How does the RB ‘pay scale’ problem get solved? (1 Viewer)

[TheDirtyWord]

I think we’re at a bit of an inflection point at the position. Run game production is still critically important for team success, but front offices have found a way to game the system to get that production incredibly cheap. Exactly what they should be doing.

The only thing I could potentially think would work would be something along the lines of ‘pay for performance’ contracts at the position. Much like a AE who is commission based, I can’t think of another way for the position to survive economically.

But I’m not the smartest guy in the room…so what say you? What’s your proposal?

 

[BassNBrew]

I think we’re at a bit of an inflection point at the position. Run game production is still critically important for team success, but front offices have found a way to game the system to get that production incredibly cheap. Exactly what they should be doing.

The only thing I could potentially think would work would be something along the lines of ‘pay for performance’ contracts at the position. Much like a AE who is commission based, I can’t think of another way for the position to survive economically.

But I’m not the smartest guy in the room…so what say you? What’s your proposal?

Supply and demand. Players will migrate to other positions leaving a scarcity of quality backs.

 

[travdogg]

Who says its a problem?

 

[Deamon]

Players will migrate to other positions leaving a scarcity of quality backs.

what other position are all these 5'10" dudes gonna play?

 

[King of the Jungle]

Players will migrate to other positions leaving a scarcity of quality backs.

what other position are all these 5'10" dudes gonna play?

Point guard, 3rd base, plumber, Doctor…just to name a few

 

[fuzzy_dunlop]

What’s your proposal?

Do nothing. Just because you want to make 15 million doesn't mean you can

 

[Lansdowne]

Not sure it’ll change. It’s a passer-friendly league the way the rules are in place now. The slot receiver has replaced the fullback as the standard starter on offense for most teams. More and more teams are looking to have RBs who can catch the ball and protect the QB. Bell cow RBs of the past like Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, Eddie George, Shaun Alexander, etc. would get somewhere between 40-50 receptions in their prime seasons not because they were weapons in that regard but it kept them on the field. Now you see more specialists, third down/change of pace backs, in use.

Some of it is offensive scheme, some of it is workload management (similar to how starting pitchers don’t typically go as deep into games as often as they used to, or how NBA players don’t play a full 82 games anymore), some of it is gaming the system to keep RB costs more affordable. Given the historically short shelf life of the NFL RB and how simple it can be to find a replacement as opposed to a QB, it’s easy to see why it is the way it is these days.

 

[goose_egged]

What it the cap hit for RBs was artificially reduced by some percentage? The percentage could get progressively larger for each year the RB plays in the league. This way teams would be more willing to give an RB a large 2nd or even 3rd contract. If the progressive percentage was large enough, veteran RBs who can still play like Zeke and Cook would be highly prized players since their production would come at a very large cap discount, especially by teams that intend to compete for the Super Bowl and are willing to burn cash for any edge they can acquire.

 

[nysfl2]

I could see exempting rbs from being franchise-tagged as helping. Gets them to true free agency a year or two earlier, when their value is still high.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

QBs $40M-$50M per season

WRs $15M-$30M per season

RBs $500k on a 2nd and 3rd Rd rookie deal, the owners won't even draft them in the 1st Rd often, pushing them into a small contract they can't get out of for an entire 4 years and then the team can still slap a franchise tag on them.

Anyone that thinks this system is fair for RBs or feels righteous in backing the NFL owners as they exploit the RB position isn't paying attention.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Related - a really excellent answer to what seems like kind of a messed up question to a young athlete.

I really respect and appreciate Etienne for this. Young man handled it well. I still don’t think it’s right to ask him something like this as it puts him on the spot and it’s a potential trap, but he really nailed it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

If Joe Burrow were a RB, we wouldn't even be talking about an extension.

Rookie year, knee injury missed a big part of the season
4th Year, calf injury missing multiple weeks

But as it stands, Joe Burrow is going to become the highest paid player per season in the history of the NFL
Because he plays Quarterback of course but he's injury prone if he's a Running Back

 

[Chaka]

The only thing I could potentially think would work would be something along the lines of ‘pay for performance’ contracts at the position. Much like a AE who is commission based, I can’t think of another way for the position to survive economically.

I don't think the current CBA would allow this.

 

[(HULK)]

The position has become less important. Ergo, they are paid less. You don't see this conversation happening for punters IMO

 

[Chaka]

This won't change until the CBA is renegotiated, even then it is no guarantee.

Removing the franchise tag would be a good start, as would be the 5th year option.

But that will never happen as the players simply will never be able to negotiate from a position of equal footing.

 

[Chaka]

The problem is the idea of collective bargaining in the NFL is an illusion. 300 pseudo millionaires will always lose against 32 oligarchs. Particularly when those oligarchs run an enterprise that has anti-trust exemptions.

The NFL is, perhaps the most anti-capitalist, anti-American business enterprise in the country.

All of those arguing "Well, the player doesn't have to work in the NFL, they can go be a window washer."

Sure and if they did they could immediately market their services to any window washing service in the world. If you are good enough to play in the NFL you have no ability to enter the market as a free American. You have no option to market your service to any on the 32 prospective employers in your industry.

As a new employee in the NFL you are treated worse than cattle. At least cattle go to the highest bidder.

No, the NFL is the only form of Communist wealth redistribution that Americans are down with.

A real solution would be to have Congress eliminate the NFL's anti trust protections.

Blow up the CBA, blow up the cap and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

This won't change until the CBA is renegotiated, even then it is no guarantee.

Removing the franchise tag would be a good start, as would be the 5th year option.

But that will never happen as the players simply will never be able to negotiate from a position of equal footing.

I do agree that this only gets fixed via a CBA negotiation. But I think I saw a stat that says the average pay of RB’s is less than that of K’s now. Isn’t it mutually beneficial for a restructured RB payscale to be discussed?

 

[Chaka]

We all foolishly believe that the NFL is an unassailable institution. Any competing league has been doomed to fail simply because they don't have the resources to compete for the best work force.

The NFL oligarchs foolishly believes this too. Because, thus far any competition for services of the best potential employees has come from within America. Every one who has tried has failed. Who could possibly compete with them, right?

Well, when the Saudi's come a'calling, the NFL oligarchs will see where they were wrong but, by that point it will be too late.

I hope they enjoy watching the UAE Oil Barons competing with the Doha Djinn for the OPEC Cup.

 

[Chaka]

This won't change until the CBA is renegotiated, even then it is no guarantee.

Removing the franchise tag would be a good start, as would be the 5th year option.

But that will never happen as the players simply will never be able to negotiate from a position of equal footing.

I do agree that this only gets fixed via a CBA negotiation. But I think I saw a stat that says the average pay of RB’s is less than that of K’s now. Isn’t it mutually beneficial for a restructured RB payscale to be discussed?

Yes/no. To work the solution likely needs to be exclusive of position.

Some sort of incentive based pay would seem to be viable. But, ultimately the owners would be able to influence the ability of players to reach those incentives. But they shouldn't let the perfect interfere with the good.

Three year rookie contracts would be beneficial to all players.

Eliminating the franchise tag would be great too.

But, why would the NFL ever concede to any of these?

 

[jm192]

RB's have no leverage, and I don't see a path to leverage.

Leveon Bell sits out--James Conner wants an opportunity to show what he can do and to get a check.
If Saquon sat out--the backups are happy to get a shot at touching the football.

In order to have any actual leverage--the 2nd/3rd tier of RB's would have to be willing to sit out in support of the starters. But those guys are wanting to get touches and a better paycheck themselves. And if you're a guy in line to make 500K--and you can take the starters job and earn a 6 million dollar deal--well that's not going to be turned down anytime soon.

 

[fuzzy_dunlop]

300 pseudo millionaires will always lose against 32 oligarchs.

You're viewing this through a political lense, perhaps? This isn't the West Virginia coal wars.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

RB's have no leverage, and I don't see a path to leverage.

Leveon Bell sits out--James Conner wants an opportunity to show what he can do and to get a check.
If Saquon sat out--the backups are happy to get a shot at touching the football.

In order to have any actual leverage--the 2nd/3rd tier of RB's would have to be willing to sit out in support of the starters. But those guys are wanting to get touches and a better paycheck themselves. And if you're a guy in line to make 500K--and you can take the starters job and earn a 6 million dollar deal--well that's not going to be turned down anytime soon.

What $6M deal? I guess what I'm referring to is more fundamental to the game of football and perhaps sports in general.

As this economic realities of the RB position continue to solidify where there is no path to extreme financial reward to be gained from all the sacrifices young athletes have to make to play at the highest level...doesn't the game change drastically because noone plays the position anymore? It's one thing for FB's to go extinct...isn't that the path we're headed for RB's now?

 

[Chaka]

300 pseudo millionaires will always lose against 32 oligarchs.

You're viewing this through a political lense, perhaps? This isn't the West Virginia coal wars.

Not at all. It's simple reality that a lot of people ignore. The CBA is a nice illusion but the owners have all the power.

Hell, my solution (dissolving all NFL anti-trust exemptions and the salary cap) would probably make things worse for players.

20 game seasons, year round padded practice, Oklahoma drills etc. All of it would be fair game. But the market would actually set player value, not the cap.

RBs are a cap casualty not a market casualty.

 

[Chaka]

BTW We, us here in the fantasy football community at large are also a primary example of there being a RB pay issue.

I would argue that RBs offer at least as much RoI for the NFL, outside the game, as any position group. Probably more.

RBs have driven the fantasy market since day one. Fantasy football has brought more new fans and more dollars to the NFL than every Mahomes bath bomb or Joe Namath Hanes commercials ever.

You think bougie suburban people are tuning in to a TNF game in October? No, we are and we are doing it to watch Alvin Kamara and Travis Etienne.

NFL partnerships with companies like Draft Kings are worth millions of dollars and those partnerships happened because we made it happen. And RBs drive what we do.

So yeah, there is a problem with RB pay in the NFL.

 

[eighsse2]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

 

[Insein]

The position has become less important. Ergo, they are paid less. You don't see this conversation happening for punters IMO

It's not that the position is less important. It's that the talent level is more easily replaceable than ever unfortunately for the stud players. You used to not be able to replace what Barry or Emmitt could do over the course of a season. Now you can draft a guy in the 2nd round and sign a cheap guy on his second contract and get the required 1500-1800 yards needed for the year cheaper than the one guy.

 

[Amused to Death]

Who says its a problem?

This. RBs are paid exactly what their market value is. There are 32 teams who set the market and they have spoken. RBs are the easiest position to replace, or close to it. QB, the lines, and the passing game are what wins.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The problem is RBs are still overpaid by many teams.

 

[Chaka]

Who says its a problem?

This. RBs are paid exactly what their market cap value is. There are 32 teams who set the market cap and they have spoken. RBs are the easiest position to replace, or close to it. QB, the lines, and the passing game are what wins.

FYP

 

[Chaka]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

 

[eighsse2]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

I will cede this to you, because it's way above my pay grade. Don't know a lot about business.

 

[Chaka]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

I will cede this to you, because it's way above my pay grade. Don't know a lot about business.

Meh. Everything I think I know about this stuff comes from 8th grade history I took about 40 years ago.

"Truman Roosevelt and his Trust Busters", or some such and cetera.

 

[massraider]

Seems like the root of the problem is that life is unfair.

I look forward to us all sorting this out in this thread.

 

[Chaka]

For all I know America loves Trusts nowadays. A lot of us seem pretty good with Russia, which was not the case when I was taking 8th grade history, so wtfdik?

WOLVERINES!!!!

 

[travdogg]

The position has become less important. Ergo, they are paid less. You don't see this conversation happening for punters IMO

It's not that the position is less important. It's that the talent level is more easily replaceable than ever unfortunately for the stud players. You used to not be able to replace what Barry or Emmitt could do over the course of a season. Now you can draft a guy in the 2nd round and sign a cheap guy on his second contract and get the required 1500-1800 yards needed for the year cheaper than the one guy.

To be fair, Barry and Emmitt were all-time greats. Some guys (CMC comes to mind) truly aren't replaceable and are still paid higher salaries.

Frankly, I'd argue guys like Taylor, and especially Barkley just aren't that level of player. Jacobs probably has a better argument than either of them coming off of last season, but even then he's not there. Its CMC, Chubb, Henry, and then probably a dropoff in talent to everyone else. Not coincidently those are 3 of the 4 highest paid guys.

I think Barry Sanders would still be paid as a top player if he were around in 2023. There's nobody currently on that level and you could probably argue there hasn't been since at least Peterson, but possibly since Barry himself. It hasn't helped that there hasn't been a truly dominant RB for a few years. Guys like prime Peterson, and prime Tomlinson would still be getting paid today in my opinion. Guys like Dalvin, Zeke, Taylor, Barkley, etc. none of those guys are on that level, they never were, and with the possible exception of Taylor never will be.

 

[eighsse2]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

I will cede this to you, because it's way above my pay grade. Don't know a lot about business.

Meh. Everything I think I know about this stuff comes from 8th grade history I took about 40 years ago.

"Truman Roosevelt and his Trust Busters", or some such and cetera.

I barely remember a little bit of that stuff from history class. I don't really have an understanding of how the NFL works, though. I think of it like a chain restaurant with 32 locations. Each one is owned by a different person, but some person/people at the top sets a framework of how the stores are supposed to operate, what things can vary, what things can't vary, etc ... But I have no idea.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Seems like the root of the problem is that life is unfair.

I look forward to us all sorting this out in this thread.

As the late Frank Costanza liked to say, "I got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about it."

 

[Bozeman Bruiser]

The players themselves (via the NFLPA) and the owners agreed to the CBA that laid out terms for rookie wages, contract lengths, franchise tags, free agency, salary caps, etc.

The next CBA is not until 2030, so none of those things are going to change until all the guys upset now are retired.

In the meantime, the only options are:

1. Convince their teammates (QB, WR, OL, DL, DB) that they are being paid too much and they need to share the wealth. Good luck with that.

2. Convince the coaches, rules committee, and fans that the running game is more important than the passing game (increase demand). Good luck with that.

3. Convince the 1-3 other guys next to them on the bench who can replace 70-100% of their production for 10-20% of the cost that they should go find another career (decrease supply). Good luck with that.

Unfortunately I don't think the RB pay scale "problem" gets solved before 2030. And while I was surprised to learn how much less star RBs make compared to their QB, WR, OL, DL, and DB counterparts, I don't care enough to get outraged. If they resolve it good for them, if they do not I won't watch any more or less NFL. It does make for some interesting discussion in this preseason that is oddly absent of drama.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

It isn't RBs vs owners though. The issue is RBs vs QBs. The owners are spending the amount of revenue on player salaries that they agreed to with the union. They are just giving a bigger share to players who have a bigger impact on team wins

 

[Chaka]

but the owners have all the power

When one owns something, one usually expects to have power regarding that thing.

But there's the rub, the NFL owners are "one" in every practical sense, but according to them they are 32 separate business entities. So they pretend to act individually while setting the rules collectively. That's a trust, we're supposed to be against that sort of thing in America. But as long as the Feds buy that b.s. argument from the NFL nothing will change.

If these 32 separate business entities were actually competing against each other everywhere, not just between the lines, the power structure would shift dramatically.

It isn't RBs vs owners though. The issue is RBs vs QBs. The owners are spending the amount of revenue on player salaries that they agreed to with the union. They are just giving a bigger share to players who have a bigger impact on team wins

I mentioned above that this is a cap problem not a market problem.

There is a related problem of ownership acting as a monolith when dealing with their labor force while they also staunchly insist they are operating as 32 separate business entities.

 

[humpback]

So these evil, children-eating owners all got together and decided that they are going to unleash their wrath on RBs? While at the same time paying way more for other positions? All because they "have all the power"?

Makes sense.

 

[need2know]

Shouldn't do anything about it. Let the market work

 

[Chaka]

So these evil, children-eating owners all got together and decided that they are going to unleash their wrath on RBs? While at the same time paying way more for other positions? All because they "have all the power"?

Makes sense.

Nope. The issue is much bigger than RBs, I have been very clear about that.

I believe what you are doing is conflating issues and inadvertently creating a straw man argument.

 

[Chaka]

Shouldn't do anything about it. Let the market work

It's not market. The idea that it is is an illusion.

 

[Amused to Death]

I mentioned above that this is a cap problem not a market problem.

Can you explain? Every year the cap goes up, but the RBs are still getting the smallest piece of the pie.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Shouldn't do anything about it. Let the market work

Well the whole problem is that it's set up so the market can't work. At least for running backs.

We don't know what the free market is for a prime aged running back, because the rookie scale and contract lengths prevent running backs from ever entering the free market during their prime years.

It wasn't intentional. It just happened to work out this way when they were fixing the last problem (rookie QBs getting too much money before they ever played), and is much less impactful to every other position since those guys all have a longer prime. So they're able to shrug off the non-market related rookie contracts and sign a market-dictated contract while still in their prime. Whereas running backs are stuck with their non-market related rookie contracts through their prime, and don't get to sign a market-dictated contract until they're too old to have a strong market value.

 

[Chaka]

I mentioned above that this is a cap problem not a market problem.

Can you explain? Every year the cap goes up, but the RBs are still getting the smallest piece of the pie.

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

There is no market from the beginning. Prospective NFL players are forbidden from marketing their services to all their prospective employers. They can either play for the team that drafts them or not at all. That's about as anti-market as it gets.

From there everything from rookie wage scales, fifth year team options, franchise tags, salary caps etc. everything exacerbates the issue.

We can talk about labor negotiations but the players aren't negotiating against against 32 separate businesses as the league likes to pretend, they are negotiating against a single monolithic entity against which they have no chance. That entity, the NFL, is anti-market, anti-capitalist and, frankly anti-American.

I am not suggesting we give the players more power, I am saying we remove the artificial barriers that allow the NFL to act as one unit in certain circumstances while still being treated as 32 separate businesses.

Do that and you actually create a true market. Why would it be so problematic to let the Bengals compete against the Cowboys for the services of the labor force? We fight tooth-and-nail to be sought after by multiple prospective employers in every other industry. But not the NFL. Why are we okay with that?

What they have now is a sham that we are okay with so long as we don't have to work for them.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

 

[eighsse2]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

Now this I can understand. The draft is very exciting, but I don't think it makes sense.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.