Let me give credit where credit is due.  Gregg Easterbrook was all over the AIG thing before any of us, and he's a football columnist.  I'm not sure what's worse - the millions of dollars in performance bonuses awarded to employees of a company whose recent record can only be described as anything but performance.  Or the faux disbelief in DC that these were coming.  "Quelle surprise!" said everyone between Constitution and Independence, but for a person from Maine and another from Oregon.  Unfortunately, we're 533 people short of a forward thinking bunch.

Of course, AIG doesn't have the C..O. Jones to call them performance bonuses.  They are retention bonuses.  After all, with unemployment at a two decade high, these folks could leave and work anywhere!  For a bunch of financial wizards, how that last sentence makes any sense is beyond me.

If we had to select the AIG of the NFL, it would likely be the Washington Redskins.  IJWMFTT had so many messages during its hiatus asking, "When will you cover Haynesworth?"  "This Haynesworth signing just screams to be covered on Economy Watch Wedensday."  "Should we hold a mirror to your nose.  Ya know, to see if there's a reflection."

Albert Haynesworth signed a seven year, $100 million deal to leave Nashville for Landover.  In NFL speak, this is a 4 year, $41 million deal, as that's the guanteed portion.  Hearsay around writers circles was that Haynesworth would have stayed for a third of the amount.  Of course, I think those people got contract value and guranteed value mixed up a bit.  The Tennessee offer was 4 for $36 million with $25 million guaranteed.  Seeing as he turned this down, "a third' may be referring to all money guranteed - perhaps a little less. 

At the very least, the Skins offered $5 million more than the next bidder.  If the figure that Haynesworth wanted was around $33 million, then the Redskins gave $8 million more.  I'll give the Redskins some slack and call the $5 million figure a "gotta get him" bonus.  If it's closer to $8 million, then that's $3 million in "AIG money."

Of course, this is nothing new in Landover (well, Monday-Saturday, it's Ashburn).  Adam Archuleta got seven for $35 million.  Archuleta wanted to play for the Bears (with whom he currently has a three for $8M contract).  When he heard the offer from his agent, he said to call the Redskins back "before they change their mind."  When the athlete thinks they're overpaid, maybe that should serve as a burgundy flag.        

In 2007, the Redskins gave the 49ers a third and a fourth for Brandon Lloyd.  Okay, you have these picks, and the draft apparently isn't your strong suit.  Trade unkown quantities for a known quantity.   Don't they get it?  The picks were the value.  Giving Lloyd a $10 million bonus on a new deal was the Redskins twisted way of somehow selling the fact that they got a $30 million man for two second day picks.

Lav Coles asked for $30M.  He got $35M.  You get the idea.  The Redskins often bid against themselves.  Of course, the club will contend that they are always under the cap.  Well, yeah, that's why they call it A CAP!  Many players, who come with a lower price tag for the same level of percformance, are shown the door to make way for the new guys.  Or, the other method, trade your picks so that you don't have to pay that slotted money.

To better articulate the point, please see the linked diagram:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/86200/SkinsChart.jpg

The biggest college broadcasting snafu is repeated on a weekly basis.  Finally, I decided that last night's Baylor/Georgetown match-up was the most egregious instance I have heard in quite some time.  Normally solid Brad Nessler is the offender.

Nessler saw the lofy shooting percentages posted by the teams and remarked that Georgetown was seeing shades of Villanova.  My first thought was, "No.  He can't be.  Well, maybe he's referring to a game that happened earlier this season."  So I looked up the GU/VU match-up to find that 'Nova shot 33%.  That's not impressive.  That can only mean: He was referring to the 1985 NCAA Championship.  Naturally, no members of Georgetown's 1985 squad are playing on the 2009 squad.  Furthermore, to my knowledge, none had been born. 

Way too much emphasis is placed on college teams' histories.  Those who buy in to it will become its victim.  For the most part, we're talking about programs.  A program is generally a success, or a failure.  Regardless of how many times North Carolina has defeated Clemson in Chapel Hill, Oliver Purnell should not concern himself with it come gametime.  As a franchise overdog, North Carolina has high winning percentages against most teams whilst playing in Chapel Hill. 

Preserving your alma mater's history is fine.  It's fine to tell folks that at one time, San Francisco wasn't just another stepping stone for Gonzaga en route to the WCC title.  It's fine for Oregon fans to remind us that the Ducks were the first NCAA tourney champions.  It's also fine to remind us that Georgia leads the all-time football series against Florida.  But in an environment of "high employee turnover," the focus should be on the here and now.    

Talk Tuesday is usually reserved for critical posts on professional assertions.  Since all has been said in the talk circles that can be said on steroids and free agency, I'll grab hold of an argument and take a side.  The four letter's radio spots feature Colin Cowherd's take on why the NBA is better than NCAA basketball.  The outcome should surprise no one.  The four letter worships at the altar of the athlete, and the best ones who play basketball are playing in The Association.

The argument we are presented is the fact that the "no defense" theory holds no water, since the best scorers will always get their points.  That is true.  No scheme short of "the Jordan rules" or "Hack a Shaq" will fully eliminate an elite NBA player from doing what they do best.  I do wonder how players can effortlessly put that ball in the hoop.  It is a marvel.  Their abilities should not be minimized.

The no defense argument has some merits.  In order to foster scoring, the NBA had long outlawed off the ball double-teams and zones.  This has been relaxed during the new decade - perhaps because the NBA loves dynasties, and Shaq always getting easy dunks was not good for competition.  This decade's dynasty is the San Antonio Spurs.  So defense has its place in the NBA, but rule changes made it relevant.

On the other end of the spectrum is the fact that the college game is defensive anarchy.  What Temple does is different from Princeton, which is different from Loyola-Marymount, which is different from BYU.  The college game lends itself to UNC-Georgetown, irresistable force-immovable object pairings.  Occassionaly, this leads to the ugly basketball we see in the BigX(I). Aestetichally, the NBA game is more pleasing than this version of college basketball.

What college ball has that the NBA doesn't, is a sense of urgency with each possession.  Getting that orange ball into the orange hoop sounds easy for 6'8" college guys.  Of course, both sides are on scholarship.  College ball is scrappier because the season is thirty games, and playoffs are single elimination.  NBA ball is eighty-two games, with a herky-jerky postseason.  There is always tomorrow in the NBA. 

College basketball also has a sense of authenticity.  Instead of piped in organ music, or a snippet of TI's latest, the pomp and circumstance at a college game is provided by the folks who would normally play "Pomp and Circumstance."  The crowds don't need a center court scoreboard to get them fired up.  And the adulation stemming from the crowd at an Oklahoma victory over Texas would be greater than if the Thunder beat the Mavericks.

So leave no doubt that NBA players are superior.  But definitely doubt that the NBA product brings you the same sense of closure that the NCAA tournament brings.      

So who's left to get in the NFL free agent market?  I'll start at quarterback.

1. Ben Roethlisberger

"But he's not a free agent."  Oh, did I mention this was in response to the fact that Tom Brady has just been signed to a lifetime deal?  You thought I wanted to break down the I's and T's of the Deangelo Hall signing?  Ha!  So this is for teh ladiez!

Pros:  He is a two time champion.  Beloved in his city.  Has a sandwich named after him, meaning that by extension, it could be named after you as well.

Cons: Possible that a lack of performance the night before will ultimately be blamed on cracked ribs.

2. Tony Romo

Pros: Sporting a starting lineup that includes Underwood and Simpson, you know where you stand in guy world.

Cons: Drunken fans in other towns would get "creative" with your last name.  He may throw it to the wrong team once in a while.

3. Matt Leinart

Pros: Minimal nursing involved.  He gets paid not to play.  Guaranteed a trip to New York for the Heisman trophy ceremony

Cons: May continue to act like he is enrolled for his seventh year at USC.  Make sure the funnel in the garage has oil residue, not something else.

I have learned quite a bit in these last five months.  I saw myself "falling behind" and leaving myself to say "I guess I just wasn't made for these times."  When the bubble burst, and I saw the fallout, I knew there had to be rules that others were playing by, that I didn't see.  I'm glad I didn't see those rules.  But now I get the solution to the problem that has been pitched, and I'm left to say, "I guess I just wasn't made for these times."  My bailout better come in the form of a sweet interest rate when I move.

The new scheme is that we're going to spend money that as of now doesn't exist.  This money will fall into everyone's pocket, and there will be no ill-effects.  Nope.  None.  No way this manifests itself as higher inflation and interest rates.  None.  The rules of economics don't apply anymore.  It's change we can believe in, folks! [For the record, he seems like a nice fellow.  He's likable, and I hope for everyone's sake, that he succeeds.  I just don't see where the change part comes into play.  Deficit spending?  Noone's thought of that before!]

But even as individuals, there are schemes to hatch.  Take the latest one here http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/ (fourth one down).  At 2:45 it's very telling in what they don't tell you.  The house was purchased for $39,000.  The person in question owes $145,000 on it.  What does this mean?  "Banks are evil!!!"  Well perhaps, but back to basics, this person overspent by $106,000 (more when considering that at some point, a portion of the original principle went down when she was making payments) and lumped it into her mortgage.  What the bank did with this mortgage after the note was signed is a separate issue.  Also, the home's current value isn't mentioned.  Perhaps the purchase price was low due to a short sale. 

Now we're enabling these schemes by making them part of the news.  People will continue to flaunt the laws of economics and credit, because there's a scheme.  "They can't prove I owe them the money."  Funny, who did you pay when you could make the payments?  If you had concerns about making a payment to a specific bank, should that not have been addressed when you STARTED making payments?

Strange as it may be, this brings me to the New York Knicks.  There's always a scheme with these guys.  "We're going to bring in Larry Brown.  He's a Long Island boy.  He'll shape us up."  But the fish stunk at the head.  Naturally, make the head the head coach.  "Now we'll have Starbury and Stevie Franchise together.  That'll be awesome.  We're New York.  The stars play here.  Our New Yorkiness will out New York the non-New York teams like the non-New York Spurs or non-New York Pistons.  In fact how do fans of these teams root for them?  Don't they get confused about which team called non-New York they are rooting for?  Okay, so there's Boston, LA, and Chicago.  But with just five teams in the league, the stars have no choice but to come here."

It's this "how can this fail?" attitude that has left every Knicks scheme to fail.  Now Mike D'Antoni is the head coach under the eye of Donnie Walsh.  They're going to lose, but it will at least be fun to watch it happen.  And as we all know, this is just a stall tactic for the arrival of Lebron James. 

Everyone has made note of the fact that teams are making moves to clear cap space, all in an effort to presumable make a run at King James.  Knicks fans look for any clue to indicate that the team in the pole position is the Knicks.  He wears a Yankees hat!  (Knicks fans cheer) He played football in high school and they ran the statue of liberty play !(Knicks and Nets fans cheer this. Knicks fans look puzzled)

If I may, I'd like to pose this question: What if Lebron doesn't come to New York?  I can hear the laughter traveling through the Lincoln Tunnel, down the NJTP, through the Ft McHenry tunnel, and into my hears.  Now that it has subsided, I'll ask again: What if Lebron doesn't come to New York? [Vince in Hell's Kitchen nudges his buddy and says, "Do you believe this guy?  I think he's serious."] 

It may be a blessing in disguise.  All that money is freed up to pay a whole new team, not just one player carrying scrubs.  The idea is to win, correct?  If I'm not mistaken, James has "Bird rights."  The Cavaliers can give him the max contract, exempt him from salary cap ramifications, and use the cap allotment to build a team around James.  In essence, the Cavaliers can keep the second best team in the East together for several years.  The Knicks, on the other hand, have been sabotaging their current product in an effort to offer the same max deal - only that deal is subject to cap rules. 

So pray tell, who is going to play with Lebron James in this new star scheme?  The Cavaliers have better candidates to keep someone using the mid-level exception (or reach out to someone who wants to play alongside James).  If the Knicks want to get good, draft well.  Develop your own max-guy.  Then find MLE types to round out your squad.  Are the Lakers doing this?  Are the Celtics doing this?  Are the Spurs doing this?  Heck, what about Orlando?  There's always a scheme.  Someone always has a way to outsmart or outshine the rest.  It looks good in the short run.  How's that working out in the long run?