The Implications of an Uncapped Season- 2010 without a CBA

by James The Aussie on Nov 3, 2009 11:07 PM EST Comment 55 comments

Prior to the 2009 season the NFL owners decided unanimously to opt out of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) following the 2009 season. There are myriad reasons why the owners opted out; economic downturn, a poor business model for smaller market teams, but the most widely attributed reason is the lack of a rookie pay scale, which most likely would be implemented prior to the 2011 season. This is the reason you may see an inordinate amount of juniors like Jimmy Clausen, Jake Locker and Sam Bradford leave for the 2010 draft, rather than wait until 2011.

I've noticed over the past couple of months there seems to be a lot of misinformation in regards to what will happen in the 2010 offseason with the lack of a salary cap. The vast amount of information floating around is completely incorrect, so before we get too far into the season I thought it prudent to write about what an uncapped season actually means, and hopefully dispel a few incorrect myths and assumptions.

Myth One: An uncapped season means every player in the NFL becomes an unrestricted free agent.

FALSE: Though the lack of a salary cap means free agents can be offered any amount of money by a team, it does not make all prior contracts null and void. I have heard claims such as:

"We'll lose DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart because a team will offer them way more money than the Panthers can"

Again, they are both under contract, so don't fear.

Myth Two: A championship caliber team like New England or Pittsburgh will sign every primo free agent who wants a championship to a 1 year deal and run away with the 2010 season.

FALSE: A failsafe was included for a capless season. Essentially the 8 playoff teams are unable to sign any more free agents than they lost. For example, if the Steelers lose 3 unrestricted free agents, they are only allowed to sign 3 free agents to replace those players. There is no restriction on non-playoff teams (we're looking at you Dan Snyder).

Myth Three: It will be impossible to keep Julius Peppers and Thomas Davis. One or the other will command major dollars on the free agent market.

FALSE: This is one element to the lack of a CBA that plays in our favor. For 2010 only each team will be allowed to apply the franchise tag to three players, rather than the typical one. Hence, we can franchise both Davis and Peppers if the team so chooses and franchise a third player (possibly Tyler Brayton).

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

What are the risks?

By no means do I want people to assume it is all wine and roses for a year without a CBA. There are numerous risks with former union Chief Gene Upshaw always pushing a ‘slippery slope' argument. Essentially, his platform was that once players get a taste of uncapped free agency it will be impossible to make them conform to numbers again, and the player's union won't ratify a new CBA.

This most likely was a strong arm tactic to scare owners into continuing the CBA. Therefore giving 60% of a team's revenue to players and retaining no rookie pay scale. There was an uncapped season in 1993 and the world didn't end.

The second and most interesting prospect is this one: It takes a great deal of suspension of disbelief, and is extremely unlikely so just go with me on this one.

A salary cap isn't just a ceiling on how much a team can spend, but also a basement. There are numerous teams in the league whose games are blacked out and are in debt (Jacksonville, Oakland) to name a couple. Without a minimum these teams need to pay their players imagine if these teams released their entire rosters, all 53 players. It is likely over 90% of them would be signed by some team or another, therefore voiding the remaining years on their deals and requiring the teams to only cover their guaranteed portions.

This seems obscene, but for a team tens of millions in the hole it could be very, very enticing to salt the earth, field a team of scrubs for a 10^th of what their spending now and recoup a lot of money via the NFL's revenue sharing system. Of course, it's extremely unlikely a team will release an entire roster, but you could see some big names with bad contracts get released so a team can reload for the 2010 free agency (JaMarcus Russell anyone?).

Lastly, the rules put in place by the owners increased the number of years a player needs to be in the league before becoming eligible for free agency from 4-6 for the 2010 offseason. This was to ensure teams weren't robbed of their young talent solely because they didn't have the money to make a comparable offer to their free agents.

LittleKing wrote a great article back in April highlighting which Carolina Panthers would be subject to free agency following the 2009 season. You can find it here.

If you have a questions regarding the uncapped 2010 season please, feel free to leave it in the comments. I think it's important we go in to the offseason a more educated fan base on the issue so when arguments regarding free agents and draft picks come up we're all up to snuff on the basics before getting specific.

Sources

- USA Today- NFL Opts out of labor deal Goodell says is ‘Not Working’ 5/20/08

- Associated Content: Sports- 2010 and Uncapped Season in the NFL? 10/1/09

0 recs | Comment 55 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

thanks for the explanation

clears up a lot… and here i was hoping we could spend all our money chasing tom brady or peyton manning haha

by vitzeng on Nov 3, 2009 11:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The other interesting part about the last section...

Is that not only can those bad contracts get released because there’s no salary floor, but there’s also no cap penalty as there would normally be. That would be a HUGE boon for teams looking to purge their roster.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 12:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Very good point Procton.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So could one safely assume that every player could be, essentially, on a contract year (per say) being there are no implications for releasing players?

by D-Ranged1 on Nov 4, 2009 12:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That is correct. Even a player who was just signed last season like Albert Haynesworth could be released so long as the Redskins paid the guaranteed portion of his contract.

Where it could get nasty is players who have season ending injuries. Normally it would not be in a team’s best interest to cut these players and take the salary cap hit, but without the threat a lot of low to mid level players could get released and if their agent didn’t negotiate a good amount of guaranteed money their careers could be over.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me go ahead and cut off the question before it's asked:

Yes, that means the Panthers could cut Jake Delhomme and pay him just the guaranteed portion of the deal and be off the hook for the rest of the extension.

Realistically though, the Panthers are too classy an organization to pull that kind of move. If you see it happen at all it will be those teams in the bottom third in sales and earnings who need to recoup money.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 12:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

you beat me by 2 seconds

by Mr. E on Nov 4, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why would keeping Delhomme make the first bit of sense? Because we’re “classy?”

Jake shouldn’t start next year. Hell, many people are still saying he shouldn’t be starting now- and no longer just the fringe “so-called fans.” Paying a backup starter money is what bad teams do.

I’m not saying we couldn’t resign him closer to what backups make, but to say he should earn much more than that is ridiculous.

I’d much rather take a shot with a scrub near league minimum and use the cap space (in 2011,12) on players to help the team. We’re on the hook for the guaranteed part no matter what. After the season, let’s cut bait and face reality.

by the bomb dot com on Nov 4, 2009 7:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Delhomme is NOT a backup.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not about what makes sense... it's about what's honorable.

Just because the loophole would allow us to release Delhomme doesn’t mean we necessarily should.

What motivation would Delhomme have to be released by the Panthers, paid his guaranteed money then resign for cheaper? He would likely retire before coming back for peanuts, and is that the way to repay the winningest QB in your franchise’s history?

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Repay?

Last I checked, he was getting paid for these abominations. He isn’t out there throwing interceptions out of the goodness of his heart. It’s not like we’re stealing food from the mouths of his children, let alone taking guaranteed money away.

You could ignore the writing on the wall this past offseason, but not taking the opportunity in the upcoming one would be detrimental to the long term success of the team.

I’m glad he got to beat AZ, but the fact that we’re celebrating a guy for just not single-handedly losing a game says a lot about where we are right now.

by the bomb dot com on Nov 4, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We're at a place where a singele guy has been relied on far too much to win games.

If the run game isn’t producing at all (as has been the case in several of our losses), no QB is going to win.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The performance isn't the issue.

There’s no way to spin it that using the lack of a cap hit as motivation to release a player mid contract is not at least partly underhanded.

You’re turning this into a performance based argument, not a character based one. All I’m saying is the Big Cat isn’t the kind of guy to use these loopholes to ditch Delhomme, regardless of his contract.

You may see it in Oakland, Dallas or Washington… but not in Carolina.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No way

I think Delhomme will be asked if he could redo his contract, as 42 mil for a backup isn’t smart. But regardless he has done too much for this franchise, if #17 isn’t retired I’ll eat mine, MP’s, and Aussie’s hat.

by Flowing Willow on Nov 5, 2009 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HE'S NOT A BACKUP!!!

You’re talking about the guy who’s been under center to lead us to wins in three of four games since the bye.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 5, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Backup.

I’m loving the ALLCAPS and triple-!.

We’re lucky that Al Davis is around, or else there wouldn’t be a Jamarcus Russell starting to cushion Jake from the bottom of the starting QB pile.

And “lead us to wins?” What games are you watching? If by lead you mean hand off or do slightly less than implode, then yes, lead.

We’re talking about a guy who put together one of the worst starts in the modern era, under the most passer-friendly set of rules the game has ever seen.

Keeping him when given the chance to undo the extension would be more foolish than any of the bad FA acquisitions, draft day trades, or draft picks that haven’t panned out.

by the bomb dot com on Nov 6, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We've done it before.

Just ask Lucas, K. or Carr, D. And lots of others. Which would make, by your argument, the Panthers a systematically underhanded organization.

by TheMightyM on Nov 5, 2009 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a fair analogy

David Carr: 2 year, $6.2 million- released after 1st season (Played 1/2 of the contract, team saved $3.1 million)
Ken Lucas: 6 year, $36 million- released after 3rd season (Played 1/2 of the contract, contract was front loaded so team saved a mere $2.3 million)

Now, compare this with the prospect of cutting Delhomme, who it must be acknowledged renegotiated his deal in good faith so the Panthers would have additional cap room in 2009, without it Delhomme would have been a cap hit of $11 million, rather than the $4.5 million he is now.

Jake Delhomme: 5 year, $42.5 million- theoretically released after 1sst season (Played 1/5th of the contract, saving the team roughly $18 million)

I fail to see how the situation with Delhomme is even comparable to Lucas or Carr.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 5, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just FYI...

Jake’s cap hit is $8.6 mil this year.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 6, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lay off Jake, will you?

He’s had a tough stretch, but he’s a winner. He’s 53-35 lifetime if http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DelhJa00.htm can be believed. Look at some other QB’s records. Brees is 62-51. Jay Cutler is 20-24. Eli Manning 47-32.

Who would rather have Cutler than Delhomme? I think there are a ton of people. Cutler is more talented. But he isn’t a winner in the NFL; at least yet.

As soon as he gets ahold of the mistakes (an aberration, not the rule), you’ll see the same reliable QB out there. I’m tired of people puching the panic buton everytime something goes wrong.. Fire the coach, the GM, the QB! Start over! Really? Look and see how well that’s worked in Tampa, or Cleveland.

I’m glad my boss doesn’t throw me under a bus everytime I have a bad day.

Have a little perpective people.

That said, I sure hope the “Bad Jake” stuff is behind him this year. He’s had several years worth of “Bad Jake” performances this year alone.

Go Panthers!

by DrTarheel on Nov 5, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So, basically,

Jake’s extension last summer nullified after this year?

by Mr. E on Nov 4, 2009 12:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No.

The terms of the contract are in place. But if the CBA is not extended, they would not take the cap penalty one normally gets in cutting a guy with several years left on his deal.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think his contract guarantees like $25 mil or something

that’s a lot of money to lose anyways… even if he doesn’t start next year, he’d make a great backup..no point in cutting him them

by vitzeng on Nov 4, 2009 1:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly.

The guarantee is only $20 million, of which about $6.3 million will have been paid after this season.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh

thank you for the correction…
the point is still the same though lol

by vitzeng on Nov 4, 2009 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, barring injury I see no reason Delhomme couldn’t hang around once we got another QB. He’d definitely be able to run for best back-up QB of the year ;) lol

by D-Ranged1 on Nov 4, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a question

About unrestricted free agents, if it was uncapped, who would we have potentially leaving this year? I was wondering because the limit for unrestricted FA is raised from 3 years to six years, which would keep Davis with us as an RFA, right?

by Flowing Willow on Nov 4, 2009 7:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

LittleKing wrote an excellent post in April looking at potential Panthers free agents for 2010 taking into account the year requirement change:

The thing to remember is, regardless of whether a player is eligible to his free agency, or not, that does not and will not supplant the rules behind applying the franchise tag. Though theoretically Davis could hit FA, there is not way the Panthers won’t apply the tag to him and likely use the second franchise tag on Julius Peppers.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 7:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Link to LK's article

2010 Panther’s free agents

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 7:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!

This is a big help, needs an update though.

by Flowing Willow on Nov 4, 2009 7:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Updated with this information, thanks for the feedback!

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

...or they could also work out an extension before the season is even over.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So what's the sticking point for both sides?

I would hope the owners want a rookie salary scale, that’s a no brainer. What else do the owners want? Pay less than 60% of revenue seems obvious but what is the number they are asking for? Any the players obviously want more than 60%, anything else?

I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com

by Jaxon on Nov 4, 2009 8:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The owners desperately want a rookie pay scale. The rise in salaries for 1st round picks has gotten so obscene, particularily in the top 10 that many GMs when asked said they would rather pick at the bottom of the round, or the top of the second and miss a top 10 player than take a risk on a rookie eating up a major portion of the cap.

As for the play salaries, the 60% is the sticking point. Owners maintain that with the down economy less people are buying PSL, their concessions stands and mechadise sales are down so they’re having to make cuts and make less profits, while still needing to maintain a field, maintain and stadium and have all the typical expenses of an organization; meanwhile the players have not been passed on any of the finicial hardship.

I can see it both ways honestly. The players union recognize that without them there is no NFL, but the 60/40 split works great in times of boom, but when there is less money coming in it becomes a poor model.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 8:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If it's 60% of "revenue"...

…and revenue is down, aren’t they automatically sharing (in the areas of ‘hardship’)

All those contributors to revenue, however, are pretty miniscule, aren’t they, when compared to the TV revenue which drives the engine?

by bigdavis on Nov 4, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point, for some clarification

The 60% is league minimum a team needs to spend in on it’s salary, essentially 60% of the league wide profit sharing.

When we suffer a rapid economic downturn like we have all prior contracts obviously still stand, but it impacts how much money a team can offer in free agency. Essentially, the fear is that small market teams will be forced to operate far below the ceiling of the salary cap so they can still make money, while larger market teams can push the ceiling of the cap and land free agents.

The obvious goal is to avoid a capless system like the MLB where are handful or teams truly compete every year while the vast majority suffer in mediocrity.

It’s the parity in the NFL that makes the most popular sport (in my opinion) every year teams rise and fall renewing hope for the upocoming year. Meanwhile teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates know year in year out they have little shot of competing.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great article

I was hazy on some details of a year without a CBA, but now it is pretty clear. A couple questions for Panther fans:

1) What is your perception of Mr. Richardson’s willingness to open his wallet and pay big money for more of our big stars?

2) Given #1, how deep are our pockets? Any insight on the team’s profitability this year? What kind of resource pool are we working with? (revenue sharing only goes so far)

3) Do all the rules of franchising a player still apply other than the fact you can franchise 2 of them? If so, what does this mean for Peppers? given his recent play, we certainly are going to want to have him again. Are we looking at $1.5m per game next year??

by Tater596 on Nov 4, 2009 9:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I honestly don't know the answer to number two, but I'll try for the others.

1) Richardson is an old school owner. I don’t think his mindset is to open the coffers and secure all the free agents Fox and Co. (presuming they’re here) desire. However, he does desire to make this team better and I think he’s be willing to pay good money to a player who could legitimately make the team better. But, I don’t think he has the attitude, nor the funds to compete with Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder if it becomes a bidding war.

3) Yes, all the rules of frachising a player still applies. If we franchise Peppers a second time the rule is he must reciever a 10% raise over the previous year’s salary, so he would cost the team more money.

I think the team will put a non-exclusive franchise tag on Peppers again, allowing for his agent to negotiate with other teams. I think the Panthers will again hope that they can trade him prior to the draft, unless he makes clear overtures that he will be willing to stay in Carolina.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he now wants to stay

No info to base that on — just his attitude seems to be focused and happy with the new defensive structure, and his teammates. I envision a new LT contract arranged.

by bigdavis on Nov 4, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Peppers may be open to working an extension

Marshall should be fairly easy to resign, or we may have enough depth at CB with Gamble, Munnerlynn, Wilson, and Godfrey that we let him go, idk. That would leave us free to use one tag on Davis, and if we can’t work out a long term with Peppers, we will definitely have more money to be able to afford 20 million a season if it’s uncapped.

by Flowing Willow on Nov 5, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if i were peppers i would want to stay

this team is only going to get better, and with the way he has played this season it looks as if this system is perfect for him.

by carolinabrave89 on Nov 5, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's actually a 20% increase for Peppers.

That would mean a base salary of $20 million. However, given that he’s likely to make the Pro Bowl once again, his $1.5 million incentive would be carried over again as a likely-to-be-earned bonus, bringing his cap figure (or whatever it would be) to $21.5 mil.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pockets

i’m not sure how deep big Cat’s pockets are but I did a hypothetical break down of stadium revenue:

$135 avg seat price (took all the ticket master price points and averaged them)
$20 average for concessions (pulled that number out of the air just seemed like it may be a good average)

$155 × 70,000 seats(74,000~ seats at BoA but i doubt they are filled every game) = $10.85 million a game or $86.8 million over a season w/out home play off. Assuming that every team (Oakland Jacksonville) has similar numbers then around $2.5 billion of the leagues 7 billion comes from games alone meaning there is more money in profit sharing then in stadium sells. My numbers my just be plain wrong, but they demonstrate the money making capacity of the stadium alone.

As far as Peppers goes, and I may be mistaken, I thought he would be due like $20 million or something like that.

by bleed_in_blue on Nov 4, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The seats may not be filled.

But the tickets are aloways sold.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ive seen before

that in an uncapped season, the panthers would have the 12th highest amount of money to spend. we are on solid ground. ive also seen before that we are very high up the list of most profitable sports organizations in the world.

by carolinabrave89 on Nov 5, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

12th-valued does NOT mean 12th-most money to spend.

Much of a team’s value is tied up in things like branding, merchandise sales, and stadium lease. None of that would be liquid capital the team could use in buying free agents.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 5, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A little insight on #2:

In the most recently completed Forbes review (completed 9-2), the Panthers were evaluated as the #12th-highest valued team in the NFL at $1.05 billion. In spite of the economic downturn, the team’s value continues to hold (1% growth over the last year.) Since the ‘03 Super Bowl, operating income has also held pretty steady, averaging a little over $18 million with five of the six years falling between $17 million and $24 million. In short, this has been a profitable franchise despite spending very close to the cap (total costs rising from $94 milllion to $135 million over those six years.) As such, it wouldn’t be all that crazy to see them spend a good bit on personnel if Richardson believed those acquisitions were going to put this team back into the Conference Championship or Super Bowl level.

Remember when the Panthers had a good offensive line? Yeah, me too.
--Darin Gantt

by MichaelProcton on Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent.

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

by Tater596 on Nov 4, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like this

Going to bookmark this for sure.

by SmithnCompany on Nov 4, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh you beat me by like a day

i shoulda read what you said procton

by carolinabrave89 on Nov 5, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

James...

Are you sure about the two Franchise tags? I thought I heard somewhere that each team has three. Can anyone get confirmation?

by Scrantsj on Nov 4, 2009 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The USA Today article cited only references each team having 2 franchise tags. But, that article is a year old. If someone has a source indicating it’s now three I’ll be happy to edit the article.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Nov 4, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I found something...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true

FTA: “there are three main trigger points that will go off in 2010 if there isn’t a new CBA in place, and they may offset the fear of life with no salary cap. They are: 1) free agency will require six years of service (instead of four years in 2010 and five years in 2011); 2) teams will have three tags to use to restrict free agents instead of one tag, as they do now; and 3) teams that go deep in the playoffs could have some spending restrictions.”

Pat Kirwan is usually pretty reliable.

by Scrantsj on Nov 4, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs