Steelers' Hines Ward travels to mom's homeland, Korea

By ALAN ROBINSON
AP SPORTS WRITER

PITTSBURGH -- Growing up in suburban Atlanta, Hines Ward often felt he was a victim of double discrimination. Not only did some of his white classmates make fun of his biracial heritage, his South Korean mother felt ostracized by her homeland because she had a son with a black American soldier.

Since the Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver won the Super Bowl MVP award last month, Ward has become a huge celebrity in Korea - cheered by those who know little about American football and once may have shunned him for being less than pureblooded.

To learn more about his heritage, Ward and his mother, Kim Young-hee, plan their first trip together to Korea next month - a country he knows little about and, until recently, knew little about him. Partly because of his recent accomplishments, Ward said Friday he hopes to find a land that may be more receptive to others of mixed blood than it might have been not long ago.

"I'm proud of my mom and proud of our Korean heritage," said Ward, whose name is tattooed in Korean on his right arm. "It's something I should have done a long time ago ... and it's going to be very emotional. And I hope they accept me for who I am."

The 29-year-old Ward, a four-time Pro Bowl receiver and the Steelers' career receiving leader, was born in Seoul but left with his mother and father at age 1 and settled in the United States, where Ward's mom hoped society would be more accepting of the multiracial family.

Ward's parents did not stay together long but, even after they split up, his mother remained in America to be with her son. Despite knowing no English before arriving, she worked as many as three jobs at a time - among them, at an airport, a convenience story and in a school cafeteria - to support her son and give him some of the things his wealthier classmates enjoyed.

At times, he felt embarrassed by their background, but he soon came to appreciate what his mother was doing for him. Now, Ward thinks some of the traits that made him into one of the NFL's top receivers, including a willingness to block with the passion of a lineman while playing a skill position, came from his mother's commitment to hard work.

Even after Ward began making millions in the NFL, his mother returned to her school cafeteria job in Forest Park, Ga., after quitting for a couple of months, saying she felt bored and depressed while not working.



"I want to see where she grew up. I want to see where I was born. I want to see where she played hooky and hung out ... I want to learn more about my heritage," said Ward, who has never returned to Korea since leaving as a toddler, though his mother has gone back 3-4 times. "I want to learn everything."
Ward and his mother planned the weeklong trip before the Super Bowl, where Ward made five catches for 123 yards and a touchdown in a 21-10 Steelers victory over Seattle. But what was supposed to be a "private" trip for Ward devoted to sightseeing, shopping, meeting relatives and eating Korean food has since become a media event.

Ward is expected to meet Korean dignitaries during a trip that begins April 1. He also wants to spend time with some of the children being helped by Pearl S. Buck International, an organization that aids biracial children in Korea.

"When I was there, it wasn't cool to be a mixed kid. There probably was some hatred there," Ward said. "Some of the kids are treated badly and, sadly, it happens, but it's not the kids' fault."

Ward is encouraged because his success has led to considerable media attention in Korea of how society treats those of multiracial backgrounds. A recent editorial in the JoongAng Daily, the country's largest newspaper with a circulation of more than 2 million, cited the praise being heaped on Ward and urged the end to the "embarrassing habit of discrimination against mixed-blood people."

The editorial concluded, "We should open our minds and hold their hands to raise the second and third Hines Ward in Korea."

Ward plans to help fund a scholarship in his mother's name for Korean-American children. He was chosen for a similar scholarship while attending the University of Georgia, even though he was also on an athletic scholarship.

"It's like my mother still tells me, `Always be humble, never forget where you came from,' " Ward said. "My story is kind of a perfect story, of how I was able to overcome all that. Maybe some other kids can use that as motivation."

NFL Labor Negotiations Resume, Deal Close - Wash Post

By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; 12:24 PM


Labor negotiations between representatives of the NFL's team owners and the players' union resumed late this morning in New York amid renewed optimism that a settlement was within reach, a day after the talks had collapsed yet again.

A union official said just before 11:15 a.m. that the bargaining session was about to begin. Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the Players Association, and Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, traveled back to New York from Washington this morning after leaving New York when talks broke down yesterday.

Upshaw said via e-mail early this morning that the parties were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

Another participant in the talks said just before today's bargaining session began that any optimism should be tempered, however, because the sides had not yet resumed face-to-face negotiations and there still was plenty of work to be done. He said he was hopeful but less than certain that a settlement was imminent.

It seemed possible that the two sides could agree to a second postponement of the opening of the free-agent market, scheduled for midnight, if they made progress today but could not complete a deal.

Even if the parties emerge from today's negotiations with a tentative agreement, the owners and players would have to ratify the deal. It could be particularly difficult for NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get a consensus among the owners. The labor deal would have to be ratified by at least 24 of the 32 teams.

If the labor deal is accompanied by an agreement among the owners for clubs to increase the degree to which they share locally generated revenues, it's possible that nine high-revenue teams would band together to block approval of the labor settlement. If the labor deal isn't accompanied by a revenue-sharing accord among the owners, it's possible that nine low-revenue clubs could block it.

Tagliabue had informed the owners they would meet Tuesday in Dallas if there's a labor agreement with the union up for ratification.

The players' executive board is scheduled to meet this week in Hawaii, and the union could put any settlement with owners up for the players' approval then.

The negotiations broke off yesterday with Upshaw saying the owners were unable to compromise, and he left New York and returned to Washington. But the owners were meeting via conference call when Upshaw departed, and league spokesman Greg Aiello said the owners expected negotiations to resume today.

The talks ended yesterday with the owners offering 56.6 percent of an expanded pool of league revenues to the players as compensation under a salary-cap system. Upshaw had dropped his demand that the players receive at least 60 percent, but he would not specify exactly what percentage his latest proposal called for.

Upshaw has maintained that any labor deal between the players and owners would have to be accompanied by an agreement among the owners to increase the degree to which the 32 NFL teams share locally generated revenues. Otherwise, Upshaw has said, lower-revenue clubs could not afford the salary commitment they would be making to the players. Owners have said they could complete a labor deal with the players without finishing a revenue-sharing agreement immediately.

The compromise might be a provision in the labor deal to limit the amount of money that teams can spend above the flexible salary cap. That would address the concerns of lower-revenue teams that the high-revenue clubs could gain a competitive advantage by using their wealth to consistently outspend the salary cap and get better players. The sides had been negotiating about such "cash over cap" before talks broke off yesterday.

The league's free-agent market is scheduled to open at midnight. Teams must be under next season's $94.5 million salary cap by then. If they must release players to get under the cap, they must do so by 6 p.m.

But Upshaw and Tagliabue, facing a similar deadline, agreed Thursday to push back those deadlines by 72 hours, and they could agree to another postponement today if more time is needed to complete the deal or an agreement must be ratified.

The current labor deal keeps the salary-cap system in place through the 2006 season, then there would be a season without a salary cap in 2007 before the deal expires. Tagliabue said Thursday, just after the owners had a 57-minute meeting in New York to officially reject a players' proposal, that the owners had proposed an extension that would run through the 2011 season.

A labor settlement would push next season's salary cap as high as $108 million per team and would alleviate the salary-cap crunches being experienced by many teams.

Collins and Other NFL Players Safe for Three More Days

The NFL extended the start of the Free Agency period by three days to give teams like the Oakland Raiders time to work out contract problems.

Rumor: Raiders To Release QB Kerry Collins Today

Quarterback Kerry Collins, whose cap value for '06 is $12.898 million, remains with the Raiders but he's expected to be among the cuts later today -- mostly for economic reasons.

The Raiders have until midnight to remove their current $14.8 million excess over the salary cap.

NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue Press Conference - Special League Meeting

This is from NFL Media.com. The big news to me is that 56 percent was never a number. Where did it come from?
New York Grand Hyatt Regency Hotel
March 2, 2006

Good morning. Obviously we concluded a short but important meeting with our owners. As I think you all know, we came here to explain to them why we're deadlocked with the Players Association. The Players Association has on the table a demand which doesn't recognize the reality of our league's economics today. It's a very excessive and unrealistic demand. So we went through that. The membership endorsed the conclusion that our labor committee -- the eight owners on our Management Council Executive Committee -- had reached when we met with them late yesterday afternoon and last evening. We are indeed deadlocked because of the excessive elements of the Players Association's economic demand and that demand did not provide a basis for any further negotiations. That conclusion of the Management Council Executive Committee was unanimously endorsed by the entire membership. Any questions?

Q: What is the difference between 56 (percent of revenues) and 60 (percent)?

PT: It's not the difference between 56 and 60. I don't know where those numbers come from. It's the fact that, in the last half dozen years, we've created a structure that has enabled us to build an unprecedented number of new stadiums, great stadiums, many of them with very large investments by owners and the league of private resources. Those stadiums, coupled with our TV revenues, have been the engine that has provided prosperity for the players. And the proposal that the Players Association has on the table basically is kind of a "have your cake and eat it, too" proposal. They want to have all the revenues that come out of these facilities and that come out of our growing media rights, but they do not in any way, shape or form recognize the cost to the owners of building those stadiums and investing in all of the things that it takes to generate the revenues. So it's just an untenable economic proposition from the owners' standpoint.

Q: Have you come to terms on what the revenue pool should be and now it's a matter of determining a percentage?

PT: Until you have an agreement, you haven't agreed to anything. We've got sort of tentative understandings that the revenue pool that would go into the salary cap would be certainly much broader than the old DGR concept, but the key thing is that they don't recognize either in the definition of the revenue pool or in their economic proposal the cost structure that goes into generating the revenue.

Q: Is there a fundamental difference in opinion among the owners on revenue sharing?

PT: Nothing could be further away than that (assessment). The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment in the past to getting an agreement with the Players Association. We've had this agreement in place now with a salary cap and free agency for 13 seasons. I think '06 is the thirteenth season. The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment, and it's not an impediment now to an agreement with the Players Association. The difference between now and the past is the fundamental change in the way they are defining their expectations as to the percentages that should go to the players and the unwillingness in this proposal, or inability, to recognize the very real costs that are associated with doing all the things the league has done to build new stadiums, generate revenues, invest in a whole range of enterprises that produces the revenue.

Q: What concerns you most about the current situation?

PT: We don't have an agreement and there is a deadline at midnight tonight.

Q: What is the next step from here?

PT: We're going to go back and talk about next steps, but I think at this point, it's not about making phone calls. It's about the Players Association fundamentally changing the character of their proposal and the character of their demands.

Q: How dire a situation is it?

PT: It's about as dire as dire can be. We feel that one of the very positive things about the National Football League since the early '90s has been our Collective Bargaining Agreement, one that works for both sides. We've put a proposal on the table that would extend that through 2011. We recognize that the last year of the current agreement is certainly not ideal in terms of operational realities. Without an extension, it's certainly not a good situation for anybody.

Q: What kind of new rules for free agency will be in place during the uncapped year in 2007?

PT: We don't have any new rules. I think I've basically covered everything that is important today. There has to be a fundamental change in their proposal for anything further of a constructive nature to begin to take place.

Vince Young and The Wonderlic - Is Profootballtalk.com Making Fun of His Race? Sure Seems So

Hey, I like the information that Profootballtalk.com -- an NFL news website -- issues. Granted, much of it is from the newspapers online, but they do dig and ask questions.

But their cartoons, which appear fresh everyday, seem to take on a racist tone.

At first, I wondered if I was being too sensitive to the matter of race with respect to this cartoon:


As I walk around the site, the Profootballtalk.com Message Boards ask people not to be racist. So, I give them a pass.

But to test my view, I clicked around the Profootballtalk.com site and found this Al Davis cartoon within seconds:




I think what's up here is a simple case of cultural insentivity. What's the deal with showing a picture -- doctored -- of Al Davis shaking hands with Chef from South Park? Well, they're obviously making fun of the hiring of Art Shell as Raiders Head Coach. But it also seems like a kind of reach back into the past where blacks were made fun of by using cartoons of us with large eyes and super dark skin.

Look, the photo was doctored to depict this image.

I never see Profootballtalk.com lampooning Italians in the mafia, or Irish drunks, so why the focus on blacks?

Just a question -- a good one.

Colts over cap; cuts are possible - Indy Star

Colts also signed LB Gary Brackett, who caused the fumble by Jerome Bettis, and the return that nearly won the game for Indy.

Arbitrator's ruling puts team $6 million over limit

By Mike Chappell
mike.chappell@indystar.com

A ruling Wednesday by an NFL arbitrator specifically regarding the contracts of quarterback Peyton Manning and wide receiver Marvin Harrison could result in several significant player cuts by the Indianapolis Colts as they attempt to comply with the league's projected 2006 salary cap of $95 million.

"They're in a tough spot,'' said Mark Levin, director of salary cap and agent administration with the NFL Players Association.
Instead of being sufficiently under the cap so they could re-sign some of their remaining free agents without cutting players under contract, the Colts are $6 million over the cap after the decision by special master Stephen Burbank, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Burbank's decision could be a devastating blow to the Colts' financial planning. That could change, however, if the NFL's owners and players reach an 11th-hour deal to extend the collective bargaining agreement.
At issue, for now, are roster bonuses of $9 million due Manning and $10 million due Harrison. The Colts intended to implement a normal bookkeeping maneuver that converts a roster bonus into a signing bonus and prorating it over the next four years. That would have lowered Manning's '06 cap number from $17.766 million to $10 million and Harrison's cap hit from $14.4 million to $6.9 million.
Suddenly, whether the team can re-sign running back Edgerrin James, one of 11 players who will become an unrestricted free agent Friday, might be the least of its worries. If Manning and Harrison count a combined $32 million against the cap, the Colts probably will have to jettison several players.
In the current climate, owner Jim Irsay said "it's going to be very difficult to keep Edgerrin and probably difficult to keep (starting linebacker) David Thornton."
Complicating every team's attempt at dealing with their rosters and the salary cap is the lack of a new collective bargaining agreement. Negotiations broke down Tuesday in New York. Barring a last-minute resolution, the new league year will open Friday without an extension.
An extension likely would include a higher salary cap, topping $100 million, which could help alleviate the Colts' cap problem.
The lack of an extension carries restrictive guidelines regarding player contracts, including the conversion of roster bonuses. According to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, Burbank ruled such conversions are prohibited under the labor agreement if they violate the so-called "30 percent rule,'' which keeps base salaries from increasing more than 30 percent each year over the first year of the contract.
The special master is an arbitrator provided by the labor agreement and approved by both the owners and players.
It's believed a special master's ruling is final, but Irsay said the issue is far from resolved.
"We'll know more in a week or so,'' he said. ". . . If there are any disagreements internally on contract language, I feel we'll be OK there. Whether there will be an extended dispute with any of our guys remains to be seen. We feel that we're going to prevail and that we're in good shape.''

Vince Young and The Wonderlic Test: What Does the Test Really Prove? That America's Still Racist - Dan Marino Scored a 16

There has been much press about Texas QB Vince Young scoring only six of 50 questions correct on something called The Wonderlic Test, and that the test was incorrectly scored. Aside from the character assasination that has taken place against Young, and by some who don't want to see him succeed and are acting in a boarderline illegal and prosecutable fashion, I doubt the Wonderlic itself is being used properly. It's supposed to test an employees ability to solve problems related to a job.

I'm going to throw this bomb: The Wonderlic Test -- as it's applied -- has nothing to do with football and given the fact that the questions aren't directly related to the game, an athlete could sue an NFL team or the NFL itself for damages related to the improper use of the test.

I'm not kidding.

According to legal scholar Daniel L. Wong, the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 considered and invalidated the use of the "Wonderlic Personnel Test," which purported to measure general intelligence, and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 431 (1975) also considered the Wonderlic test as well as the Beta Examination, which purported to test non-verbal intelligence. The key in these and subsequent federal decisions, is the extent to which employers are able to demonstrate that tests are truly related to job performance.

Jason Chung wrote an 18-page paper reporting in part how the Wonderlic is used as a way to block the assention of black college quarterbacks into the NFL. Chung writes:

The "Wonderlic" Argumentation

Another major barrier that African-American quarterbacks face stems from the increased use of the Wonderlic intelligence test through 1968 to 1999. Michael Callans, President of Wonderlic Consulting, advances the popular argument that:

[Quarterbacks] need to lead, think on their feet, evaluate all of their
options and understand the impact their actions will have on the
outcome of the game. Wonderlic helps team owners make the best
selections by identifying which players have the mental strength to
lead their team to victory.

This belief has been prevalent since at least the 1970s when Tom Landry of the Dallas Cowboys became the first NFL head coach to screen for players using a generic aptitude test - the Wonderlic Personnel Test.25 Landry was looking for a tool to quantify intelligence and draw a correlation between that and performance. In the subsequent 30 years upon its introduction the Wonderlic has become a key performance prognosticator for many NFL franchises. Though most prospective NFL players are put through the test, those players in strategic (read white) positions are scrutinized more closely. NFL scouts believe that the test will help them identify quarterbacks that will assimilate NFL playbooks quicker and identify quarterbacks that make better decisions.

Generally speaking, a score in the mid-twenties is considered acceptable for a prospective NFL quarterback. In 1994, the Cleveland Browns were looking for a quarterback that scored at least a 24 on the Wonderlic. These high expectations have acted as an imposing intellect barrier for African-American quarterbacks who, as an ethnic group, have historically had a tough time meeting this benchmark and thus were discounted from consideration by some NFL teams due to a deficiency of intellect. There were but few black quarterbacks, the argument went, that had the mental capacity to succeed on the test and therefore on the field. An examination of relatively reliable Wonderlic scores shows that black quarterbacks, more commonly than white quarterbacks, score lower than 20: Jeff Blake in 1992, Kordell Stewart in 1995 and Steve McNair in 1995 all scored 17 or lower.

The failure of African-American quarterbacks to meet the lofty mid-twenties standard has spawned criticism of the whole procedure. The traditional argument against the Wonderlic has been that it, like all aptitude tests, was culturally biased and therefore systemically set up to ensure that black athletes receive lower scores. This charge, until recently, was the primary accusation levelled against the Wonderlic.

However, more recent studies have exposed a more illuminating fact. A study by David Chan et al. noted that African-Americans adults in general have a lower regard in general for aptitude tests than their Caucasian counterparts which caused them to score lower on the tests. After motivation was given to black test-takers their scores improved until there was no
discernible difference between black test scores and white test scores.

Critics point to additional flaws with the Wonderlic system other than race-related lower test scores. It has been pointed out that there are some "Wonderlic smart" players that are "football dumb". Numerous NFL coaches, including Tony Dungy and Denny Green, note that good Wonderlic scores do not necessarily equate success in decision-making prowess on the
field.

Indeed, the converse is also true, low Wonderlic scores do not necessarily signify weak quarterback play. For instance, Dan Marino, the NFL's all-time leading passer, only scored a 16 but by all accounts he was very intelligent football-wise.

Still, because it remains the only quantifiable method of measuring intelligence the Wonderlic continues to be used by NFL teams. As a consequence, because of the reasons stated above, it seems black quarterbacks will generally continue to score lower on the Wonderlic than their white counterparts. If the period from 1968 to 1999 is any indication, many black quarterbacks will be shunned due to a low score and "low intelligence".

That is what's happening today. But since it's true that the Wonderlic does not actually measure football related aptitude, then the NFL itself is wide open for a class action lawsuit if this problem is not cleared up -- a legal battle the league would surely lose.

It would lose on the very basis that its own coaches can't defend the claim that it tests "football intelligence" yet that's the image being communicated by much of the media and some NFL teams. If a player scores poorly on it, they, like Vince Young, are branded as not football smart, an observation anyone would have to be a total fool to accept in the case of Texas' National Champion QB.

And with that, someone must explain how Miami's NFL Hall of Fame Quarterback Dan Marino -- who scored a 16 on the Wonderlic -- became one of the league's best signal callers in its history? A 16 on the Wonderlic means that Marino had an IQ of less than 100. Do you believe that? I didn't think so.

Someone out there better appologize to Vince Young.

Colts GM Bill Pollian on NFL Network Now

NFL Network's Rich Eisen is talking to Indianpolis Colts President GM Bill Polian at the 2006 NFL Scouting Combine, so I thought I'd try to type what he says. The quotes are close to exact, but not right on.

On the Scouting Combine:

"First combine was in 1984 and with about 150. Now it's grown into a major event.


On Reggie Wayne's new contract and not franchising RB Edgerin James:

"Hopefully, we will be able to get him back. That may happen if there's no CBA. Reggie's been an important part of our team...We wanted to get him signed." Poliann said it would have made no sense to "tag" Edgerin as the number was "untenable."

On the 2006 draft:

We have three or four people contribute from the draft each year: Cato June, and others. The way our model is set we have to have contributions from younger players.

On the CBA:

We're wating to see what happens. All of the good things we have had come from labor peace. We've got Peyton (Manning) and Tony (Dungy) and have been to the playoffs six out of the eight years. How did we get there as a team in the smallest stadium in the league? The salary cap.

On the Competition Commiteee and Mike Holgren leaving it:

Rich Eisen asked if the Super Bowl Officiating problem had to do with it: "Absolutely not. He wants to spend more time with his family..,.He may change his mind in Florida.

Polian says that the committee is not going to look at just the officiating problem but the whole game.

That was it. Polian's off to other matters.

Colts WR Reggie Wayne Signs New Contract - RB Edgerin James' Future with Team in Doubt

Colts re-sign Wayne but probably won't keep James

By Mike Chappell, The Indianapolis Star

INDIANAPOLIS -- Reggie Wayne won't be designated the Indianapolis Colts' "franchise player," but his value to the franchise has been confirmed with a lucrative six-year contract. However, it's doubtful that development increases the possibility of running back Edgerrin James returning for the 2006 season.

In line to be slapped with the franchise tag before Thursday's deadline, Wayne agreed on Wednesday to a six-year deal, according to his agent, David Dunn. Dunn would not disclose financial parameters of the contract, but it's believed to be worth approximately $40 million with bonuses of nearly $13.5 million.

Team president Bill Polian could not be reached for comment.

The contract ties Wayne to the Colts through the 2011 season and keeps intact an elite receiving corps that includes seven-time Pro Bowl selection Marvin Harrison and Brandon Stokley.

It also keeps the franchise designation available to the Colts for one of their other players who will become an unrestricted free agent on March 3. The tag must be used by 4 p.m. ET Thursday.

However, there's a strong possibility the team will not use the tag because of the steep financial commitment required to place it on linebacker David Thornton ($7.169 million) or defensive end Raheem Brock ($8.332 million).

And the Colts almost certainly will not use the tag on James as they did following last season.

Polian reiterated last week that it would be virtually impossible from a financial standpoint to use the tag once again on James. The cost of a one-year contract for James in 2006 would be nearly $11 million, which is a 20% increase over his '05 salary cap number ($9.081 million).

Polian described the $11 million franchise number for James as "untenable."

To retain both James and Wayne, he added, would require significant changes in the current roster. That probably would entail "drawing a line through" the names of several players, cutting them to make room for Wayne and James under the projected salary cap of roughly $95 million.

"And I don't know if you can draw enough lines, even if you wanted to," Polian said. "And you may not want to because it would weaken the team so much in other capacities."

Wayne was one of 13 Colts eligible for unrestricted free agency, but there never was a possibility of him hitting the open market. When asked during the '05 season about Wayne's future with the Colts, Polian replied, "Reggie Wayne isn't going anywhere."

The team's 2001 first-round draft pick has elevated his game every season. Wayne, 27, led the Colts with a career-high 83 receptions in '05, ending Harrison's six-year run as their leading receiver.

"Reggie's thrilled to stay with the Colts," Dunn said. "He could not respect the organization or Bill Polian or (coach) Tony Dungy any more than he does. And he has the maturity to understand the importance of winning."

In five seasons, Wayne has registered 304 receptions for 4,164 yards and 28 touchdowns. He topped the 1,000-yard mark in 2004 and 2005 when he established himself as one of Peyton Manning's top targets. He caught a then-career-high 77 passes for 1,210 yards and 12 TDs in 2004 when he became part of the NFL's first receiving trio to top 1,000 yards and 10 TDs. He followed that with last year's 83-catch, 1,055-yard season as his role continued to expand.

The move makes Wayne one of the NFL's highest-paid receivers. But Wayne wanted more than money out of his contract.

"He thinks in terms of enjoying the situation with the team and the offense he's familiar with," Dunn told The Associated Press. "And having Peyton (Manning) throwing you the ball and Coach Dungy doesn't hurt. He thinks it's a good situation."

While Wayne could have left the Colts for another team, where he could have avoided being overshadowed by Harrison, the Colts' career receiving leader, he opted to stay with a team that has won three straight AFC South titles and been to one conference title game.

"Over the last month, I became acutely aware of how much he wanted to win," Dunn said.

Wayne's signing means the Colts will keep their passing attack intact long-term.

Harrison signed a six-year, $66 million deal in December 2004. Manning, a two-time NFL MVP, signed a seven-year, $98 million deal in March 2004. The Colts' No. 3 receiver, Stokley, agreed to a lucrative five-year deal late in the 2004 season.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

NFL Revenue Sharing with Players - I Say Scale The Percentage

The impass between NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw seems to be over the size of the percent of revenue the league will share with the players. I say, rather than have a fixed percentage, scale it with repect to overall increase or decrease in annual league revenues. Simply, if there's an increase, the percentage is somewhat greater; if there's a decrease, it reduces.

Now, the measure should be gross revenues, not net revenues. Or perhaps a better measure is revenues minus player playroll for that year. This way, if there's a year where, for a combination of reasons, overall player payroll is higher than the previous year (incentives, etc.), but overall NFL gross revenue is lower, the percentage would be lower than the year before.

Just an idea.

NFL is headed toward a labor showdown by the end of this week - Washington Post

Deadline Looms For NFL, Players
Attorney: Deal 'Seems Doubtful'
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page E01

The NFL is headed toward a labor showdown by the end of this week barring an unlikely last-minute breakthrough in negotiations, Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw said, signaling that the labor peace that for 13 years has been a key reason for the league's success is on the verge of dissipating.

A written message sent Friday from a union attorney to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said it "seems doubtful" that team owners and players will be able to settle on an extension of their collective bargaining agreement beyond next season. Upshaw, who has worked closely with Tagliabue for years to avoid the sort of labor strife that has affected other professional sports leagues, said in a telephone interview that the union now is ready for a fight.

"The closer we get to the deadline the more pessimistic I am that anything will happen," Upshaw said. The owners "don't seem to believe we're willing to take it all the way. . . . But we are."

Upshaw said he regards the end of this week as the deadline for a labor deal and he has little hope that scheduled bargaining sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday will produce movement toward a settlement. He plans to address players' agents in two groups this week in Indianapolis, the site of the NFL scouting combine.

The current labor deal leaves the NFL's 13-year-old salary cap system in place through the 2006 season. A failure to agree to an extension of the deal would leave the sport without a salary cap in 2007 -- and perhaps beyond. Upshaw has said the players will not allow a salary cap to return if they play a season without one.

The salary cap sets an annual ceiling on the amount each team can spend on players. Next season's cap is projected to be between $92 million and $95 million per team. Without one, wealthier teams such as the Washington Redskins could spend whatever they wished on players, but people on the management side maintain that certain changes that would come with a season without a salary cap -- such as players needing six seasons of experience, instead of four, to be eligible for unrestricted free agency -- might keep it from being the bonanza for players' salaries that Upshaw and the players envision.

The labor impasse already is wreaking havoc on teams' planning for the March 3 opening of the free agent market, since it is effectively leaving teams with less wiggle room under the 2006 salary cap.

With league revenues burgeoning after the completion of a new set of national television contracts worth almost $4 billion per season, Upshaw has been seeking to expand the pool of revenues from which the players are paid. But the two sides remain unable to agree on what percentage of the expanded revenue pool the players should receive.

In a related issue that is complicating talks with the union, the 32 owners have been unable to agree to a system to increase the amount of locally generated revenues that they would share. Several teams, including the Redskins, in recent years have expanded the revenues they generate on their own, outside the shared revenue stream each team receives collectively, primarily through network television contracts and leaguewide marketing deals. The owners' deliberations have become so combative, Upshaw said, that he has been told nine of the wealthiest teams have banded together and are threatening to sue if the clubs have a revised revenue-sharing system forced upon them. The Redskins, who generate the highest revenues in the league, would be among that group of nine.

Owners of lower-revenue teams say that if no plan for bolstered revenue-sharing is put in place, football will become, like baseball, a sport of have and have-not clubs in which only a handful of wealthier franchises will have realistic championship aspirations.

The labor stalemate also impacts planned stadium construction. Upshaw said the players will stop participating in a stadium-loan program that they fund in cooperation with the league if there are no labor and revenue-sharing deals. The teams planning new stadiums include the Dallas Cowboys, Indianapolis Colts and the New York Jets and Giants.

Upshaw previously has said he would, if there's no deal, recommend to the players at a March 9 executive board meeting that they begin the process of decertifying the union, a tactic that would seek to eliminate the possibility of a lockout by the owners. It also could lead to the players going to antitrust court to challenge any new system imposed by the owners.

Upshaw and Tagliabue skipped the Pro Bowl in Hawaii last week to return to the East Coast after the Super Bowl and resume the labor deliberations, but Upshaw said there has been no progress.

A letter written by union attorney James Quinn, delivered by e-mail Friday to Tagliabue and Harold Henderson, the league's chief labor executive, said that "we are rapidly approaching the next league year and our ability to get a deal done in this short time frame seems doubtful. Gene, Jeff [Kessler, another union attorney] and I are particularly concerned that so little progress has been made on the core economic issues that we have been discussing for nearly two years."

In the e-mail, Quinn identified the "three bedrock issues" in the negotiations as the salary cap, revenue sharing and the stadium loan program. He wrote that "in order for us to continue any form of salary cap, the players must obtain a significant increase (both in dollars and percentage) in our overall share of total league revenues." On the revenue-sharing issue, Quinn said that the union has "repeatedly made clear that we will not agree to any form of salary cap that does not deal with the 'free-rider effect' which unfairly benefits a handful of high-revenue clubs."

Upshaw has said that some owners of the league's wealthiest franchises aren't devoting a fair portion of their revenues to players' salaries. He has exempted the Redskins' Daniel Snyder, whose team generates the league's highest revenues but also usually has one of the NFL's heftiest player payrolls.

The teams share their national revenues equally, but the success of the Redskins and some other clubs in increasing streams of unshared local revenues has led to a fractious internal debate in which the less-prosperous franchises are seeking to have more of those revenues shared.

"There's a lot of infighting on their side," Upshaw said. "They don't believe they're going to have to do this, but that's the only way the low-revenue clubs can afford their commitment to us. My understanding is that there's a group of nine [wealthy teams] that's saying, 'If you force us into more revenue sharing, we'll sue you.' "

Of the stadium loan program, Quinn wrote that "the players are prepared to continue the . . . program in a form that makes sense to both sides" but it must come within the context of a bolstered revenue-sharing deal. Upshaw said the union will not contribute to any future stadium projects if there aren't labor and revenue-sharing deals in place. An NFL spokesman said yesterday the league had no response.

All of the uncertainty is creating extra work and additional worries for those people in charge of running teams.

"Right now we're operating with a Plan A and a Plan B," Baltimore Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome said. "We have both of them ready to go. That's all you can do. We've never faced a year like this since I've been on this side of the fence. We've never been where it went down to the 11th hour like this not knowing what the system is going to be."