Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe Bryant

Should The NFL Abolish The Player Draft?

Should The NFL Abolish The Player Draft?  

122 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

There is talk the NBA should abolish the Player Draft. https://twitter.com/kevinarnovitz/status/1140998606108758016

 

Quote

The NBA has been trying to figure out why its players aren’t happier. One possible factor as we head into the draft: Incoming NBA players aren’t afforded the most basic amenity of professional and personal happiness: a say in where you work and live:

 

ESPN is running an article saying Zion Williamson should be allowed to choose where he plays. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/NBADraftplayerspotlight26972005/let-zion-williamson-choose-where-wants-play-next

What would you think if the NFL abolished the Draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this would destroy any chance of a competitive balance in sports. The NBA is already somewhat of a joke in regards to this, but letting the rookies go wherever would be even worse. NFL would be equally as ruined

 

Pay me millions of dollars to work 5-6 months out of the year in a location of not my choosing and I would do it with a huge smile on my face.

 

Wish I could blame this on my own millenial generation, but this group is Gen Z

Edited by Johnny B. Goode
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would probably the straw that breaks the camel’s back and keep me from ever watching the NFL again.

A couple of thoughts:

I’m no Browns fan by any stretch, but it has been great fun watching that team rise from the 1-win-in-two-seasons ashes and now two years later are a legit playoff contender.  That wouldn’t have happened without the draft.

I am a die hard Packers fan.  In what other sport would a city like GB have a franchise as successful as GB.  Would a good to great player coming out of college actually choose to move to Green Bay?  The franchise is such a great story in all of its historical glory as well as that it is the only publicly owned franchise in any of the major sports.  Would Green Bay survive without the draft?

The NFL seems to be a league trying to kill itself through the death of one thousand cuts in recent years.  This move would be the edge of the guillotine for it, IMO.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The draft is a critical part of building an NFL team and I would hate to see it go away.  The NFL doesn't want to follow the NBA in terms of free agency because these "super teams" are very lame (I get it's much easier to build a super team in the NBA than it would be in the NFL due to roster sizes).  Building a quality NFL team should be difficult.  Building a quality NBA team means sucking for a while, then manipulating their cap to get as many max contracts as they can.  The NBA is lame.

Also, this  quote is completely off the mark.  Zion CAN live anywhere he wants if he want's to work at Walmart, or as a salesman, or as a software developer or any other profession.  But if he want's to play in the NBA he has to play where his is drafted.

3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Quote from Article:

The NBA has been trying to figure out why its players aren’t happier. One possible factor as we head into the draft: Incoming NBA players aren’t afforded the most basic amenity of professional and personal happiness: a say in where you work and live:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bronco Billy said:

 

I’m no Browns fan by any stretch, but it has been great fun watching that team rise from the 1-win-in-two-seasons ashes and now two years later are a legit playoff contender.  That wouldn’t have happened without the draft.

I am a die hard Packers fan.  In what other sport would a city like GB have a franchise as successful as GB.  Would a good to great player coming out of college actually choose to move to Green Bay?  The franchise is such a great story in all of its historical glory as well as that it is the only publicly owned franchise in any of the major sports.  Would Green Bay survive without the draft?

I'm willing to bet Mayfield and Chubb dont pick Cleveland of they had a choice last spring. I am not a Cleveland fan (or dislike them) but it is fun to watch and teams have their shot at success. 

Same with GB... small city franchises have no shot. Everyone will want the big markets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Johnny B. Goode said:

I'm willing to bet Mayfield and Chubb dont pick Cleveland of they had a choice last spring. I am not a Cleveland fan (or dislike them) but it is fun to watch and teams have their shot at success. 

Same with GB... small city franchises have no shot. Everyone will want the big markets. 

Big markets in warmer climates with exceptions for major media markets like NY and Chicago.  A

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a labor standpoint, it would be much more fair to the players to choose where they want to play.

As a practical matter, however, there would be no more NFL in pretty short order if you did abolish the draft. So what good is having the freedom to choose if there's no place to exercise it?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

There is talk the NBA should abolish the Player Draft. https://twitter.com/kevinarnovitz/status/1140998606108758016

 

 

ESPN is running an article saying Zion Williamson should be allowed to choose where he plays. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/NBADraftplayerspotlight26972005/let-zion-williamson-choose-where-wants-play-next

What would you think if the NFL abolished the Draft?

Really have a hard time with this, considering the career most of the NBA players would have without basketball.  There is a good chance the whole league combined would not make out of basketball what Lebron makes in one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one truly gets the freedom to simply walk into the job they most covet -- they have to be selected by the company that is hiring first. At that point, sure, you can always say yes or no, but why should people who get paid millions to just play a sport be afforded this kind of luxury?

It would certainly destroy parity in the league, and likely destroy fan interest as well.

Part of playing professional sports is acting like a professional. Whining about having to play in a city or a team that isn't your personal preferred first choice is pretty much the opposite of professional.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would turn into a 6 or 8 team league. No owner would want to start a team in a small market or non-weather friendly market as there is no reason to compete. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a huge follower of the NBA anymore, but aren't NBA contracts for rookies 2 years with team options in years 3 and 4? It's not like those guys are forced to play for the same team for their entire career. How many teams has Lebron played for now?

Maybe their players would be happier if they didn't have to play 82 regular season games a year? They'd probably be healthier at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One aspect of the draft is entertainment. I'm sure it's a yuge part of the NFL's popularity as a year long pass time.

Edited by cloppbeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're pro-rating some kind of salary cap system for your "draft picks" based on how that team finished the prior season it could be interesting.  Worst team in the league is awarded $X amount whereas the team who wins the Super Bowl is awarded significantly less buying power. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny B. Goode said:

IMO this would destroy any chance of a competitive balance in sports. The NBA is already somewhat of a joke in regards to this, but letting the rookies go wherever would be even worse. NFL would be equally as ruined

 

Pay me millions of dollars to work 5-6 months out of the year in a location of not my choosing and I would do it with a huge smile on my face.

 

Wish I could blame this on my own millenial generation, but this group is Gen Z

What competitive balance? The Cleveland Browns haven't won a championship in over 50 years. 

If we cared about competitive balance, we would do what European leagues do, which is relegate teams which suck to crappier leagues, and let better teams play at the top level. It is extremely bizarre that the one place the U.S. embraces socialism is in professional sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CalBear said:

What competitive balance? The Cleveland Browns haven't won a championship in over 50 years. 

If we cared about competitive balance, we would do what European leagues do, which is relegate teams which suck to crappier leagues, and let better teams play at the top level. It is extremely bizarre that the one place the U.S. embraces socialism is in professional sports.

It’s only socialist if you view teams as independently competitive businesses trying to outdo each other and drive the competition out of business.  But, while teams compete on the field and in team building, there is a level of mutual interest not found in other lines of business.

Alternatively, one could view the NFL as being in a competitive market vs. othe sports leagues, which is more reasonable overall.

I’m afraid that if the draft went away, the league would have to switch to a single-payer model like the AAFL used, where players all work for the league and can be assigned to teams.  (Possibly via some sort of allocation of funds to the teams to spend as they see fit, as was mentioned above.)

I don’t see any league getting to the point that every player can just sign with whomever they want.  That would be death for half the country’s sports markets, due to geography, population density, weather etc.

The relegatinn idea is a good one, and would leave a market space for those markets...but do we want an NFL where the top tier talent plays innthe south and on the coasts and teams in the heartland are all in the minor league?  (We kind of have that in the ncaa game, so maybe it would work once a generation grows up with the Packers, Steelers and Broncos being 2nd-tier teams instead of historically great and storied franchises.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CalBear said:

What competitive balance? The Cleveland Browns haven't won a championship in over 50 years. 

If we cared about competitive balance, we would do what European leagues do, which is relegate teams which suck to crappier leagues, and let better teams play at the top level. It is extremely bizarre that the one place the U.S. embraces socialism is in professional sports.

Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure the NFL has more competitive balance than the Premier League.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "job" is working for the NFL tho...The league is run jointly by the owners of the franchises, so you being a 49'er or a dolphin is essentially the difference in working at this branch or another branch for the same bank...

For this reason, i do not like the argument that people should get to essentially pick where they want to play initially

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pwingles said:

The "job" is working for the NFL tho...The league is run jointly by the owners of the franchises, so you being a 49'er or a dolphin is essentially the difference in working at this branch or another branch for the same bank...

For this reason, i do not like the argument that people should get to essentially pick where they want to play initially

Each franchise has its own budget and its own payroll and makes its own hiring decisions. That's like saying that if you want to work for McDonald's, you apply to work for the corporation and they decide whether to put you in LA or Cleveland; that's now how franchises work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arodin said:

It’s only socialist if you view teams as independently competitive businesses trying to outdo each other and drive the competition out of business.  But, while teams compete on the field and in team building, there is a level of mutual interest not found in other lines of business.

Alternatively, one could view the NFL as being in a competitive market vs. othe sports leagues, which is more reasonable overall.

I’m afraid that if the draft went away, the league would have to switch to a single-payer model like the AAFL used, where players all work for the league and can be assigned to teams.  (Possibly via some sort of allocation of funds to the teams to spend as they see fit, as was mentioned above.)

I don’t see any league getting to the point that every player can just sign with whomever they want.  That would be death for half the country’s sports markets, due to geography, population density, weather etc.

The relegatinn idea is a good one, and would leave a market space for those markets...but do we want an NFL where the top tier talent plays innthe south and on the coasts and teams in the heartland are all in the minor league?  (We kind of have that in the ncaa game, so maybe it would work once a generation grows up with the Packers, Steelers and Broncos being 2nd-tier teams instead of historically great and storied franchises.)

Well, to be fair, it's not really socialist, it's a corporate oligarchy. And certainly, distributing as much money as possible to corporations and executives while protecting them from their own poor decisions is pretty American these days.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Each franchise has its own budget and its own payroll and makes its own hiring decisions. That's like saying that if you want to work for McDonald's, you apply to work for the corporation and they decide whether to put you in LA or Cleveland; that's now how franchises work.

and you dont think they can do that?

Sure you can decline, but it would be like declining after signing a non compete.

 

Each business has their own pay structure usually going off of local and federasl labor laws, but they can still decide what you are worth above the minimum threshold. Hows what i said different?

Edited by Pwingles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CalBear said:

Each franchise has its own budget and its own payroll and makes its own hiring decisions. That's like saying that if you want to work for McDonald's, you apply to work for the corporation and they decide whether to put you in LA or Cleveland; that's now how franchises work.

 

And if I were going to get hundred of thousands to millions of dollars to work at McDonalds, then if I want that compensation then I go where they place me.  If I really hate the location, well - no one is forcing me to work for McDonalds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pwingles said:

and you dont think they can do that?

Sure you can decline, but it would be like declining after signing a non compete.

 

Each business has their own pay structure usually going off of local and federasl labor laws, but they can still decide what you are worth above the minimum threshold. Hows what i said different?

No, McDonalds cannot assign you to Cleveland. The franchise owners make independent decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

And if I were going to get hundred of thousands to millions of dollars to work at McDonalds, then if I want that compensation then I go where they place me.  If I really hate the location, well - no one is forcing me to work for McDonalds.  

The argument that "well they get a lot of money compared to me, therefore they should be happy" is completely vacuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CalBear said:

No, McDonalds cannot assign you to Cleveland. The franchise owners make independent decisions.

Not sure why they couldnt, but for the sake of argument, lets acknowledge that we understand these two businesses are not the same other than that they are businesses.

Also, the way the word "franchise" is used is backwards with regard to the NFL and the owners compared to McDonalds corporate, and your local mcdonalds.

This is more like a tv station. Entertainment, etc. If your headquarters is in NY, but you have 32 other offices, and they want you to be at a specific one, you either go, or you do not. Right?

Edited by Pwingles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The argument that "well they get a lot of money compared to me, therefore they should be happy" is completely vacuous.

 

Says you.  Not one of these draftees is forced to play in the NFL.  They can always choose employment elsewhere.  But if they want to be compensated at those greatly inflated rates, then they have to play by the company rules.  That is hardly vacuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap already does a lot for competitive balance. We see FAs signing all over, primarily based on who will pay them (and a little bit based on other considerations like which team is better). QBs sign with the teams that will give them a shot at starting (partly because teams aren't willing to pay much for a backup QB). Players might avoid the worst-run franchises (none of the good QBs will want to sign up to play for Jeff Fisher), but it doesn't take long for those teams to shake things up and bring in a McVay. And as Grahamburn pointed out, it's possible to do other things to further increase competitive balance, like giving a larger salary cap to teams after a bad season.

A big change to competitive balance from getting rid of the draft is that it would be much easier for dynasties to continue. When Brady leaves, then New England becomes the prime spot where almost every QB wants to go to win a bunch of Super Bowls with Belichick and create a legacy. So the Patriots could transition seamlessly from Brady to Trevor Lawrence. So the new format would increase the value of good coaches and well-run franchises. It would also probably make it more common for teams to move on from a pretty good quarterback, e.g. maybe in that world the Rams let Goff walk and sign Tua Tagovailoa. So it would increase the trend for the best offensive coaches & the best-run franchises end up with the most talented QBs.

Edited by ZWK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pwingles said:

Not sure why they couldnt, but for the sake of argument, lets acknowledge that we understand these two businesses are not the same other than that they are businesses.

Also, the way the word "franchise" is used is backwards with regard to the NFL and the owners compared to McDonalds corporate, and your local mcdonalds.

This is more like a tv station. Entertainment, etc. If your headquarters is in NY, but you have 32 other offices, and they want you to be at a specific one, you either go, or you do not. Right?

A single corporate entity is not the same thing as a franchise. The NFL has franchises. The teams do not report to the NFL league office (it's the other way around) and the league office does not make personnel decisions for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Says you.  Not one of these draftees is forced to play in the NFL.  They can always choose employment elsewhere.  But if they want to be compensated at those greatly inflated rates, then they have to play by the company rules.  That is hardly vacuous.

How are the rates inflated? What rate should they be compensated at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CalBear said:

A single corporate entity is not the same thing as a franchise. The NFL has franchises. The teams do not report to the NFL league office (it's the other way around) and the league office does not make personnel decisions for them.

so when i said "Also, the way the word "franchise" is used is backwards with regard to the NFL and the owners compared to McDonalds corporate, and your local mcdonalds" and "lets acknowledge that we understand these two businesses are not the same other than that they are businesses."

you just ignored that so you could reply to me and say nothing? i dont get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CalBear said:

How are the rates inflated? What rate should they be compensated at?

 

I know you hate the current system of government and economy, but I sure wish you wouldn’t pretend that you can’t comprehend basic facts in some kind of attempt to bolster your position.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

I know you hate the current system of government and economy, but I sure wish you wouldn’t pretend that you can’t comprehend basic facts in some kind of attempt to bolster your position.

You made the assertion that their pay rates are inflated. What "basic facts" are you basing that assertion on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pwingles said:

so when i said "Also, the way the word "franchise" is used is backwards with regard to the NFL and the owners compared to McDonalds corporate, and your local mcdonalds" and "lets acknowledge that we understand these two businesses are not the same other than that they are businesses."

you just ignored that so you could reply to me and say nothing? i dont get it

NFL franchise owners, like McDonald's franchise owners, make their own payroll decisions. McDonald's corporate doesn't hire and fire cooks, and the NFL league office can't hire and fire players or other personnel. The teams are independent entities, financially, in the same way as other franchises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of jobs where people don't get to choose where they live, especially when there is scarcity. 

If you'd like to be an avacado farmer you had better like warm weather. Want to be a lobsterman? Hope you don't mind living on the coast near rocky beaches. If you're an IT specialist who only works on certain software packages then you might find yourself in the cornhusker inn in Lincoln Nebraska for a few days. 

The idea that a sports league is being unfair in offering employment without a choice of location would be valid if there wasn't a real business reason for it. 

The business reason in this case is clear - parity. The league has the right to choose their rules and hire people who are willing to abide by those rules.

That doesn't mean that the league has the right to impose unfair rules or that the players have no remedy. 

This is a labor issue.  It should go through the labor agreement. A player who isn't yet part of the league is welcome to choose whether to apply for a job in the league.  Once in the league, players have the right to bargain - collectively or individually - for a change in the rules, and CBAs typically have an opportunity to mediate complaints which are not explicitly covered.

I wouldn't be shocked to see the players fight for this in the future but it would be ill advised and it's not a huge priority for the existing players so i doubt they change anything.  

This is mostly just ESPN drumming up controversy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would replace the draft? If it's just that players sign with whichever team they want to, the NFL would be more like the current iteration of the NCAA. New England (Bama) would sign the best rookies and keep dominating, some other teams in prime locations (Rams/LA, NYG/NY) would also have a great shot at signing the best young talent because that's where all the 21-22 year olds want to play. If they got rid of the draft, there would still have to be some mechanism in place to make things fair across the league, and that would inevitably lead to forcing some players to play somewhere they don't want to play.

You COULD shorten rookie contracts and offer more player protections so they can sign where they want earlier in their career, maybe 4 year contracts with no 5-year clause and no franchise tag. But there will be drawbacks to everything. 

My guess is that the main consequence of no draft would be that the top 32 players would receive HUGE contracts, and the rest of the rookies would get much lower wages, a much steeper curve than currently exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think this idea is terrible, got me thinking how you could abolish the draft but still give the bad teams a leg up to get better. So in this new system, each team gets 7 contracts they can sign players to. Each contract has a set salary based on previous season's record. So some made up numbers with this years draft. Arizona has a $10mil contract, SF a $9.75mil contract, NYJ $9.5mil, etc.

So say you're a generational QB, but you have no desire to play in Arizona. Fine, you can pick another team that wants you, if you're willing to accept less money. Or maybe that same QB wants Arizona, but Arizona wants that dominating DE more. QB can still go to Arizona, but take the "2nd round" contract money.

Instead of a draft you'd have an insane negotiating period for all 32 teams trying to woo 254+ players. Teams can trade contracts like they do picks, throw in comp contracts for free agency losses. I'm guessing you'd still see players chase the money and higher pick status, but the players would have a choice at the end of the day.

Of course the big loophole would be the player not signing with anyone and being an undrafted rookie free agent, but there would have to be dollar limits on that, which I think already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

You made the assertion that their pay rates are inflated. What "basic facts" are you basing that assertion on?

 

I have no intention of trying to have a discussion with a guy who refuses to acknowledge that professional football players, on the whole, make a hell of a lot more money than what their likely alternative vocation would be if they didn’t play football.

Have a great day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

NFL franchise owners, like McDonald's franchise owners, make their own payroll decisions. McDonald's corporate doesn't hire and fire cooks, and the NFL league office can't hire and fire players or other personnel. The teams are independent entities, financially, in the same way as other franchises.

All the little McDs do not own the corporation....

These are not the same thing. You're trying to make apple juice out of oranges. They are not analogous, in any way, except for that they are "businesses". 

The word franchise cannot be used to effectively make your point in this scenario, as they do not at all mean the same thing in each scenario.

In the case of the NFL, the "franchises" own the brand. This is not how mcdonalds works.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A move like that would make Mark Cuban a prophet.

Edited by Heatman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

There is talk the NBA should abolish the Player Draft. https://twitter.com/kevinarnovitz/status/1140998606108758016

 

 

ESPN is running an article saying Zion Williamson should be allowed to choose where he plays. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/NBADraftplayerspotlight26972005/let-zion-williamson-choose-where-wants-play-next

 

I bet the bottom 3 players on every NBA roster are happier than hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

I have no intention of trying to have a discussion with a guy who refuses to acknowledge that professional football players, on the whole, make a hell of a lot more money than what their likely alternative vocation would be if they didn’t play football.

Have a great day.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it's 100% irrelevant. I'm sure the owners would make a hell of a lot less money if they had a real job, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

There are a lot of jobs where people don't get to choose where they live, especially when there is scarcity. 

If you'd like to be an avacado farmer you had better like warm weather. Want to be a lobsterman? Hope you don't mind living on the coast near rocky beaches. If you're an IT specialist who only works on certain software packages then you might find yourself in the cornhusker inn in Lincoln Nebraska for a few days. 

The idea that a sports league is being unfair in offering employment without a choice of location would be valid if there wasn't a real business reason for it. 

The business reason in this case is clear - parity. The league has the right to choose their rules and hire people who are willing to abide by those rules.

That doesn't mean that the league has the right to impose unfair rules or that the players have no remedy. 

This is a labor issue.  It should go through the labor agreement. A player who isn't yet part of the league is welcome to choose whether to apply for a job in the league.  Once in the league, players have the right to bargain - collectively or individually - for a change in the rules, and CBAs typically have an opportunity to mediate complaints which are not explicitly covered.

I wouldn't be shocked to see the players fight for this in the future but it would be ill advised and it's not a huge priority for the existing players so i doubt they change anything.  

This is mostly just ESPN drumming up controversy.

This isn't a question of "choosing where they live." It's a question of choosing which company they want to work for, which is an entirely different thing. The ownership and management of NFL franchises are completely separate, and it's entirely reasonable for a human being to want to choose who they work for.

Google can tell you that if you want to work for Google, the job is in Sunnyvale (or NYC). But they can't tell you that you can't work for Apple.

Getting rid of the draft would increase the negotiating power of players, and there's really no downside to that. Parity is a myth. Four teams have never been to a Super Bowl in 50 years. Nine teams have never won one. ~70% of playoff teams had winning records the previous season. In the past 20 years (in fact, in the past 24), only 7 teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl; only 12 in the NFC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

There is talk the NBA should abolish the Player Draft. https://twitter.com/kevinarnovitz/status/1140998606108758016

 

 

ESPN is running an article saying Zion Williamson should be allowed to choose where he plays. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/NBADraftplayerspotlight26972005/let-zion-williamson-choose-where-wants-play-next

What would you think if the NFL abolished the Draft?

If getting paid millions of dollars to play a game doesn't make them happy, nothing will.

As a millennial, I understand the mindset. They're entitled. It's a generational thing.

 

Abolish the draft and cut all rookie contracts in half. See how quickly their priorities will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raptors409 said:

If getting paid millions of dollars to play a game doesn't make them happy, nothing will.

As a millennial, I understand the mindset. They're entitled. It's a generational thing.

 

Abolish the draft and cut all rookie contracts in half. See how quickly their priorities will change.

"If getting paid billions of dollars to play real-life fantasy football doesn't make owners happy, nothing will."

So let's turn the franchises into worker-owned cooperatives. Because the owners are just being entitled and selfish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

There is talk the NBA should abolish the Player Draft. https://twitter.com/kevinarnovitz/status/1140998606108758016

 

 

ESPN is running an article saying Zion Williamson should be allowed to choose where he plays. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/NBADraftplayerspotlight26972005/let-zion-williamson-choose-where-wants-play-next

What would you think if the NFL abolished the Draft?

you lost all credibility with the post when you quoted ESPN. they're absolutely horrible.

trying to uderstand the premise - Am I supposed to feel sad for a guy making MILLIONS as a 21 yr old , who has to go to GB and live in the cold but gets paid like $600k/wk? I mean, what planet are we living on here? If I got offered that money to go play backgammon ( I'm good at it lol) in ,say, Iowa, for $7.5m per year, I'm pretty sure my hand wouldn't be able to sign the contract fast enough.

this is the 'everyone gets a trophy' generation, the selfie generation, the 32 yr old still lives at home with mom. 

I can't even understand the Manning duff of SD, or the Elway duff before landing in Denver. just sign.get paid. get on with it.

the ONLY reason I could understand it is that taxes in some states are way high.nj/cal/mich/ill for instance. 

no one forced S. Barkley to play in the NFL.he could work at a lawyers office in happy valley, but instead he 'chose' to go pro. 

its just  another case of rampant liberal ideaology gone too far. 

my parents moved from nj to cali to wisconsin, back to nj in the 70s/80s, all because my dad kept getting promotions and tranfers and big bucks to move.so we did.like millions of other familes do every year.

kids these days are spoiled rotten from home life, through schooling, and onward. they expect to be given everything, on their terms.

the idea is simple: there's a rich guy owns a franchise wants to pay you BIG bucks to do your thing in X city in X state.

so you go. play 12 yrs.get a pension.blow out a knee or two. go to the HOf. make about 75-90 mil in your brief 12 yr career and retire at 32.

THEN you move to Naples FL and live the high life.

it's how it has been done for centuries.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.