him as a disruptive Pro-Bowl safety who made plays all over the field. He should have held out.

I'm a Colts' fan, and I never begrudged Edgerrin James leaving us right before we won the Super Bowl. Neither did Jim Irsay. Everyone who was informed understood the Colts would never pay him another big contract at his age. We let him go to Arizona who threw a lot of money at him and he put a lot of it away before he retired. James always understood about saving his money. After we won the Super Bowl, the Colts sent him his own Super Bowl ring because they knew he was one of the hardest workers on the team and helped get us to where we were. He got his money and I'm very happy for him.

by dryheat :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:58pm

Rodney Harrison actually had to take a pay cut to avoid being cut his last couple of years with the Patriots because he underperformed his contract.

by Bobby Wommack (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:23pm

In no way was Harrison going to be cut "his last couple of years." What universe were you watching Pats games in?

by dryheat :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:39am

Well, Belichick forced him to take a pay cut. What do you think would have happened had Rodney said "No Thanks." Bill would've said, "No problem, just figured I'd ask?"

If your memory needs jogging, I'll come back to add a link.


by frievalt :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:27pm

More than any other position, highly productive runningbacks on their first contract should usually holdout.

by PatsFan :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:34pm

so teams renege on contracts constantly. Yet you fault players for wanting to do the same thing.

That's very incorrect. Teams do not "renege on contracts constantly."

The contract which was mutually agreed to by the team and the player gives the team the right to cut the player at any time. By contrast, they do not give the player the right to hold out.

So the symmetry you attempt to imply is totally bogus.

Players are totally free to negotiate totally-guaranteed contracts, by the way (Adam Vinatieri had one at some point with the Patriots, IIRC). However, quite reasonably the $ will be lower on a totally-guaranteed contract and the principle of revealed preferences tell us that players would rather roll the dice for a bigger payday than take the security of a guarantee.

by frievalt :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:59pm

The contract which was mutually agreed to ...do[es] not give the player the right to hold out.

But that right certainly exists.

by PatsFan :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 10:46pm

Let me rephrase...

A player who holds out is reneging on the contract. He is violating its terms. A team who cuts a player who does not have a guaranteed contract is not reneging on the contract.

by Some Random Guy (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:18pm

"By contrast, they do not give the player the right to hold out", huh? I didn't realize that NFL contracts didn't allow players decide to stop playing in exchange for the termination of their compensation. The Cardinals need to send the Pinkertons out to rough up Kurt Warner and make him honor the remainder of his contract, I guess.

As much as you and your masters might like it to be so, contract employees are not prisoners. In this particular case, it's even funnier, since Jackson isn't actually under contract. Even in the most draconian pro-corporate reading of the situation, he should be totally free to never again sign a contract with the Chargers, and go do something non-NFL related with his life.

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:48pm

Jackson IS under contract. His contract states if the CBA was allowed to expire, the Chargers have exclusive bargaining rights to him.

He's just not under contract to PLAY.

by Some Random Guy (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:40pm

Oh, for the love of bullshit.


by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:49am

There is only one major professional football industry in the US, and its owners decide together on a system of contracts and compensation.

Yes, Jackson could "retire", but he can't play football anywhere else under this binding contract. So he is in effect a prisoner of his contract, because his alternative is to go work in another industry.

I don't know what profession you are, but if you're a CPA, attorney, doctor or any other type of trained "skilled" professional, imagine if you had a similar contract, where the alternative to finishing the terms of your contract was to no longer work in your profession, anywhere else in the country. Even in the most anti-labor portions of the country (the Deep South), this type of provision is considered unreasonable and regularly struck down. And yet that is exactly the situation the NFL has.

Which again makes me think how unbelievable it is that the NFL owners are planning to lock out the players and try to extract more gain (the only explanation for me is that Anthony Noto, former Goldman Sachs analyst, was running the NFL's bus dev shop, and he apparently convinced the owners they should be making higher rates of return-- this is the Goldman way).

by tuluse :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 4:38pm

Actually, it's even worse. Jackson has played out his whole contract. Now he's being held onto because of the restricted free agency policy.

by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 10:33am

"There is only one major professional football industry in the US, and its owners decide together on a system of contracts and compensation. "

No, there isn't. There are several others, they just don't pay nearly as well.

by Jerry :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 6:39pm

I don't know if you can describe any of them as "major".

by bravehoptoad :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 10:35am

...they do not give the player the right to hold out.

Seriously, dude. Is there any job in the U.S. where an employee can't quit? I don't want to live in the country you think we're living in.

by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 11:43am

ahh patsfan, we already had this conversation.

the point you're missing is that the NFL is NOT a free labor market. there are in fact only 32 teams who collude on how they will offer contracts to their employees. the reason this is allowed to exist is because it's part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiated by the Players' Union. This idea of a one way contract does not exist in any other employment setting (and would almost certainly be deemed a per se unreasonable contract provision in ordinary employment settings). in fact, should an antitrust suit against the NFL proceed (questionable) and succeed (likely), one of the primary points of evidence the NFLPA would point to is the unfair, one-way contracts that exist in the NFL but not elsewhere (including in the other major sports).

by the way, contracts/"free market" guy, you're aware that the original legal justifications for both indentured servitude and slavery were based on a purist view of contract law such as the one you hold, yes?

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:35pm

I confess I thought Edgerrin was being unreasonable when he left the Colts for more money, but I've since changed that stance. A pro athlete has a relatively short window of time to make all the money they're ever going to make from playing. Seeking to maximize that money is not only fair, it's downright prudent.

Arguments like "the players never give money back if they don't live up to the contract" don't carry a lot of weight, IMO. Players don't give money back if they underperform; owners don't give more money if the player overperforms. Nobody willingly GIVES money back in these situations. A team can pressure a player into taking less by threatening to cut him. A player can pressure a team into giving more money by threatening to not play at all. It's not a great system, but it's a system, and everyone's trying to maximize their cut. It's a market, plan and simple. The rest is just spin over which side can claim to be the victim of the other's greed.

by TomC :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 1:44pm

People like Sarkisian are the reason I gave up on the college game a long time ago.

by Tracy :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 2:01pm

I gave up on college football when I realized that everybody's getting paid except the players, and that the most powerful institutions are willing to do almost anything to protect/increase their revenue streams, whether or not it's good for the student athletes, or good for competition, or even ethical.

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:13pm

The idea that the players don't get paid for college football is absurd.

Most of us have tens of thousands of dollars of college loans. None of these guys do.

Yeah, $50K a year in Housing, and Tuition isn't NFL money, but its more money than most americans make.

by Some Random Guy (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:25pm

It's more that they don't have the opportunity to seek compensation commensurate with their worth, but are all forced into a leveled system that compensates everyone more or less equally, from a backup safety for Compass Point State University, to a Heisman Trophy candidate QB for Big Name University.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:37pm

I agree with your point, but I'm pretty sure Reggie Bush got paid more than the backup safety from CPSU.

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 3:45pm

I'm pretty sure USC or any other big name uni is more expensive than Compass Point State University. In most cases its a better education too.

by Some Random Guy (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:36pm

1) Given your other comments in this thread, you don't seem to place any value on education in any case.
2) Generalizations about the costs and merits of compass point universities have so many exceptions that their value is limited. Certainly, there are players for prestigious programs in BCS conferences who are compensated with an education with a lower dollar value and quality than players in third tier conferences where most people couldn't name their team mascot.
3) You're splitting hairs to a pathetic degree.

by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Sun, 09/26/2010 - 12:12pm

This topic may be done, but if you ever knew D-I football players, you'd know that the curricular education they get is typically garbage. Even at Ivy League, non-scholarship schools, football players are expected to spend most of their days working out, practicing, etc. Even during the offseason, they are fully expected to be working out, watching film, etc.

It's basically like having a full time job while attending college. Certainly there are people who do this (Alex Smith comes to mind, and I'm sure we all knew people who were working jobs while also attending school), but it's a pretty difficult path, and your grades typically tend to suffer as a result.

So it's not exactly fair to say that college athletes get a $50,000/year education, when most of them typically come out of college with:

1) poor grades (certainly worse than they would have gotten if they were not playing football);
2) probably a worthless major (Rocks for Jocks or Phys Ed anyone?);
3) poor educational background for any non-football profession.

by panthersnbraves :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:05pm

If CPSU will give my B-student son a free ride in exchange for playin OT - where do we sign?

Food and cleats alone are going to bankrupt me.

by TomC :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:00pm

Payment in kind is not the same as drawing a salary, especially when the in-kind payment has almost no short-term worth to the recipient. Furthermore, the thing that is worth ~$50k/year about attending USC is not the piece of paper you pick up at the end; it's the actual education. And only the most extraordinary individual is going to be able to get a semblance of a real education while holding the more-than-full-time job of major college athelete. So basically these guys are playing for three hots and a cot, and the universities are making tens of millions of dollars a year on their backs.

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:06pm

"Furthermore, the thing that is worth ~$50k/year about attending USC is not the piece of paper you pick up at the end; it's the actual education"

Recruiters and HR people would disagree.

Most companies won't sniff at you without a degree at this point. They couldn't give a crap what you actually learned at school.

by panthersnbraves :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:11pm

5 years experience at a local restaurant chain, with regionally known qualifications? sorry - we gave that Manager's job to the Art History major over here with a degree - why don't you go get you one of them?

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:35pm

Hey, the college athletes who choose to get shitty degrees do just that. They choose.

That being said, Kid just out of college with a management degree or business degree getting that job over the guy with 5 years of experience and no degree? See it every day.

Maybe as a computer programmer I have an especially jaded view of the "education" you receive at college, as I probably would have been more prepared straight out of highschool, than after I finished my $120K degree.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:08pm

"Kid just out of college with a management degree or business degree getting that job over the guy with 5 years of experience and no degree? See it every day."

And how. In fact, the guy without the degree getting it would be a gigantic upset. At least in terms of entry-level "professional" jobs, the piece of paper is typically the one and only qualification.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:38pm

We're actually headed the other way in the UK. A lot of companies are now realising that many degrees aren't worth the ink used to print the certificate, and now prefer to train in-house. Apprenticeships remain the best way to guarantee a job after you "graduate", and huge numbers of graduates find themselves working menial jobs because there's no demand for their qualification.

Then again, it seems that college/university degrees have never been nearly as mandatory here as they are in the US. My last girlfriend before I met my wife was from California. She would have been the only person in her extended family for three generations not to have a degree, had she failed to do so. In contrast, the only time I've ever set foot in a university since high school was to visit her at her dormitory. In my fairly middle-class UK family, I'm not aware of anybody - aunts, uncles, cousins, the works - who has a degree. I understand that they're a necessity in some fields, but the obsession with slips of paper is completely baffling in many more instances. (A degree in German? Why would that ever be more useful than living and working in Germany for four years?)

by tuluse :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 5:51pm

A college degree these days shows that you can set out to do something and finish it more than anything.

by jbrown (not verified) :: Sat, 09/25/2010 - 5:35pm

Exactly. I spent some time with one of the bigger restaurant companies in the country and they won't touch anybody in operations or corporate/desk-type jobs without a degree. I didn't agree with it necessarily, but that's a pretty common stance I see all the time now. In fact, there is a pretty big push to require MBA's for jobs that shouldn't need anywhere near that level of skill. Small businesses seem to be the only ones willing to "gamble" on someone without a degree...which is why I love running my own company

by MCS :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:15pm

But I thought the NCAA limited practice time to 20 hours per week.

by panthersnbraves :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 4:20pm

errr.... riiiiiight......

by wr (not verified) :: Fri, 09/24/2010 - 6:59pm

The major NCAA schools, like the NFL, have 'voluntary' workout programs, if
memory serves.

by MCS :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 2:41pm

NCAA allows only 20 hours per week of practice. http://www.annarbor.com/sports/michigan-investigating-allegations-of-exc...

wr is correct with the "voluntary" comment.

How many schools follow that rule? How does film time factor in? How about time in the weight room?

My point is that the system is broken. Athletic scholarships were orginally intended to be used to provide an education for people that had no other means to pay for one.

It should be noted that the coaches/admin/students, etc. are all in this together. The students should be pushing for the full benefits of their scholarship. Namely, an education.

Hell, the sord "scholar" is right there.

I do not wish to engage in debate on this topic as my comment was mainly snarky.

by tuluse :: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 3:42pm

They're getting an education.

They're being taught how to play football at a high level.