What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

CBA Question (1 Viewer)

jeter23

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueOnion

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
 

B-Deep

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
What I had heard on ESPN was there would be no draft, all players entering the league would be free agents.
 

jeter23

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
What I had heard on ESPN was there would be no draft, all players entering the league would be free agents.
:eek: I don't think it will get to that point, but that would be huge.

 

B-Deep

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
What I had heard on ESPN was there would be no draft, all players entering the league would be free agents.
:eek: I don't think it will get to that point, but that would be huge.
Yeah, combine that with no salary cap and you have chaos
 

derek19

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
What I had heard on ESPN was there would be no draft, all players entering the league would be free agents.
This would kill the niners. Cheap owner + no cap + no draft = :bag:
 

GroveDiesel

Footballguy
I believe I heard the same thing on a local sports talk radio station. The expiring CBA actually says that in the absence of a CBA there will be no draft. At least that's what I remember being said. I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember hearing that.

 

JaxBill

Footballguy
Yes, as I mentioned in the other thread that was hijacked by the incessant PFT bashing, there would be no draft in '08.

Why?

Because there would be no CBA. The current CBA (which includes the draft) expires after the '07 season. The uncapped year in '07 is actually mandated in the CBA. Chances are that there would be either a strike or a lockout in '08 with no CBA (working agrteement).

Both (or all three if you divide up the owners) sides have a lot to lose if nobody blinks:

Players

- terrible free agent period

- 30% rule for contracts goes into effect

- playing requirement extended for free agency from 4 to 6 years ('07)

- loss of league matching funds in player 401K and other benefits ('07)

Owners

- uncapped year ('07)

- loss of draft ('08)

- difficulties signing top picks because of 30% rule and amortization limits ('06)

 

JaxBill

Footballguy
Why are they bother having this emergency meeting in NY if they're not going to discuss revenue-sharing? Is this a rally-the-troops against Gene Upshaw meting?

 

CommuterMan

Footballguy
Because there would be no CBA. The current CBA (which includes the draft) expires after the '07 season. The uncapped year in '07 is actually mandated in the CBA. Chances are that there would be either a strike or a lockout in '08 with no CBA (working agrteement).
This is a part of the reason. The bigger issue is that Upshaw has said that without a CBA in place, the union would disband and the players would file suit an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL.This would do two things - college players coming into the NFL would become free agents and secondly it would prevent the NFL owners from locking out the players in 2008.All sides have much to lose in this stairing contest, but no matter how this issue is settled each side will attempt to use whatever leverage it has to bear on the other side.
 

derek19

Footballguy
Why are they bother having this emergency meeting in NY if they're not going to discuss revenue-sharing? Is this a rally-the-troops against Gene Upshaw meting?
What i don't get is, why isnt there any meeting today? Why wait until tomorrow??? :confused:
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
I would enjoy seeing a year without a draft to see if my theories are correct. I fully recognize that my views represent about .0001% of the readers on this bored.

 

doughboydeluxe

Footballguy
In a few reports I've seen from John Clayton about the CBA negotiations, he has mentioned that if there is no agreement that 2007 will be an uncapped year. We have all heard this already. Then, he also mentions, as if it's not that big of a deal, that there would be NO NFL draft in 2008. Is this correct? Why would there be no draft? Would the incoming players be free agents?
First I have heard of this. Some additional thoughts; if the CBA is not extended then there would probably be no 'slotting' for NFL draft picks. Probably a legit issue but probably more 'sensationalism' on the part of John Clayton just to get more viewers tuned into his every word.
What I had heard on ESPN was there would be no draft, all players entering the league would be free agents.
:eek: I don't think it will get to that point, but that would be huge.
Yeah, combine that with no salary cap and you have chaos
Can you imagine being management of an NFL team and trying to deal with not having a draft? It would be like college recruiting with salary negotiations thrown in. In other words... the Southeastern Conference...Seriously, NFL teams would have to approach things so differently than they do now with the draft. They would still have to identify their needs, then identify a pool of players who might help fill those needs, then determine how much money they have to spend, but then they would have to negotiate with the pool of players instead of 5-10 draft picks. Not to mention the regular free agents in addition to those coming out of college. It would be a nightmare.

 

Sinrman

Footballguy
I also heard Upshaw say that if a deal isn't worked out, and the current deal follows through, then there would be no cap.......EVER. They would never agree to the cap again.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT a good thing. No cap would kill small market teams. Plain and simple. It would be baseball all over again. And we all know there'd be a George Steinbrenner or two in the NFL (Snyder? Jones?) that would spend, spend, spend, to get the top players.

How can either side see this as being beneficial for the NFL and it's fans? This is headed down the path of a lockout. Did we not learn from the past? From past sports? :thumbdown:

 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
Can you imagine being management of an NFL team and trying to deal with not having a draft? It would be like college recruiting with salary negotiations thrown in. In other words... the Southeastern Conference...

Seriously, NFL teams would have to approach things so differently than they do now with the draft. They would still have to identify their needs, then identify a pool of players who might help fill those needs, then determine how much money they have to spend, but then they would have to negotiate with the pool of players instead of 5-10 draft picks. Not to mention the regular free agents in addition to those coming out of college. It would be a nightmare.
I would enjoy seeing a year without a draft to see if my theories are correct. I fully recognize that my views represent about .0001% of the readers on this bored.
Care to share your theories?
I see it happening pretty much as you describe in your first post that I quoted, except that I don't see that as a bad thing. NFL teams are very accustomed to dealing with free agents; they could handle dealing with a few more every year.Two other points: (1) I don't like the restrictiveness of the draft. I think it's unfair to the incoming rookie. (2) I think the salary cap is plenty good enough for leveling the field of play; there's something wrong with rewarding teams that perform poorly. You know, sort of like a worst-to-first fantasy free agent system, the worst system of all.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I also heard Upshaw say that if a deal isn't worked out, and the current deal follows through, then there would be no cap.......EVER. They would never agree to the cap again.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT a good thing. No cap would kill small market teams. Plain and simple. It would be baseball all over again. And we all know there'd be a George Steinbrenner or two in the NFL (Snyder? Jones?) that would spend, spend, spend, to get the top players.

How can either side see this as being beneficial for the NFL and it's fans? This is headed down the path of a lockout. Did we not learn from the past? From past sports? :thumbdown:
I tend to be on your side here, but you have to understand it is the small market owners holding this thing up.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Can you imagine being management of an NFL team and trying to deal with not having a draft?  It would be like college recruiting with salary negotiations thrown in.  In other words... the Southeastern Conference...

Seriously, NFL teams would have to approach things so differently than they do now with the draft.  They would still have to identify their needs, then identify a pool of players who might help fill those needs, then determine how much money they have to spend, but then they would have to negotiate with the pool of players instead of 5-10 draft picks.  Not to mention the regular free agents in addition to those coming out of college.  It would be a nightmare.
I would enjoy seeing a year without a draft to see if my theories are correct. I fully recognize that my views represent about .0001% of the readers on this bored.
Care to share your theories?
I see it happening pretty much as you describe in your first post that I quoted, except that I don't see that as a bad thing. NFL teams are very accustomed to dealing with free agents; they could handle dealing with a few more every year.
Interesting. So you think doing away with the NFL draft could be a good thing for all teams?
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
Can you imagine being management of an NFL team and trying to deal with not having a draft?  It would be like college recruiting with salary negotiations thrown in.  In other words... the Southeastern Conference...

Seriously, NFL teams would have to approach things so differently than they do now with the draft.  They would still have to identify their needs, then identify a pool of players who might help fill those needs, then determine how much money they have to spend, but then they would have to negotiate with the pool of players instead of 5-10 draft picks.  Not to mention the regular free agents in addition to those coming out of college.  It would be a nightmare.
I would enjoy seeing a year without a draft to see if my theories are correct. I fully recognize that my views represent about .0001% of the readers on this bored.
Care to share your theories?
I see it happening pretty much as you describe in your first post that I quoted, except that I don't see that as a bad thing. NFL teams are very accustomed to dealing with free agents; they could handle dealing with a few more every year.
Interesting. So you think doing away with the NFL draft could be a good thing for all teams?
Yeah, Blue, I honestly do think that it would be an interesting experiment. Would it be a good thing for all teams? I don't know. The teams that do the worst job identifying and signing free agents (at the right price) now would be hampered even more by the absence of a draft. But sometimes, having the No. 1 pick isn't always such a good thing; that pick may not be right for your team and he may cost too much because of slotting (think Alex Smith), so a team like the 49ers might actually fare better by entertaining a host of young cheaper free agents to build for the future.You didn't quote my other two points but those are probably the most important ones to me, especially the one about rewarding teams who perform poorly, be it on the field or in the front office.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Yeah, Blue, I honestly do think that it would be an interesting experiment. Would it be a good thing for all teams? I don't know. The teams that do the worst job identifying and signing free agents (at the right price) now would be hampered even more by the absence of a draft. But sometimes, having the No. 1 pick isn't always such a good thing; that pick may not be right for your team and he may cost too much because of slotting (think Alex Smith), so a team like the 49ers might actually fare better by entertaining a host of young cheaper free agents to build for the future.

You didn't quote my other two points but those are probably the most important ones to me, especially the one about rewarding teams who perform poorly, be it on the field or in the front office.
Just not sure. What if the Redskins offered D'Brickashaw Ferguson an 80 million dollar contract to come in, play backup and slowly move into a starting position in 2 or 3 years and his other option is about 40 million to start for a variety of small market teams?
 

Orange Crush

Footballguy
The NFL Draft promotes parity.

Getting rid of it for a complete free market system leads to free market results. There will be winners and losers. Except in the new era of the NFL the losers won't just lose on the playing field, they will lose money. This will lead to a downward spiral as their inability to pay free agents will lead to bad teams which will lead to poor attendance to even less money to pay free agents, etc.

Eventually this will lead to some owners being forced to sell their teams. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. Guys like Bidwell should be forced out of the business. But there will be a lot of pain for fans along the way.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
The NFL Draft promotes parity.

Getting rid of it for a complete free market system leads to free market results. There will be winners and losers. Except in the new era of the NFL the losers won't just lose on the playing field, they will lose money. This will lead to a downward spiral as their inability to pay free agents will lead to bad teams which will lead to poor attendance to even less money to pay free agents, etc.

Eventually this will lead to some owners being forced to sell their teams. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. Guys like Bidwell should be forced out of the business. But there will be a lot of pain for fans along the way.
This is pretty accurate and if we continue the business model then we have to allow business owners (and pro league owners) the opportunity to drive other competitors out of business.
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
Yeah, Blue, I honestly do think that it would be an interesting experiment. Would it be a good thing for all teams? I don't know. The teams that do the worst job identifying and signing free agents (at the right price) now would be hampered even more by the absence of a draft. But sometimes, having the No. 1 pick isn't always such a good thing; that pick may not be right for your team and he may cost too much because of slotting (think Alex Smith), so a team like the 49ers might actually fare better by entertaining a host of young cheaper free agents to build for the future.

You didn't quote my other two points but those are probably the most important ones to me, especially the one about rewarding teams who perform poorly, be it on the field or in the front office.
Just not sure. What if the Redskins offered D'Brickashaw Ferguson an 80 million dollar contract to come in, play backup and slowly move into a starting position in 2 or 3 years and his other option is about 40 million to start for a variety of small market teams?
Keep in mind that I don't advocate abolition of the salary cap, just the draft. I think the salary cap is a perfectly adequate tool for maintaining parity and that a system that rewards the underachievers is unnecessary.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Yeah, Blue, I honestly do think that it would be an interesting experiment. Would it be a good thing for all teams? I don't know. The teams that do the worst job identifying and signing free agents (at the right price) now would be hampered even more by the absence of a draft. But sometimes, having the No. 1 pick isn't always such a good thing; that pick may not be right for your team and he may cost too much because of slotting (think Alex Smith), so a team like the 49ers might actually fare better by entertaining a host of young cheaper free agents to build for the future.

You didn't quote my other two points but those are probably the most important ones to me, especially the one about rewarding teams who perform poorly, be it on the field or in the front office.
Just not sure. What if the Redskins offered D'Brickashaw Ferguson an 80 million dollar contract to come in, play backup and slowly move into a starting position in 2 or 3 years and his other option is about 40 million to start for a variety of small market teams?
Keep in mind that I don't advocate abolition of the salary cap, just the draft. I think the salary cap is a perfectly adequate tool for maintaining parity and that a system that rewards the underachievers is unnecessary.
Interesting. A lot for me to ponder. Of the top of my head, this is the first negative I came up with;If it is simply a 'bidding' war to acquire the best rookie prospect the following year, then this creates insentive for teams to pay the salary cap minimum instead of the salary cap maximum; and the entire CBA (and cap numbers) are predicated on each team spending to the maximum.

 

Orange Crush

Footballguy
Interesting. A lot for me to ponder. Of the top of my head, this is the first negative I came up with;

If it is simply a 'bidding' war to acquire the best rookie prospect the following year, then this creates insentive for teams to pay the salary cap minimum instead of the salary cap maximum; and the entire CBA (and cap numbers) are predicated on each team spending to the maximum.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there would not be a bidding war for veteran talent?
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Interesting.  A lot for me to ponder.  Of the top of my head, this is the first negative I came up with;

If it is simply a 'bidding' war to acquire the best rookie prospect the following year, then this creates insentive for teams to pay the salary cap minimum instead of the salary cap maximum; and the entire CBA (and cap numbers) are predicated on each team spending to the maximum.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there would not be a bidding war for veteran talent?
You made me stop and think for a minute, but to answer your question, no. Currently there are no incentive for a club not to spend money. However, if a team is rebuilding, then there is incentives for teams not to spend money, at best be at the salary cap minimum.
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
Interesting. A lot for me to ponder. Of the top of my head, this is the first negative I came up with;

If it is simply a 'bidding' war to acquire the best rookie prospect the following year, then this creates insentive for teams to pay the salary cap minimum instead of the salary cap maximum; and the entire CBA (and cap numbers) are predicated on each team spending to the maximum.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there would not be a bidding war for veteran talent?
You made me stop and think for a minute, but to answer your question, no. Currently there are no incentive for a club not to spend money. However, if a team is rebuilding, then there is incentives for teams not to spend money, at best be at the salary cap minimum.
You've lost me, bud. The overall goal would still be to field the best team within the bounds of the cap, is it not?All elimination of the draft does is eliminate seven rookies with whom a team has the exclusive negotiating rights. It would place about 250 newly eligible players each year into the free agent pool. Teams could buy as many or as few as they like, depending on their cap and/or competitive situation, just like they do with veteran free agents or undrafted rookies.

Actually, I think it would be wildly interesting to watch 7-10 teams bid for Reggie Bush or Matt Leinart. The soap opera aspect would be juicy fodder for all of us here.

Deja freaking vu. This is starting to sound exactly like our fairtax discussions in a parallel universe. :eek:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueOnion

Footballguy
You've lost me, bud. The overall goal would still be to field the best team within the bounds of the cap, is it not?

All elimination of the draft does is eliminate seven rookies with whom a team has the exclusive negotiating rights. It would place about 250 newly eligible players each year into the free agent pool. Teams could buy as many or as few as they like, depending on their cap and/or competitive situation, just like they do with veteran free agents or undrafted rookies.

Actually, I think it would be wildly interesting to watch 7-10 teams bid for Reggie Bush or Matt Leinart. The soap opera aspect would be juicy fodder for all of us here.

Deja freaking vu. This is starting to sound exactly like our fairtax discussions in a parallel universe. :eek:
I probably did not articulate my thoughts very well, let me try again.There is a lot of value in getting top rookie prospects. However, it is difficult (if not impossible) to ask players to go out and throw a game, in hopes of improving draft position for any rebuilding efforts. I think it would be a lot easier for an owner\GM to simply run a bare-bones operation at the cap minimum in hopes of better positioning a team to get one of the top rookie prospects. It would be like a company laying off employees to improve the company's bottom line; I believe it is called restructuring.

The problem with this from the NFLPA's position is, they will critize teams for doing this, thus taking 24 million potential dollars out of the player's marketfor the current year (the difference between the max and min of the salary cap). And nobody could critize the owner(s) from doing anything unethical.

Just listening to the New York radio stations this past year, fans were calling up left and right that the Jets should 'throw' ball games to improve their draft position. Instead of throwing games, teams would simply start cutting payroll.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I don't think it will be better. Let's look at the effects.

First and most obviously, not getting first and exclusive crack at the best players hurts the poor clubs compared to today.

Second, more bidding for players will result in better leverage for players in contracts... but teams can't spend any more than the others because of the cap. So over time the one-upping each other will lead to converting more of the contract to guaranteed cash. So cap hits for cutting players will be larger. And successful teams are more likely to have well-valued players they keep than are teams that are performing poorly. So the higher guarranteed money that one would expect hurts the poor club by making it take longer to turn the club around as they have to wait out more of their cap taken up by dead money than under the current system.

Third, the same as with college recruiting many top players will prefer to go to clubs where they have the best chance to win. Some of that will be offset by the "I want a chance to start now" mentality, and some by the "I want the most cash I can get" mentality. But in the upper quarter to half of the league there will always be a few teams who are ready for a replacement at any given position. So the team doing poorly likely has to pay more money for the same player than the team doing well who has an opening at the same position. Which devalues the poor team's money, effectively giving them less cap to work with while they are considered a poor team.

So far we've removed the only advantage the poor team had under the current system, and we've devalued their cap dollars and made a worse cap hit than today to clean out poor players from their roster.

The best way for them to turn it around then is to be a better evaluator of talent than the other clubs. Which if a team is doing poorly, probably more often than not this is a weakness that has to be addressed as well. The current system offsets that somewhat by giving them first pick... under the new system that wouldn't happen, and the poor performing team would have to invest even higher amounts for quality coaching staff and scouting since they have to overcome the other disadvantages that have already been mentioned.

I just don't see it working any better without a draft.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

roadkill1292

Footballguy
There is a lot of value in getting top rookie prospects. However, it is difficult (if not impossible) to ask players to go out and throw a game, in hopes of improving draft position for any rebuilding efforts. I think it would be a lot easier for an owner\GM to simply run a bare-bones operation at the cap minimum in hopes of better positioning a team to get one of the top rookie prospects. It would be like a company laying off employees to improve the company's bottom line; I believe it is called restructuring.

The problem with this from the NFLPA's position is, they will critize teams for doing this, thus taking 24 million potential dollars out of the player's marketfor the current year (the difference between the max and min of the salary cap). And nobody could critize the owner(s) from doing anything unethical.
But only temporarily. Plus one cure for this would be to narrow the gap between the minimum and maximum cap.
I don't think it will be better. Let's look at the effects.

First and most obviously, not getting first and exclusive crack at the best players hurts the poor clubs compared to today.

Second, more bidding for players will result in better leverage for players in contracts... but teams can't spend any more than the others because of the cap. So over time the one-upping each other will lead to converting more of the contract to guaranteed cash. So cap hits for cutting players will be larger. And successful teams are more likely to have well-valued players they keep than are teams that are performing poorly. So the higher guarranteed money that one would expect hurts the poor club by making it take longer to turn the club around as they have to wait out more of their cap taken up by dead money than under the current system.

Third, the same as with college recruiting many top players will prefer to go to clubs where they have the best chance to win. Some of that will be offset by the "I want a chance to start now" mentality, and some by the "I want the most cash I can get" mentality. But in the upper quarter to half of the league there will always be a few teams who are ready for a replacement at any given position. So the team doing poorly likely has to pay more money for the same player than the team doing well who has an opening at the same position. Which devalues the poor team's money, effectively giving them less cap to work with while they are considered a poor team.

So far we've removed the only advantage the poor team had under the current system, and we've devalued their cap dollars and made a worse cap hit than today to clean out poor players from their roster.

The best way for them to turn it around then is to be a better evaluator of talent than the other clubs. Which if a team is doing poorly, probably more often than not this is a weakness that has to be addressed as well. The current system offsets that somewhat by giving them first pick... under the new system that wouldn't happen, and the poor performing team would have to invest even higher amounts for quality coaching staff and scouting since they have to overcome the other disadvantages that have already been mentioned.

I just don't see it working any better without a draft.
Teams already face this problem with veteran free agents and undrafted rookies. And I don't want to provide welfare for teams that can't be competitive in the most even business environment ever created in professional sports. Nobody can outspend you. Just get better.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Some in my ff league say this to me. I never stop trying to improve something, even something that's working well. Probably comes from my job experience where, if you're standing still, you're falling behind.Good discussion, guys. I realize I'm in the distinct minority here but this is the closest I've ever been to seeing this wish realized. Just throw me a little bone here and let me dream a little. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SuperJohn96

RPS World Champion
The NFL Draft promotes parity.

Getting rid of it for a complete free market system leads to free market results.  There will be winners and losers.  Except in the new era of the NFL the losers won't just lose on the playing field, they will lose money.  This will lead to a downward spiral as their inability to pay free agents will lead to bad teams which will lead to poor attendance to even less money to pay free agents, etc. 

Eventually this will lead to some owners being forced to sell their teams.  That in and of itself is not a bad thing.  Guys like Bidwell should be forced out of the business.  But there will be a lot of pain for fans along the way.
This is pretty accurate and if we continue the business model then we have to allow business owners (and pro league owners) the opportunity to drive other competitors out of business.
I look at sports franchises the way I would a McDonald's.Would one franchise like to succeed at the expense of another. Maybe. But if your store can only hold so many customers, then what is the point of driving other franchises out of business?

Plus, how many employees will the surviving franchise possibly hire from the folding one? There will be less jobs in McDonalds, so why would the McDonald's employees help further that business model along?

They should all focus on staying better than other fast food joints.

Working out a deal is the ONLY thing that makes sense, and the owners who want to hog all the money are going to make Wellington Mara roll over in his grave...

 

SuperJohn96

RPS World Champion
I realize I'm in the distinct minority here but this is the closest I've ever been to seeing this wish realized. Just throw me a little bone here and let me dream a little. :)
I will go out on a limb and say I am with you on this, but for a very different reason.I just kind of want to see the #### hit the fan to see what happens.

Sometimes change isn't good, it's just damn interesting.

And I just want to be entertained.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I don't think it will be better. Let's look at the effects.

First and most obviously, not getting first and exclusive crack at the best players hurts the poor clubs compared to today.

Second, more bidding for players will result in better leverage for players in contracts... but teams can't spend any more than the others because of the cap. So over time the one-upping each other will lead to converting more of the contract to guaranteed cash. So cap hits for cutting players will be larger. And successful teams are more likely to have well-valued players they keep than are teams that are performing poorly. So the higher guarranteed money that one would expect hurts the poor club by making it take longer to turn the club around as they have to wait out more of their cap taken up by dead money than under the current system.

Third, the same as with college recruiting many top players will prefer to go to clubs where they have the best chance to win. Some of that will be offset by the "I want a chance to start now" mentality, and some by the "I want the most cash I can get" mentality. But in the upper quarter to half of the league there will always be a few teams who are ready for a replacement at any given position. So the team doing poorly likely has to pay more money for the same player than the team doing well who has an opening at the same position. Which devalues the poor team's money, effectively giving them less cap to work with while they are considered a poor team.

So far we've removed the only advantage the poor team had under the current system, and we've devalued their cap dollars and made a worse cap hit than today to clean out poor players from their roster.

The best way for them to turn it around then is to be a better evaluator of talent than the other clubs. Which if a team is doing poorly, probably more often than not this is a weakness that has to be addressed as well. The current system offsets that somewhat by giving them first pick... under the new system that wouldn't happen, and the poor performing team would have to invest even higher amounts for quality coaching staff and scouting since they have to overcome the other disadvantages that have already been mentioned.

I just don't see it working any better without a draft.
Teams already face this problem with veteran free agents and undrafted rookies. And I don't want to provide welfare for teams that can't be competitive in the most even business environment ever created in professional sports. Nobody can outspend you. Just get better.
Teams seldom turn things around built on a core of free agent acquisitions. As you mention, we can already see the effects when we look at FAs today. Very few teams turn things around by going out and acquiring free agents. The Redskins are a poster child for this... it's taken them forever to turn things around using FA instead of the draft, and they are in cap hell now. So as you say, FA is already like this, and given how FA doesn't seem to help poor teams improve as much as the draft does, this furthers the case that it would get even harder to improve.But anyway, I'm done. When the most meaningful response for the serious points raised is to tell teams to "Just get better" anyway, it doesn't seem like maintaining competitive balance is any kind of concern.

 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
I don't think it will be better.  Let's look at the effects.

First and most obviously, not getting first and exclusive crack at the best players hurts the poor clubs compared to today.

Second, more bidding for players will result in better leverage for players in contracts... but teams can't spend any more than the others because of the cap.  So over time the one-upping each other will lead to converting more of the contract to guaranteed cash.  So cap hits for cutting players will be larger.  And successful teams are more likely to have well-valued players they keep than are teams that are performing poorly.  So the higher guarranteed money that one would expect hurts the poor club by making it take longer to turn the club around as they have to wait out more of their cap taken up by dead money than under the current system.

Third, the same as with college recruiting many top players will prefer to go to clubs where they have the best chance to win.  Some of that will be offset by the "I want a chance to start now" mentality, and some by the "I want the most cash I can get" mentality.  But in the upper quarter to half of the league there will always be a few teams who are ready for a replacement at any given position.  So the team doing poorly likely has to pay more money for the same player than the team doing well who has an opening at the same position.  Which devalues the poor team's money, effectively giving them less cap to work with while they are considered a poor team.

So far we've removed the only advantage the poor team had under the current system, and we've devalued their cap dollars and made a worse cap hit than today to clean out poor players from their roster. 

The best way for them to turn it around then is to be a better evaluator of talent than the other clubs.  Which if a team is doing poorly, probably more often than not this is a weakness that has to be addressed as well.  The current system offsets that somewhat by giving them first pick... under the new system that wouldn't happen, and the poor performing team would have to invest even higher amounts for quality coaching staff and scouting since they have to overcome the other disadvantages that have already been mentioned.

I just don't see it working any better without a draft.
Teams already face this problem with veteran free agents and undrafted rookies. And I don't want to provide welfare for teams that can't be competitive in the most even business environment ever created in professional sports. Nobody can outspend you. Just get better.
Teams seldom turn things around built on a core of free agent acquisitions. As you mention, we can already see the effects when we look at FAs today. Very few teams turn things around by going out and acquiring free agents. The Redskins are a poster child for this... it's taken them forever to turn things around using FA instead of the draft, and they are in cap hell now. So as you say, FA is already like this, and given how FA doesn't seem to help poor teams improve as much as the draft does, this furthers the case that it would get even harder to improve.But anyway, I'm done. When the most meaningful response for the serious points raised is to tell teams to "Just get better" anyway, it doesn't seem like maintaining competitive balance is any kind of concern.
Maintaining competitive balance is very important to me. That's why the salary cap needs to be there. I just don't like welfare systems for underachievers.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
The NFL Draft promotes parity.

Getting rid of it for a complete free market system leads to free market results.  There will be winners and losers.  Except in the new era of the NFL the losers won't just lose on the playing field, they will lose money.  This will lead to a downward spiral as their inability to pay free agents will lead to bad teams which will lead to poor attendance to even less money to pay free agents, etc. 

Eventually this will lead to some owners being forced to sell their teams.  That in and of itself is not a bad thing.  Guys like Bidwell should be forced out of the business.  But there will be a lot of pain for fans along the way.
This is pretty accurate and if we continue the business model then we have to allow business owners (and pro league owners) the opportunity to drive other competitors out of business.
I look at sports franchises the way I would a McDonald's.Would one franchise like to succeed at the expense of another. Maybe. But if your store can only hold so many customers, then what is the point of driving other franchises out of business?
But you are trying to imply all McDonald franchises are on the same team, which they are not. If I own a Mcdonald's franchise and somebody else owns one down the street, my bottom line is not affected by the success or failure of the other franchise down the street because we are not on the same team. Likewise, my store could only hold so many customers, so there is a limit to my revenue. My only option to expand my revenue would be to acquire the other McDonalds. So if I can drive the other McDonald's out of business or to the brink of disaster, then I can purchase that franchise and expand my own revenue.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Maintaining competitive balance is very important to me. That's why the salary cap needs to be there. I just don't like welfare systems for underachievers.
I don't think your perception is accurate, you are assuming every potential college player will live up to his expectations. The NFL Draft is still widely speculative with no guarantees.
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
Maintaining competitive balance is very important to me. That's why the salary cap needs to be there. I just don't like welfare systems for underachievers.
I don't think your perception is accurate, you are assuming every potential college player will live up to his expectations. The NFL Draft is still widely speculative with no guarantees.
I absolutely agree with this statement. Which could work as an argument FOR abolishing the draft as well. Since there are obviously no guarantees, why have it at all?Look at it this way. The draft places limits on the number of top rookies a bad team can negotiate with. Having no draft allows a bad team to pursue as many good college players as it wants. Sure, the reverse is true as well, that a bad team won't improve itself during rookie free agent signing period, but I prefer that kind of chaos to the exclusivity process.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I absolutely agree with this statement. Which could work as an argument FOR abolishing the draft as well. Since there are obviously no guarantees, why have it at all?

Look at it this way. The draft places limits on the number of top rookies a bad team can negotiate with. Having no draft allows a bad team to pursue as many good college players as it wants. Sure, the reverse is true as well, that a bad team won't improve itself during rookie free agent signing period, but I prefer that kind of chaos to the exclusivity process.
The bigger issue is the NFLPA would oppose your idea.
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
I absolutely agree with this statement. Which could work as an argument FOR abolishing the draft as well. Since there are obviously no guarantees, why have it at all?

Look at it this way. The draft places limits on the number of top rookies a bad team can negotiate with. Having no draft allows a bad team to pursue as many good college players as it wants. Sure, the reverse is true as well, that a bad team won't improve itself during rookie free agent signing period, but I prefer that kind of chaos to the exclusivity process.
The bigger issue is the NFLPA would oppose your idea.
Hell, everybody does. But a fella can dream, can't he?
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I absolutely agree with this statement. Which could work as an argument FOR abolishing the draft as well. Since there are obviously no guarantees, why have it at all?

Look at it this way. The draft places limits on the number of top rookies a bad team can negotiate with. Having no draft allows a bad team to pursue as many good college players as it wants. Sure, the reverse is true as well, that a bad team won't improve itself during rookie free agent signing period, but I prefer that kind of chaos to the exclusivity process.
The bigger issue is the NFLPA would oppose your idea.
Hell, everybody does. But a fella can dream, can't he?
I am not completely opposed to your idea, but if we do away with the draft and allow all incoming players to be free agents, we would have to do away with the cap to make it a reasonable idea.
 

Riffraff

Footballguy
Scab teams or the Packers becoming the NFL's Montreal Expos...

Yeah, both sound like fun things to watch.

 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
am not completely opposed to your idea, but if we do away with the draft and allow all incoming players to be free agents, we would have to do away with the cap to make it a reasonable idea.
You lost me again.
Scab teams or the Packers becoming the NFL's Montreal Expos...

Yeah, both sound like fun things to watch.
Could you expand on this a little?
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
am not completely opposed to your idea, but if we do away with the draft and allow all incoming players to be free agents, we would have to do away with the cap to make it a reasonable idea.
You lost me again.
Because the NFLPA's cut of revenue each year is set (salary cap max, salary cap min). In addition, each rookie coming into the league is slotted to make X amount of money (based on there draft position). This methodology allows the NFLPA to ensure the majority of NFLPA's cut goes to NFLPA members who pay dues. If the amount of set money (cap max and cap min) going to non-NFLPA football players is not controlled, then the NFLPA has agreed to shoot itself in the head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

roadkill1292

Footballguy
am not completely opposed to your idea, but if we do away with the draft and allow all incoming players to be free agents, we would have to do away with the cap to make it a reasonable idea.
You lost me again.
Because the NFLPA's cut of revenue each year is set (salary cap max, salary cap min). In addition, each rookie coming into the league is slotted to make X amount of money (based on there draft position). This methodology allows the NFLPA to ensure the majority of NFLPA's cut goes to NFLPA members who pay dues. If the amount of set money (cap max and cap min) going to non-NFLPA football players is not controlled, then the NFLPA has agreed to shoot itself in the head.
Maybe I don't understand a rookie's status within the NFLPA. Is he not required to be a member of the union before signing a contract? What am I missing here?
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
am not completely opposed to your idea, but if we do away with the draft and allow all incoming players to be free agents, we would have to do away with the cap to make it a reasonable idea.
You lost me again.
Because the NFLPA's cut of revenue each year is set (salary cap max, salary cap min). In addition, each rookie coming into the league is slotted to make X amount of money (based on there draft position). This methodology allows the NFLPA to ensure the majority of NFLPA's cut goes to NFLPA members who pay dues. If the amount of set money (cap max and cap min) going to non-NFLPA football players is not controlled, then the NFLPA has agreed to shoot itself in the head.
Maybe I don't understand a rookie's status within the NFLPA. Is he not required to be a member of the union before signing a contract? What am I missing here?
They are not in the Union at the time the CBA is signed.
 

thayman

Footballguy
Every professional sports league has a draft. You'll never end up in a situation where the NFL eliminates the draft. Roadkill, I think I see where you are coming from as far as rewarding teams that fail, but it is necesarry to keep the league competitive.

I'm curious what do you think of the NBA and NHL's draft system where they use a lottery to decide the first few picks??

 

msommer

Footballguy
I absolutely agree with this statement. Which could work as an argument FOR abolishing the draft as well. Since there are obviously no guarantees, why have it at all?

Look at it this way. The draft places limits on the number of top rookies a bad team can negotiate with. Having no draft allows a bad team to pursue as many good college players as it wants. Sure, the reverse is true as well, that a bad team won't improve itself during rookie free agent signing period, but I prefer that kind of chaos to the exclusivity process.
The bigger issue is the NFLPA would oppose your idea.
Nope, because they would not exist (Upshaw said they would disband)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top