Out of curiosity is there any rules against NFL players colluding to win...... ......
By Cowboyz1, May 25 in Fantasy Football
Cowboyz1 531
Interests:Football
Fan of the:Cowboys
Take for example Dallas. Could Dak, Cooper, Zeke, J. Smith get together with their agents and agree to get paid an equally discounted contracts each so they can all stay in Dallas and pay to keep all their stars together in order to win championships? I mean say Dak was willing to sign for 18 instead of 30 million and Coop for 8 instead of 12 to 15 million. Couldn't the players decide to win and be rich instead of leveraging the cap to the point they lose players and winning potential by going for market salaries each on their own? I'm sure it wouldn't make the agents and other teams happy because it would be the equivalent of short selling a house and hurting the market for the neighbors. However, teams could become dynasties that way given the right group of players right. Just wondering if the NFL has some sort of rule against doing this. In the world of "I need the most, not just more" it probably couldn't happen but it would be interesting to see a team do it. Hell the way the Cowboys have been drafting it seems they are accumulating a lot of star players that require star money.
Edited May 25 by Cowboyz1
A lot of players restructure contracts to help teams free up money or get under the cap all the time. But unlike other sports, in football they have a very small window to make money. They have to get it while they can.
purplemonster 111
The GS warriors do this. Tom Brady does it every year. Players all the time choose less money to stay where they are comfortable or feel they have a better chance of winning. I think it would require a lot of overt, successful, very obvious collusion, in order for them to do anything. There are a lot of guys on a football team and even getting a few key guys together doesn't guarantee anything.
Edited May 25 by purplemonster
michaelredd9 1,167
Money is more important than championships. Players will say the opposite but they are just repeating cliches they know the fans like to hear.
1 hour ago, michaelredd9 said:
I would say to a point. After a certain amount of money it's more important to win a championship. But there are probably some rare folks who would rather have a championship and $2 million rather than no championship and $10 million dollars
4 hours ago, purplemonster said:
There are definitely some players later in their career who take a pay cut to play for a contender. They are usually players who have already made $50-$100 million. They don't accept $2 million instead of $10 million. More likely, they accept $8 million instead of $10 million. Or maybe they are willing to play on a 1-year contract instead of demanding a multi-year deal. The idea that a bunch of players like this would collude and form a super team like the Fab Five did at Michigan is a bit far-fetched. If a quality player wants a championship, it'd be far easier and more realistic to sign with the Patriots at a discount.
stevegrab 986
Huddler All-Pro
Location:Akron Ohio
Fan of the:Browns
I don't see it happening, takes too many guys cooperating over too long a period of time. As noted by others. early in their careers they'll want max money, later they may want a ring when they have a big pile of $, but that won't work well for a group of players.
whomper 542
Huddler Hall Of Fame
Interests:Bodyslamming the elderly
selling human organs on the black market
I would assume the players union would frown upon multiple players on the same team doing this. A lot of players will restructure to help , but multiple Top talent players on the same team coming in low might cause waves