Can we at least change the name?
That's my thought as we enter the franchise tag period, the first real date on the NFL's offseason calendar. From Feb. 20 to March 5, an NFL team has the right to place a franchise tag on one of its current players whose contract has expired and retain his rights under a one-year deal.
I don't like the tag. Never have and never will. When a player's contract expires, I believe that he should be able to shop his services on the open market and decide where he would like to work and his family would like to live. You know, kind of like almost every other person in American society, including the athletes in professional basketball, baseball and hockey. Now, I know there are non-compete clauses and things of that ilk for non-athletes, but for the most part we live in an at-will work environment. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7597584/franchise-tag-needs-overhaul-nfl
Shacks' Take: I'm thinking Ross took a few too many blows to the head during his days on the o-line. Did he miss that thing called the lock-out last year where the players had a chance to modify little things in the CBA, you know like the 'franchise tag'. Does Ross also not realize that no one but the players themselves care that they're making a few million less in the new CBA; seriously, if they're making a few million less, they're still making a lot of million more than you or I. Unfortunately Ross brings the same sense of entitlement that many present and ex-players have when it comes to NFL finances and we the working public don't give a shit.
Sorry Ross that you feel players are hard done by only receiving 1 year contracts for a lifetimes worth of money, maybe your column should be on NFLPA.com because the rest of us aren't about to get upset about which millionaire makes less millions than you think he should.
No comments:
Post a Comment