Last week in this space, I talked about the changing way NFL teams build and manage rosters, and how it’s forced the people behind the players — agents, wealth managers, marketing professionals, trainers and everyone else — to adapt, though most of them are still not sure how. One of the points I made was about the disposable nature of draftees (even recent ones that were high picks).

My post drew an email from former NFL scout and longtime friend Matt Manocherian. Those of you who follow this column know Matt scouted for the Saints and Browns before leaving to pursue his Masters in Sports Management from Columbia (he got his undergrad from Duke, so he’s not lacking in the brains department). Today, he’s the Director of Football Development at Sports Info Solutions, one of the leading analytics-based services in the game and a vendor to multiple NFL, NBA and MLB teams. Matt’s also spoken at our annual ITL Combine Seminars in 2017 and as a panelist in 2018.

In his email, Matt (politely) took issue with his perception that I blamed analytics for the fact that teams have selected, and already cut, eight players drafted before the end of the third round. He wrote:

“I couldn’t help but get curious while reading the newsletter last week, so I had our intern pull some college stats from 2016 on the guys that you listed as high pick busts from last year.  You can see the attachment for yourself, but long story short: most of these guys had poor advanced college stats.  One exception is (Cardinals 2017 4/115 selection) Dorian Johnson, who we expected to play better based on our metrics, but in general, at least in the case of this analytics organization, we weren’t the source of volatility on these misses…if anything, we warned of the possibility!”

This prompted a few thoughts.

• I didn’t express myself well. I never meant to blame analytics for these busted picks. I intended to express that we’re in a period where teams are weighing the value of traditional scouting, metrics, cost analysis, positional scarcity and other factors without a consensus on what’s most effective, and it’s created a very uncertain landscape for draft picks.
• Matt listed the SIS analysis of several of the players listed prior to the ’17 draft. He makes a compelling case that, had the NFL been paying attention, teams might have known what they were getting with these players. There are numerous examples, and I encourage you to check in with SIS’ numbers on your own. Many of the better NFL writers I read regularly cite SIS’ work. For example, Ardarius Stewart was the ninth receiver taken in ’17, while Carlos Henderson was 10th, Amara Darboh 14th and DeAngelo Yancey 25th. Yet based on SIS numbers, all of them rank in the 50s and 60s, at best, among key categories like completion percentage, on-target catch rate, yards per reception and drop percentage among the 200 wideouts SIS ranked. Stewart was their No. 55 WO. Henderson was 58, Darboh was 60 and Yancey was 145, and this is just a cursory look at SIS’ work.
• Virtually every NFL team is trying to figure out in-house how to skin the analytics cat. Meanwhile, services like SIS are spending big money to do an incredibly thorough job evaluating college and pro players alike, and they haven’t yet managed to offer a cost-effective information model for the independent consumer, i.e., agents, trainers, etc. This means there are an awful lot of voices out there but not one that everyone is listening to. Not yet, anyway.
• Until one service shoulders to the front of the pack and becomes the industry standard, or one NFL team becomes the Oakland A’s/Moneyball team, I expect volatility to continue.

Remember: if you dig talking about the direction of the game, how different factors affect scouting and the draft, and what football insiders are doing, thinking and saying, I really recommend you sign up for our newsletter, the ITL Friday Wrap. It’s free, and you can do so here.

Last week, the Alliance of American Football (AAF) circulated an email to all NFLPA-licensed contract advisors advising them of its policy for allowing signed players to work out for interested NFL teams.

The short version is that the AAF will require NFL teams to make formal requests before a player is allowed to work out for them, and agents will not be allowed to facilitate the transaction. It’s a policy that could get a little cumbersome this season.

I found out about it when an agent forwarded it to me. His initial reaction was one of concern. How could he in good conscience recommend one of his players cut by an NFL team this weekend take an AAF offer if it might jeopardize future NFL opportunities?

I was curious if other agents felt the same way, so I reached out to several of them, asking this question:

What are your thoughts on the AAF email last week detailing the procedure for allowing AAF signees to try out with NFL teams? NFL teams will have to formally ask permission, and the agent is not in the loop. Will that give you second thoughts about having your NFL cuts sign AAF deals this fall?

The answers were all over the map.

• “I will do what’s in client’s best interest. If I feel he can still catch on in the NFL, I may hold out because of that process. Keeping agents out of the loop is not a good idea. I would be working the NFL side of things to get them to request in most cases anyway. Leagues like the AAF need to have success before making demands, in my opinion.”
• “It’s definitely something to keep an eye on. I wonder if it’s meant to limit agents constantly bugging NFL teams about getting their guys a workout, and the agent getting too involved in the process. In all reality though, I think a good agent at this point will know what player realistically will get on a (practice squad) at some point and which ones should go to AAF immediately. .  . I’ve got a few guys that I’d send to the CFL or AAF, but there are a lot more that I can say with confidence will get a practice squad shot at some point. I think AAF is kind of confusing at this time. They shouldn’t be this vague about rules when players are trying to make decisions. Not a good look.”
• “(Our client) signed with the AAF and we were able to get out of it no problem with (an NFL team). (The NFL team was) a little hesitant about it, but we got it squared away pretty easily. . . I’ve been really impressed so far and they’ve hired amazing staffs.”
• “I always want to create opportunities for players, but the AAF should have a provision in contract that the agent may create NFL opportunities and tryouts without AAF permission. But it is hard when players want to play and create more film for NFL teams.”
• “Probably not because the guys that are not currently in the league are jazzed about the new league and think it’s their shot at getting noticed. If (an AAF team is) offering a deal, they’re going to want to do it. Just another way they kneecap us agents but not sure keeping our guys from playing in a new league is the best option or that they would even listen to us on that. Probably the lesser of two evils.”
• “Will still push for them to sign. We will work through those hiccups, but very disappointing, but not surprising. I wish they would bring back NFL Europe.”
• “Not even a second thought. I have one player who was signed to the AAF, we did the consent form, he worked out for (an NFL team) and made the roster last week. The league office for the AAF was perfect to deal with in the process, and I know if for whatever reason he does not stay, he’ll have a job back in the AAF with his same team. Still a win-win for the client and that’s the important part. . . If I hadn’t gone through the process yet, I may have reservations, but the AAF has it together in the front office and I’ve enjoyed working with them.”
• “I think my players that get cut will be claimed or (practice squad) but if for some reason that doesn’t happen, I will address it at that time. That rule does seem dumb — I like the idea of it (because) no one was sure if you could work out, so I know some players would probably wait until late to make that move, but to make the NFL team have to go out of their way, I don’t know . . . It should just be proof of workout from agent or airfare gets you approval.”
• “Well, anyone in the NFL right now would be a fool to sign AAF prior to the end of the NFL season, no matter what. Anyone that has no NFL option might as well sign, because odds are no one is calling, so honestly, it probably isn’t going to be much of a problem because of the timing. As long as agents are smart, AAF will just continue to improve signed talent as Jan/Feb gets closer and guys that played this preseason, who don’t resign, end up committing. There are a bunch of AAF guys under contract right now that will never see that league.”

One of the interesting paradoxes of the agent business is that often the contract advisors with the least amount of clients are the ones expending the most effort. While the work of being an agent involves negotiating contracts and marketing deals, arranging training and facilitating NFL contacts before the draft, it’s different for lesser prospects.

In those cases, the agent spends endless hours virtually begging NFL teams to consider the player, sending countless emails, making videos, and cold-calling. It’s not ‘agent work’ in the traditional sense, but it’s work, no doubt about it.

With that in mind, we asked several contract advisors how they’ll handle fees for players that sign AAF, not NFL, deals. While the contracts are less, they’re comparable to NFL practice squad pay, which is something, at least.

Here’s what we got back when we asked several agents: “What are you going to charge your AAF signees, if anything?”

• “Well, I’m going to treat this like I do my CFL clients. A one-time fee per contract, meaning, I’m not in their pockets each year. The flat fee will be like $1,000. An agent will still have to do transactional things as it relates to the player (i.e., spending time getting the contract, dealing with appeals/grievances, etc.), so that fee will be per contract, and not double-dipping or triple-dipping each year and plus you’re not being petty with the money. Have to look at bigger picture of getting your client to the NFL.”
• “Not more than 4%. Salaries are not that bad, but nowhere near what NFL pays rookies. I think 4% would be fair.”
• “Not sure, but probably whatever we agreed to on the NFL SRA.”
• “Probably nothing, as I don’t have an agreement for that. Just tell them to pay my expenses back. Might have them sign an addendum, though, for the league.”
• “Nothing.”
• “To be honest I haven’t thought about it yet.  I have addendums that state that if they play in any professional league worldwide, that I get my expenses back.  So that is the minimum. Maybe 3% or our expenses, whichever is greater. These are guys I have had to work extremely hard for. Not just throughout the draft process, but also keeping them from jumping ship, because I truly believe in them and know they will have some opportunity if they stay motivated.”
• “Was just thinking about that today. I think something between $1,000 to $2,000. Three percent of $70,000 is $2,100. I mean, if a player made $70,000 in the NFL, (that’s) basically 2.5 games in the NFL you would charge them.”
• “Three percent.”

We got several more responses which show that contract advisors are really wrestling with this question. We’ve included them in the Friday Wrap, which comes out this evening (7:30 p.m. EDT/6:30 p.m. CDT). Here’s last week’s edition. It’s free, and thousands of football professionals (and aspiring football professionals) read it each week, and you should, too. Register for it here.

With Agent Week 2018 now in the books, we spent time over the last week trying to get a sense of the exam itself, as well as how we did preparing this year’s agent class.

To answer the second question, this year, we commissioned a survey. Interestingly, only about half of our respondents (we got fewer the 20 responses) were attorneys. Most (about two-thirds) were confirmed to take the exam at least a month before the test date. We were really pleased with what we heard:

• Based on our survey, almost 80 percent found our daily newsletter series recounting success stories from the most recent agent class and providing test tips “encouraging and insightful,” while the remaining 20 percent called it “a key part of my exam prep.”
• We did pretty well on the test questions, too. More than half (54 percent) said “on balance, they were helpful and mostly similar to the actual test questions,” while another 30 percent said “they were definitely helpful and quite similar to the actual test questions.” Only one respondent said, “I wish they had been more similar to the questions on the actual exam.”
• Our study guide probably got the best grade, however. Ninety-two percent said it was “very helpful; I’m glad I had it.” All in all, based on a scale of 1-5 with five being best, we got a ‘4’ from 54 percent and a ‘5’ from the rest.

With regard to the test itself, we were interested to see how closely the exam mirrored what was taught in the day-and-a-half seminar leading up to the test, and whether or not the exam was as challenging as it has been the last three years since the players association really put the hammer down. One test-taker said “there were a few things on the exam that were not covered, but I think that is because they change topics slightly year to year. One thing I noticed is almost every exam question was covered at some point during the conference so it’s really important to pay attention during the conference.”

That jibes with what we’ve heard for years from those taking the exam. NFLPA officials are not without a heart, and they give those who pay attention during the seminar a clear advantage. Of course, not everyone takes advantage, and it shows up in the final minutes before the test begins. “Like you predicted, there were several people in the lobby seemingly reviewing materials for the first time and highlighting!,” said one of our clients. “All I could do was chuckle!” 

At the same time, there was some dissonance between what was presented and what showed up on the test. There was also one test-taker who said the seminar was a bit rushed and confusing on Friday morning. “They were presenting the info and some presenters were correcting each other, so I didn’t know who to believe,” he said. “Also, they ran over time, so they rushed info and cut short some material. On top of that they sent out stuff for us to study weeks ago just to tell us at the meeting that some things were different.”

As always, it wasn’t a perfect two days in Washington, D.C., but if you studied, took advantage of the NFLPA’s guidance at the seminar (even if it was rushed at times), and used our materials, I think there’s good news waiting in about a month.

At this point, almost 300 people are in Washington, D.C., to take the 2018 NFLPA Exam. For the first time, we’ll be asking them to take a quick survey designed to (a) learn a little more about them and (b) learn a little more about us.

As you know, we offer a study guide, a 40-question practice exam, and a second 40-question practice exam.

Here are the questions we’ll ask them to answer:

1. Are you an attorney or legal professional?

• Yes
• No

2. When were you confirmed to take the exam by the NFLPA?

• Eight weeks or more before the test date.
• Four to eight weeks before the test date
• Two to four weeks before the test date
• Less than two weeks before the test date

3. What ITL exam prep materials did you have access to?

• Inside the League’s basic service
• ITL Study Guide
• Exam 1
• Exam 2

4. What best describes your feelings about the ITL Rising Contract Advisors Newsletter series?

• More of a nuisance than a help
• Neither a negative or a positive
• Encouraging and insightful
• A key part of my exam prep

5. Presuming you had access to ITL Practice Exam 1 or 2, how would you characterize the questions?

• I wish they had been more similar to the questions on the actual exam
• On balance, they were helpful and mostly similar to the actual test questions
• They were definitely helpful and quite similar to the actual test questions
• I did not have access to the practice exams.

6. Presuming you had access to the ITL Study Guide, how would you characterize it?

• Probably not as helpful as I expected it to be
• Better having it than not having it
• Very helpful; I’m glad I had it
• I did not have access to the ITL Study Guide

7. On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied were you with ITL’s exam prep materials?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

8. Presuming you used ITL’s exam prep materials, how did you hear about us?

• From fellow test-takers in Washington, DC
• Google search
• Twitter
• Referral from friend or co-worker
• Other

So you want to be an NFL agent? Step 1 is passing the NFLPA agent exam, which will be held Friday in Washington, D.C. Here are three questions taken off our two practice exams that are very similar to the ones test-takers will see in two days.

Practice Exam 1 – Question #27

A player rushes for 950 yards in 2017, the final year of his rookie contract. While negotiating a new deal for the player, the agent includes additional compensation in the form of a $50,000.00 incentive for a 1,000-yard season total rushing performance. How does this affect the player’s salary cap number for the following season?

• It will not affect the cap; performance bonuses do not count against the cap.
• The incentive is Likely to be Earned and will count $50,000.00 against the cap in 2018.
• The incentive is Likely to be Earned and can be prorated, for cap purposes, over the years remaining on the contract
• The incentive is Not Likely to be Earned and will only count against the cap in the year after earning the performance bonus.

Answer: Not Likely to Be Earned. Once a player achieves a performance bonus (in this case 1,000 yds rushing) in the previous year, it changes from NLTBE to LTBE.

Practice Exam 1 – Question #34

Player E signs a UDFA contract in 2016. In preseason 2016, he is injured and placed on injured reserve for the entire season. In preseason 2017, he is again injured and placed on injured reserve for the entire season. In 2018, he has rushed for 728 yards through the first six games of the season. If it is now one minute after the sixth game in 2018. When may the team give an extension to Player E?

• Immediately
• After the completion of eighth game in 2018
• After the completion of the last game in 2018
• After the Super Bowl for the 2018 season

Answer: Immediately. Per the CBA, an undrafted rookie can renegotiate his rookie contract anytime after the end of his 2nd season.

Practice Exam 2 – Question #10

A player with a full split is injured in the first regular-season game. The team cuts the player and the player files an injury grievance.  The player settles with the team for 5 weeks of pay at the down split amount. The player gets:

1. An accrued season, but not a credited season, for benefits
2. A credited season for benefits, but not an accrued season
3. Neither a credited season for benefits nor an accrued season
4. Both an accrued season and a credited season for benefits

Answer: Both an accrued season and a credited season for benefits. This player was paid for 6 games.  For a credited season for benefits, games on IR count, so once this player got 3 games, he got a credited season for benefits.  For an accrued season, games on IR count — so once this player got 6 games (1+5), he got an accrued season.

If you’re reading this from a D.C. hotel room, it’s not too late to find out just where you stand before things get interesting Friday afternoon. We can activate you for our practice exams as soon as you register — no mailing — and our study guide is must-have content for breaking down the CBA (and will be emailed to you immediately). We’re here and ready to help. Give us a try.

In the early days of Inside the League, July was pretty much a black hole. As we were focused on agents already in the business, we had a pretty big blind spot towards those trying to get in.

We rectified that in 2012 when we introduced our first practice exam. At the time, it was a 40-question, multiple choice proposition that grew to 52 questions last year. Since then, we’ve added a study guide and, this year, a second practice exam. Now both exercises offer 40 questions that are as close to what test-takers will see as you’ll find on the Internet.

Still it wouldn’t matter if we weren’t helping agents get results and hearing positive feedback. So far, we’re pretty encouraged about our latest service. Here are a few (unsolicited) comments on our materials:

• “Your service is super helpful.”
• “Wanted to thank you again for the prep material. I got through the latest test (Exam 2) in about 40 minutes time and scored 38/40. Obviously, I will use my whole time allotment for the regular exam, but I am having to look up very few things now. I’m feeling very confident about next week and ready to attack it.”
• “Thank you for all the work you put into your content and with the review guide/practice exams. It for sure helped give me a better structure to memorize what I need to and go over what I still needed to work on.”
• “I am really finding the site and exam prep materials to be useful.”
• “Did you all turn up the Heat (extra hot🔥🔥🔥) in Exam 2 on purpose?  It was abnormally hard. I missed around 10 on my first run through.”
• “These (practice exams) have been a life saver.”

• “Thank you! I received it and  I’m already feeling better. I appreciate this resource!”

We’re not publishing this to toot our own horn. Instead, the idea is to let those people know more about what we do and how our clients feel about it. Believe it or not, dozens of people just found out from the NFLPA they are approved for the exam, and we want those people to know we’re here.

We’ll be doing more this week to get prospective agents ready for Friday. More tomorrow.