A hunch on Favre

ORLANDO -- There was some confusion, obviously, about my cryptic Brett Favre comment in Monday Morning Quarterback. All I meant to say, quite literally, is that I believe Favre will play football again, and I believe he'll play for the Green Bay Packers. This is decidedly not set in stone. I've had a couple of conversations recently with Favre's agent and close friend, Bus Cook, and Cook and Favre's friends are letting him take his sweet time with this decision.

Here at the NFL owners' meetings, the Packers' people I've talked to believe the same thing I do: that the longer Favre goes without announcing what he's going to do, the better chance there is that he plays. And judging from my last lengthy conversation with him on this subject, late last season, I simply don't believe that he'd play for anybody else.

Now, Favre is famous for changing his mind. So I could be totally full of hot air. But I just think this guy doesn't have anything in his life right now that could fill the void that would be left if he retired.

On to your e-mail.

IS TURNABOUT FAIR PLAY? From Jon of St. Paul: "Do you think Seattle's guarantee clause to wideout Nate Burleson if he plays five games in Minnesota sets a bad precedent? It basically says no team in Minnesota would sign him. If there's a clause that triggers a guarantee because of the compensation a team makes to its other players (such as making a player the highest-paid lineman, or skill player), that's one thing, but to specify a team or state like that, saying they have to guarantee the deal and we don't, seems like a gross misuse of the rules. The system should reward a team in a good cap situation and allow them to acquire good players. It shouldn't allow teams to just say, 'We can sign this deal and you can't because we don't want you to, or because we're steamed you signed one of our players.'"

I do think it sets a bad precedent, Jon. But if there's one thing you can be sure about in NFL front offices, it is that when a loophole is found, it will be used by teams until the NFL closes it. And all Seattle is doing right now is playing the same game it believes the Vikings played to take Steve Hutchinson away. There's no question in my mind that the NFL will try to work with the players' association early in the offseason to get this kind of silly but viable loophole closed.

WHY'D THE NETWORKS STIFF SEATTLE? From Mike of Providence: "How is it that Seattle got jilted out of playing in any of the four prime-time games on the opening weekend in 2006? Beginning in 2004, the Super Bowl winner has played on Thursday and the loser on Monday night. What happened this year?"

Excellent question. And if I were Seattle, I wouldn't be very pleased about it. But there were two factors at play here. One is that Seattle was not scheduled to play at Pittsburgh this year, which eliminated the opportunity for the NFL to stage a Super Bowl rematch. Second, there is no question that the single most attractive regular-season game at this point is Manning vs. Manning. So you knew that NBC, returning to televised football after a long hiatus, was going to press hard to get a game of that magnitude for its opener on Sunday night. Seattle just doesn't have a game as compelling as that one on its schedule.

Now, as for the Monday-night doubleheader, that's where I figured Seattle would land. But keep one thing in mind: Each team is allowed one Monday-night appearance this year, so if ESPN wanted to use Seattle's appearance on its first Monday night, when the promotion throughout the offseason was already going to be heavy, the network would have blown its chance to use the Seahawks later in the season. That's what I think happened.

GIVE ME THE T.O. BOWL. From Dan of Richmond: "Why didn't the NFL listen to its supporters and give us the game the country wants in the first week of the season: Dallas at Philadelphia?"