A lack of excitement

http://www.rhinossoccer.com/news/041216-1529.shtml

So the Rhinos made official what many expected: Laurie Calloway was hired as the second head coach in team history.

I want to be excited about the Rhinos moving on and replacing Pat Ercoli. But, this move doesn't excite me all that much.

GM Chris Economides knew that it wouldn't when he talked about John Harkes being the "sexy" choice. I just hope that going with the guy that has head coaching experience and knows the league and a good portion of the roster is the right move.

Although, I'm also disappointed because I feel this is a signal that the Rhinos are expecting to remain in the USL 1st division (the league formerly known as the A-League) for a while.

I probably should have expected money to be an issue with Harkes. But I guess the thoughts of having a player I liked as a kid coming to coach my hometown team clouded my judgement.

Hopefully Calloway will get the ship back on course quickly. If he doesn't, the angry mob with pitchforks in hand (or at least keyboards at the ready) will be forming quickly.

We all know that people will say that the man who has never lost a game as a coach would have done a better job, right?

The good news will be that the Rhinos are expected to announce that they've signed Dusty Huddock to replace Theo "I got smoked like" Zagar and that Rene Rivas and Scott Schweitzer have been brought back into the fold. At a minimum, Rene and Scotty will bring back some fire and excitement to a squad that lack both for much of last season.

Hopefully a return to the glory days is just around the corner.

The worst case scenario is that we should be able to see the opening of PaeTec Park next season!!!!!! And I wouldn't miss that for the world.

The battle of the fuzzy math

Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA took great offense to the NHL's projections for what would happen if the NHL accepted the NHLPA's latest offer.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/12/17/787187-sun.html

Bob called the numbers "hogwash". Ted Saskin, the NHLPA's #2 guy, suggested that if more realistic numbers were used, that the NHL would project to make money under the NHLPA's proposal.

While I believe the NHL's numbers were overly conservative, what did people expect?

This is a negotiation. And both sides always overstate things.

For example, the NHLPA is assuming that there is an 82 game 2004-05 season when they do all of their savings calculations. And everyone knows that we are well past the time where there will be a full season. Also, the NHLPA isn't taking into account the revenue that the NHL will lose thanks to the latest national TV deals in the US. The money that the league will get from NBC and ESPN are nowhere near the kind of dollars that the NHL received in their previous deal with ESPN and ABC.

And the NHL makes a great point when it talks about backlash due to the lockout.

The real wildcard is whether the owners would take the money saved by the NHLPA's offer of an across the board 24% salary rollback and put that back into the team's payroll.

Well, I believe that teams like Detroit, Toronto, and others certainly would. And those are the teams that help drive the salary inflation under the previous deal. Heck, there was one Toronto writer talking about all the budget space the cutbacks would create for the Leafs to go out and make moves.

Besides, if the NHLPA really believed their numbers, then why wouldn't they guarantee them when the NHL asked them to do so?

No matter how Goodenow huffs and puffs, nor how many Powerpoint and Excel slideshows he puts together, most people know that he's banking on the owners once again spending like drunken sailors.

That's his job.

He just doesn't like the fact that too many owners have sobered up and are trying to take the keys away from the ones that haven't yet.

Is it just me, or is the NHLPA acting like a bunch of spoiled brats?

Maybe it's just me, but a lot of the quotes I'm hearing coming out of the mouths of NHL players recently sound like things that come out of the mouths of spoiled brats the first time their parents decide to drop the hammer and not give them what they want.

I mean, how many players have given out quotes about how they were shocked that the NHL didn't gobble up their latest offer immediately?

How many players keep saying that the NHLPA is the only side that is negotiating? Or that there is no way to even consider a salary cap?

This all sounds to me like a group of people that are so used to getting their way that they don't know how to react when things aren't going like they always have.

Ever since Bob Goodenow has taken control of the NHLPA from Alan Eagleson, he has bested Gary Bettman and the owners at the bargaining table. So naturally, the players have a lot of faith in Goodenow. And they expect that when push comes to shove, that the owners will be the ones that fold.

And now that that appears like it won't happen, the players don't know what to do. They certainly don't want to "lose" the battle of "cost certainty" vs "a marketplace system". But they really have no idea how to do that, so they start making comments that sound childish, at best.

Hopefully the NHLPA members grow up soon and take their medicine for the first time in history of the Goodenow-Bettman NHL. If not, they could be seeing the industry in which they make a living shrink quite a lot. And that will make a guaranteed average team payroll of $34 million look like what George Steinbrenner pays out every year.

The NHL's counterproposal

The dance went as everyone expected.

The NHL turned down the NHLPA's offer.

They then tabled a counteroffer.

And the NHLPA turned it down.

So now that that is out of the way, let's look at what the NHL offered to the NHLPA:

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html

1) The NHL revamped the NHLPA's one time salary rollback. Whereas the NHLPA asked every player under contract to accept a 24% rollback, the NHL offered up a rollback that was graduated. The 349 players under contract for less than $800,000 would not have to give up a penny. The 249 players making over $800,000 and less than $2 million would give up less than 24% (15% from $800,000 to $1.499 million and 20% from $1.5 to $1.999 million). 133 players making between $2 and $3.99 million would see the same 24% reduction. And the 65 players making $4 million and above are being asked to share a larger burden (30% for players making $4 to $4.99 million and 35% for players making $5 million and above).

This tweak to the NHLPA's offer was clearly made in an attempt to get the members of the NHLPA to fight amongst themselves and re-ignite the chatter that the NHLPA is looking out more for the 65 players that make over $4 million than they are for the 349 players that are currently making less than $800,000.

The NHLPA claims that won't happen because the NHL's motives for structuring this part of the deal the way they did was transparent. But only time will tell on that one.

2) The NHL took issue with most of the NHLPA's offers of market deflators and said that they would not put a drag on salary growth and was merely tweaking the status quo.

Overall, I would tend to agree with this assessment.

3) The NHL said that a luxury tax would not work.

While I believe that the luxury tax that the NHLPA offered up wouldn't work, I'm not willing to say that a luxury tax system that had lower trigger points and higher penalties would not work.

4) The NHL took exception to the NHLPA's changes to the qualifying offer system, but did not come back with a firm counterproposal.

5) The NHL offered to completely get rid of salary arbitration.

Personally, I think this is a bad thing for fans, but makes business sense for the owners. I like arbitration because it guarantees that a player gets a contract done prior to training camp opening.

I would have liked to have seen the NHL offer up a revamped system that was similiar to MLB's in that the arbitrator can only accept the team's offer or the player's offer and not a number in between. I also would have liked it if the teams were given the same exact rights to opt for arbitration as the players have.

6) The NHL accepted the NHLPA's modifications to the entry level system for rookies with two rather major changes. First, the league wanted standard rookie deals to be lengthened from 3 years to 4. That shouldn't be a major issue. However, the NHL also asked that all incentive bonuses be taken off the table for rookies.

I'm of the opinion that that is going too far. If a player on a rookie contract is able to lead the league in goal scoring like Rick Nash did last season, then he deserves a bonus for doing so. But, I do believe that the way the NHLPA's bonus structure was set up needed to be tweaked to both cap the "B' group bonuses and make both sets of bonuses tougher to attain.

7) The NHL offered up a payroll range system. It said that all team payrolls should fall within a range of 51% to 54% of average league revenues. It also stated that any team that had a payroll below the 51% mark would have to pay a tax up to that 51% number and that money would then be turned over to the players.

This offer is essentially a salary cap and salary floor system.

And it is this part of the deal that the NHLPA felt that they couldn't live with above all else.

8) The NHL said that they want meaningful revenue sharing. But, they did not lay out their complete plan for revenue sharing.

9) The NHL offered to reduce the age for unrestricted free agency from 31 to 30.

10) The NHL offered to move the minimum salary to $300,000. The NHLPA had offered to move it from $185,000 to $250,000.

Honestly, this is more window dressing by the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHLPA membership.

11) The NHL stated that they want to structure the system in such a way that the median salary of $800,000 doesn't decrease.

Again, the NHL is targetting the bulk of the players in the union to try and push for resolution on their terms over the main sticking point of cost certainty by giving the lower end players concessions at the cost of the top end players.

12) The NHL stated in no uncertain terms that they are not looking to get rid of guaranteed contracts, despite what NHLPA leadership would have them think.

In the end, the NHL's gameplan was similiar to that of the NHLPA's last week. The NHL was trying to put an offer out there that was capable of winning the hearts and minds of the players that currently make $800,000 and less.

It will be interesting to see if the strategy will work in getting the NHLPA to move off of the one stance that they have that is keeping talks from moving forward on the NHL's terms.

What will the NHL's counterproposal be?

Well, using the leaked "confidential memo" to the 30 NHL owners ( http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107996&hubName=nhl ) as a basis, you can probably count on a few things happening in the NHL's counterproposal:

1) They will tweak the salary giveback to hit the higher paid players more than the lower end guys. The NHLPA offered up a 24% across the board pay cut. I'd expect the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHL by having a graduated salary roll back where the more you make, the higher the percentage you'll be asked to give back.

2) The NHL will make the qualifying offers lower.

3) The NHL is going to take salary arbitration completely off the table in their proposal. The funny thing is that former player and now TSN analyst Glenn Healy is now saying that this is another thing that the players can't live without. It's funny how that list seems to be growing by the day by the side that says is the only one that's willing to negotiate.

4) The NHL will tweak the revenue sharing plan. The NHL hinted that rather than use regular revenues as the basis for the revenue sharing pool, that they will create the pool from playoff revenues.

Personally, I'd like that idea as it could take away some of the financial incentive to make the playoffs that has driven many teams to play boring, close to the vest hockey in an attempt to cash in on playoff games.

But the whole negotiation could blow up when they get to the main area of contention:

Cost certainty.

The owners want a system that guarantees that salary growth doesn't wildly outpace revenue growth. That was the major issue with the previous CBA. And the NHLPA's proposal didn't offer anything up that would put a serious drag on salary growth.

The NHLPA says that the owners should be more responsible.

And the NHL isn't going to accept that answer.

So we could be in this same spot 12 months from now unless Bettman, Daly, Goodenow, and Saskin can hammer out a system that Bettman can tell the owners will give them cost certainty and that Goodenow can sell to the players as not a salary cap.

I'd propose an escroll tax system similiar to what The Hockey News suggested that linked salary growth to revenue growth and would pay back either side to get things to even out.

Who knows if that's something that either side would consider. Personally, that should be preferable to entering the giant unknown of what the backlash will be if the season is cancelled because spoiled billionaires are fighting spoiled millionaires for control of a $2 billion industry.

Close only counts......

I guess it was too much to ask that the Redskins pull out that game late last night. I loved the go for the kill shot at the end zone in theory. But I hated that Ramsey threw the ball to a double (and almost triple)-covered Chris Cooley.

But I loved the way Sean Taylor and the Skins defense laid a beat down on TO.

And if Shawn Springs plays this week, he'll get huge props from me. That his he took has got to show up on Jacked Up! tonight.

In other news, Charlie Weis gets the Notre Dame job. Maybe I can't hate them after all. And no matter what any talking head will say, hiring Weis was the right thing to do. Who cares if it messes up this year's recruiting class? Mack Brown or Bob Stoops would have struggled to put together a solid recruiting class at Notre Dame this year.

Hopefully Notre Dame will have a little patience and will put some of NBC's money into making the recruiting budget top notch and updating some of the oldest facilities in all of D-1A football.

I mean, Notre Dame finally figured out that they have to pay their head coach the going rate. Maybe now they'll figure out that they have to pay the going rate for facilities and the recruiting budget if they are to get Weis the horses he'll need to get the results the boosters will want.

But, I will have to root for Washington when they host Notre Dame early next season. The Huskies named Ty Willingham as their new head coach today.

To me, that almost made more sense than the Weis hire in South Bend. Willingham could win at Stanford. I can't imagine what he'll be like in Seattle.

My reaction to the NHLPA's new CBA proposal

http://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/PDFTransferFile.asp

First let me start off by saying that I'm excited by the NHLPA's latest proposal. It's far from perfect, but it is much better than their previous two offers and should kick start serious negotiations. Hopefully a deal can be done in the next little while and there will be a shortened NHL season to follow.

The NHLPA broke their offer out into 6 main parts:

1) The immediate roll back of salaries by 24%.

The NHLPA's previous offer was a 5% rollback on salaries, so this his a huge move for the NHLPA. Although, the NHLPA has overstated a lot of the immediate savings created by this rollback due to the fact that the 2004-05 season will not be an 82 game season and salaries would likely have been on a pro-rated basis.

But, this does save the NHL money immediately, it does re-set the overall marketplace for future contracts, and will get the NHLPA serious PR points with the fans and media, along with strengthening their case if the NHL tries to go the impasse and implementation route to get cost certainty.

2) The NHLPA offered up a few ways to deflate salaries on an ongoing basis. These are the systemic issues that the NHL has talked about having to address.

Most noticeably, the NHLPA has offered serious cut backs on rookie salaries. The newest offer caps base salaries for rookies at $850,000 per year with only up to $212,500 being in a yearly signing bonus that is guaranteed money for the players. Also, they've added restrictions to Group "A" bonuses to 4 bonuses per year worth $212,500 each for a total of $850,000. This area was unlimited under the previous CBA. Group "B" bonuses for being amongst league leaders in various statistical categories remain completely open to negotiation between the players and clubs.

This area is nice, but I believe the triggers for both the Group "A" and "B" bonuses need to be tougher to obtain for players.

Also, there are changes to the qualifying offer system. The offer would have QOs set at 110% for players making less than $660,000, 105% for players making between $660,000 and $1 million, and 100% for players making over $1 million. Clubs were also given the option to take players to arbitration on a limited basis.

Personally, the QO for players making over $1 million needs to be less than 100% unless the NHLPA wants to remove the limits on the number of players that a team can opt to take to arbitration.

3) The NHLPA made their luxury tax system tougher (20% over $45 million, 50% over $50 million, and 60% over $60 million), but it is still too weak.

Taking the 24% rollback into account, only 3 teams would pay a luxury tax next season. And the total payouts would be less than $2 million.

The current offer sets the bar too high and the penalties are too weak to really put a drag on salaries moving forward. Although, I did like the increasing penalties for repeat offenders.

4) The one area of the proposal that I have to give the NHLPA major kudos for is the area of revenue sharing. The NHLPA wants revenue sharing on a much larger scale than the NHL does. The NHL wants a system set up where the top 10 revenue generating teams pay a total of $65 million. The NHLPA wants that total to be $215 million. Although, in this offer they have three separate thresholds ($65, 124, and 189 million) for the NHL to choose from.

If the NHL is serious about leveling the playing field for all the teams, they should take the NHLPA up on the $189 million revenue sharing pot figure.

5) The NHLPA is asking that a joint NHL-NHLPA effort to look at improving various aspects of the game from marketing to game rules to expansion and beyond. On the heels of the summit held by Brendan Shanahan, I think this is a fine idea that should be implemented for the good of the game and of the league.

At a minimum, it would create more NHLPA ownership of the state of the current game. Right now, the NHLPA likes to lay all the blame for the state of the NHL at the feet of the owners and Gary Bettman. This could help create the partnership that Bettman says he wants with the players and that the league desperately needs moving forward.

6) There are a number of details that the NHLPA would like to change moving forward that appear on the surface to be minor details.

The major one in my mind is the tweaks to the draft that the NHLPA is looking for. I have some concerns about stuff like talk of treating NCAA and European draftees like those from the CHL. If NCAA and European draftees become UFAs two years after they are drafted that will likely create competition issues as players will opt to not go to the teams that drafted them and instead heading to the open market. Personally, I'd rather see it go the other way and have CHLers tied to the teams that draft them longer.

At the end of the day, the NHLPA has made a good faith offer that could kickstart negotiations that could save the NHL season. A deal that could be made off of this proposal will not be the perfect deal for either side. However, I do believe that any deal that could be made off of this proposal will end up being better for each side than whatever happens if the season is lost.

Hopefully this leads to a deal getting done.

The NHL is going to digest the offer and come back with a counter-proposal on Tuesday. Hopefully it is not merely a take it or leave it stance that hinges entirely on the NHL getting cost certainty.

But we shall see............

I'm free to hate Notre Dame once again.

I used to hate Notre Dame football with a passion. Outside of Rudy, of course.

But then they went and hired Tyrone Willingham. And I started to like the program.

And the they went and make Ty Willingham the first coach in the school's history to be fired before his contract had expired.

And it hasn't even taken long for Notre Dame to look like even bigger idiots than they did when they fired Ty Willingham.

First, Notre Dame is spurned by former Notre Dame assistant coach and hot name of the year in Utah head coach Urban Meyer. Urban decided that Florida was a much better job. With the rich recruiting grounds in Florida's backyard and all the talent that Ron Zook had recruited and not been able to mold into a consistent winner (Maybe we should call Zook Mack Brown v2.0?), what's not to like? Especially since it's not like Florida has admissions people that will tell the football coach that a player can't be admitted.

Then Mooch says that staying with the Detroit Lions and working for one of the worst GM's in the NFL is a better gig. I know it pays a lot better, but come on.......

Then Bobby Petrino says that staying in Louisville with them entering the Big East next season is better than Notre Dame. And who could blame him. Have you seen how bad the Big East was this year? Petrino must be licking his chops as he could go to a BCS bowl every year until the BCS wakes up and gives the Big East the boot.

The best one could be Jim Fassel saying that the job as the Ravens' special assistant and a possible NFL coordinator or head coaching job is better than taking the Notre Dame job.

And today, the outgoing Notre Dame president says that the only time he's been embarrased to be a part of Notre Dame was last week when Willingham was ousted and that he wasn't a part of the process.

Bottom line, Notre Dame has become a legend in it's own mind. George O'Leary was Notre Dame's like 3rd or 4th choice. And he left under a dark cloud. And so they moved on to Willingham who was their 5th choice or so. And now he's out. And Notre Dame is again down to Plan E or F.

The one name that Notre Dame doesn't want to wait for, but makes a ton of sense is New England Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis.

Weis is a Notre Dame grad. He almost killed himself trying to lose weight to make him more attractive to possible employers in an attempt to get a head coaching job. He's worked for Bill Belicheck and Bill Parcells. He knows what it takes to win in the NFL.

What's not to like, you ask?

Notre Dame doesn't want to wait until after the Patriots are ousted from the playoffs for their next head coach to start working.

Well, isn't throwing away what is likely to be a bad recruiting class anyway worth getting a guy that could possibly be the guy that could turn the program around?

I think so.

But, I'd probably root for Weis because of all he's gone through to become a head coach. And I'd rather root against Notre Dame. And their myopic fans.

Is tomorrow the day the NHL is saved?

Well, after almost 2 months off, the NHL and NHLPA will get back to the bargaining table tomorrow.

Everyone is expecting the NHLPA to up their offer with the one time roll back in salaries moving from 5% to 10%, along with the luxury tax getting much tougher than previously offered with the penalties rising from 10 or 20 cents on the dollar to allegedly 75 cents on the dollar for payrolls above $40 million. The NHLPA might also have an even higher tax rate once a payroll hits $60 million.

There are also changes expected to the rookie salary cap and arbitration.

But, there won't be the linkage between revenues and salaries and the NHLPA is unlikely to guarantee the savings that they say their proposal will create for the owners.

It will be an improvement over previous offers. But, by itself it won't create a solution to the current lock out.

That will only happen if the NHL decides to try and negotiate off this starting off point and the NHLPA is willing to move some more.

Only time will tell whether both sides are as supremely idiotic as they currently appear to be and decide that they won't be that bad off if the NHL goes away for the entire season.

Personally, I wouldn't bet on that.