r r

I was wondering what your thoughts on the recently implemented "Pay for
Performance" clause set in the last collective bargaining agreement for the
NFL?

I think they have the right idea and this may be a prelude for things to
come in the future in terms of salaries and performance. It just seems
logical that if you dangle the carrot, the rabbit tends to jump higher than
if you lay it on the floor for him.

I hope to see some memorable future stars arise as a result of this very
clause.

Cheers,

Remo Rosati, author
DIVINE INTERVENTION
http://www.geocities.com/newnovelann
Now available at over 50,000 bookstores

devilpaul

I think it's a good idea. Too many of these players perform great before a
contract year and then get fat and lazy on the field once the cash comes in.
(See Dan Wilkinson.) Would I still get paid the same at my job if I only
worked a half day or suddenly forgot how to or couldn't do certain tasks as
well as I did before? No. Then why should NFL players? Especially
considering the large sums of money they are paid.

Paul

http://www.devilpaulsinferno.net/

marcus_jelks

"

This is a great idea for those that are overvalued. This is a bad
idea for team players who adhere to their systems. "I'm supposed to
stay in my zone but I could potentially get $10,000 if I get this
sack?" It would be irrational for players to listen to their coaches.
If I can quote Mike Ditka, "The inmates would be running the asylum."