SI's found something on the Browns and Hue Jackson:

People forget that the NFL is 32 franchises working together for an entertainment product.  It appears we have evidence that the Browns intentionally went 1-31 in 2016 and 2017.

The SI article, today's Daily Cover, details a January, 2020 hearing in Manhattan, an arbitration hearing the NFL held with Hue Jackson of the Cleveland Browns because he believed the team was setting him up to fail and destroying his professional reputation over the last two seasons by intentionally losing games. 

I, on this blog, have called for no less than the dissolution of the team.  Jackson won 3 games in his final 2 1/2 seasons in Cleveland.  He has never head-coached again.

The Browns claim to have a signed document from Jackson agreeing to terms upon his firing, etc.  Of course, none of that is valid if it is clear that the document is signed in bad faith -- one of the reasons Joe Stafford is arguing in this league-arbitration hearing.

Stafford is trying to pull an evidentiary situation, attaching 38 pages of further documents to the transcript of the hearing, rather than burying them in the record.

The league is resisting, the arbitrator appears leaning to that situation, but this is the crux of a LONG hearing on the question.

Why?

What did they find when Sports Illustrated looked at those 38 pages, and about 1,000 more surrounding this case, filed when Jackson opted to negate the arbitration and seek an open-court lawsuit, under pain of bad faith?

It is clear that there is much evidence that the Browns were either going on a long rebuild process or a full-out tank job and taking a dive.  That much is clear.  The record would seem to indicate same.  The 11 games the Browns won in 2020 are the same number Jackson won in 3 1/2 seasons in Cleveland.

And a contract which many agents found unusual does seem to have language indicating peculiar bonuses which appear to incentivize losing.

The league attempted, as part of the Flores lawsuit investigation, to effectively depose Jackson, and he began the process to agree in March -- but his lawyers thought the better of it and laid out reasonable conditions, especially given the rancor between Jackson and the league.  They were met with silence.  No meeting ever occurred, at which point Goodell exonerated the Browns.

No one cooperated with Sports Illustrated on this story.

So what DID they find?

The Browns officially, as a team, had what was called "The Four Year Plan".  It was a document, created upon Jackson's hiring in January of 2016, laying out goals for the franchise (and SI only saw small parts of it), and the contract offered Jackson up to $750,000 a year, at the discretion of ownership, for following "The Four Year Plan".

Jackson was not shown the document for another month, and the bonus package pertaining to it for another three after that.

At least a view of The Four Year Plan, vis-a-vis bonuses, is a fair piece down the article.  I'll link to it again here.  Not only should SI get credit for finding it, but you need to see this for yourselves:

Year One (among others, the charts have been reproduced in the article, read them there):

1. Beat five teams in total record.
2. Have 11 draft picks, five in the first three rounds.
3. Youngest half of teams.
4. Bottom 25% of salaries for the squad, carrying over 15% of the salary cap.

And a number of other things which appear endemic to the first year of such a plan.

The problem being:  You know how you get good players in the NFL.  YOU PAY THEM...

Year Two:

1. Beat 12 teams in total record.
2. 10 picks, four in the first three rounds.
3. Still in the youngest half of teams.
4. Carry over 12.5% of salary cap, and you must have a higher winning percentage than your salary for the squad.  (Meaning, for example, this clause only triggers if, hypothetically, an 8-8 Browns team is in the lower half of salaries.)

Year Three:

1. Must go at least 10-6 and meet various other conditions.
2. 10 picks, four in the first three rounds.
3. The team must now get even YOUNGER, going from youngest 16 teams to being one of the youngest 12.
4. Must rank higher in team win % than salary rank percentage for the squad for the aggregate of the first three years of the Plan.
5. Must have higher than expected value from the first two drafts.

Year Four:  Parts 1 and 2.

You can see why Jackson spoke up, people:  Anyone with a working knowledge of the NFL knows the ownership's expectations were completely out of sync with any sense of reality.  SI notes especially the salary considerations and accumulation of draft capital (four extra picks in the first year, three in the other two) are completely out of sync with any expectation of winning.

If this wasn't "tank to lose", it was certainly "purge ALL veteran talent from the team and start over".

(Which should've happened after 0-16, not two years previous!)

It is not known whether the NFL ever saw The Four-Year Plan, and only a cursory extension of what is allowed contract-wise MAY have allowed the bonus structure to go forward.

Most everyone who saw the table knows this is "pay to tank", but it may actually pass muster, in it's own merit, that it did not directly call for losing of games.  The call to lose games comes in the kind of team owner Jimmy Haslam wanted -- a young, draft-ladened, unproven bunch of men who were going to take serious growing pains.  And 10-6 by Year Three was an abject impossibility in this reality!

It is believed that Jackson knew, pretty much immediately, he was taking the fall for effectively killing the on-field Browns.

The SI article then goes on to explain what was SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:  The NFL's version of Moneyball.

Moneyball only works when you have diamonds in the rough looking to prove themselves and, somehow, not getting the chance.  It should take about five seconds to realize why this does not work in the NCAA and ESPN-ladened exposure of top-level college football and the "men" therein.  Anyone who's good enough, in that sense, is going to want to get paid.  And this system disincentivizes that, in the strongest possible terms -- as a union between Legal, Analytical, and Coaching arms.

One veteran league executive, after SI lists what happened in the 1-31 years, was quoted by SI as saying it was the worst roster in the history of the league and an obvious attempt to tank.

Around a dozen former Browns, similarly believing The Four-Year Plan blew up their NFL careers, also are considering legal action.

------------------

You really need to read this article and take a look at what's being presented here.  It will definitely take some time.

We now have an answer as to why the Browns went 1-31 those two full seasons under Hue Jackson -- the Browns were attempting to Oakland A's their way into prominece.  That's only feasible in a sport where the second level of play is largely silent to the national mindset.

In short, anyone who has knowledge knows this can't work here.

If this is the extent of the charges Jackson brings, he has the worst of both worlds.  Not only can he not prove a direct link between losing and a bonus, but -- on the other side of the ledger -- it is so obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on how the NFL, salaries, and rosters actually WORK that this was destined to fail, and spectacularly.

There are only a very few men who can win at the professional level.  I'm not talking quarterbacks or anything else here.  I'm saying that there are far fewer men, at ANY position, who can win in the NFL than even the number of teams in the league.  It's one of the reasons that the loss of even one key starter can submarine an entire season.

When you disavow any meaningful veteran talent and gut salaries, you are left not being able to get any real players.  That's the reality in the NFL.  Take that trade last weekend as one example:  Philly gets the big star WR from Tennessee who the Titans won't pay after he goes FA end of the year, Philly then immediately announces a new contract at $25M a year for 4 years, over half guaranteed.

I know it's a running joke and that I'm one of the few people to believe it:  But this is such a disastrous and utterly-shambolic attempt that no one takes it seriously.  I think it's clear that any of the top college teams of those two years could've made mincemeat of these Browns.

The sickest part is, Haslam probably gets away with it, partially due to the fact that he is not directly telling the Browns to lose, but also partially due to the fact that Haslam accepts that as his role in the cooperative nature of the NFL.

Jackson probably has no case in arbitration or court, sadly.  To do that, such a venue would have to have at least a good deal of knowledge of a functional NFL roster.  Most courts, especially in such an inconvenient result as officially impinging the integrity of Our Holy National Religion Of Football Man, have no interest in taking up such an endeavor.