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

[Grahamburn]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

 

[Chaka]

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

Sure, but I referring to the draft which is what you mentioned in your post. The draft itself is the marketplace at work. If a team values a player they take them. The constraint now (that needs to be adjusted imo) is the fixed pay.

I guess not surprisingly, I disagree.

Of the entire NFL landscape the draft is the part that is furthest from being a market.

People are prevented from entering at legal working age and they cannot market their services to prospective employers* and shop offers.

The process of selecting is the definition of asset redistribution. The worst teams get the best draft position.

*Putting up film in college isn't marketing if they can't shop that film to any prospective employer.

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

 

[dkp993]

Stop acting like they are

????? What? Who’s doing this? We were/are discussing how to fix the system for RB’s. No one (certainly not me) is crying for the plight of the millionaire.

 

[dkp993]

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

Sure, but I referring to the draft which is what you mentioned in your post. The draft itself is the marketplace at work. If a team values a player they take them. The constraint now (that needs to be adjusted imo) is the fixed pay.

I guess not surprisingly, I disagree.

Of the entire NFL landscape the draft is the part that is furthest from being a market.

People are prevented from entering at legal working age and they cannot market their services to prospective employers* and shop offers.

The process of selecting is the definition of asset redistribution. The worst teams get the best draft position.

*Putting up film in college isn't marketing if they can't shop that film to any prospective employer.

I think you’re taking the “market” analogy a bit more literal then I’m using it. I’m merely speaking to teams drafting a position of need as they see fit. Currently the “market” values RB’s less then it did in years past. This is aided,imo, because they can draft the asset for a cheap price during their peak years and easily replace them in future drafts with another cheap option. This the CBA is driving the value of RB’s down imo

 

[Chaka]

Currently the “market” values RB’s less then it did in years past.

I understand that perspective. I think the reality is there is a flaw in the system that teams are exploiting.

It's not that RBs are less valuable, if that were true Bijan and Gibbs would have been drafted a lot later, it's RBs peak performance years occur when they are locked into their rookie contracts.

That fact makes the absurdity of the draft system even more offensive. Not only can't you market your services to all potential employers, not only are you unable to negotiate your compensation but your peak earning years are essentially taken from you.

 

[Chaka]

The real problem is every other position gets paid for past production because they have longer career time frames.

RBs are never given the opportunity to get paid during their peak performance seasons.

RBs aren't less valuable, their careers are shorter.

 

[Chaka]

I haven't looked into exactly how it works but the NFL does have a performance based compensation pool that gets doled at the end of every season. Not sure which players qualify for that pool but I know it exists.

Since the system isn't going to dramatically change maybe instituting a similar pool for RBs would at least help when they clearly outperform their deals.

 

[rockaction]

I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

This seems to be the problem. It deviates from reward-based performance, which is what we like to think governs America's labor supply. But this is not the case -- it is distinctly American because it's a CBA where both parties have to negotiate in good faith with each other because the conditions of management and union are met. It's the Wagner Act come to life. There is no judge forcing injunctions on players refusing to work and no strikes in other industries resulting from football work stoppages. It's the best we've got, and it's the seniority part of the negotiation process and the career duration that makes it unfair for RBs.

Much like the upstart in a blue-collar, highly-skilled labor industry kneecapped by seniority bargaining; so is this. It's skilled labor and the issues are no different, really, than other CBAs in other industries.

But it's not anti-American.

 

[msudaisy26]

My only problem with running back pay is that it is going backwards. CMC, Cook, Kamara, Henry etc signed deals for 13 to 16 AAV and now the top backs are having trouble getting 12 a year in a league that is basically printing money, all other positions are seeing increases in pay and the cap is going up.

I don't think AAV is the issue, I think it's guaranteed $. Even those guys didn't get a huge percentage of their deals guaranteed, they had to go out and keep performing in order to keep getting paid.

Really though, I think those guys all had better arguments to get paid than this recent crop. If a 23 year old CMC with his track record came on the market today I think he'd match or exceed the contract he got.

You aren't putting the human element into it. You show employees they are valued by paying them. When all the other positions within the NFL are making more money every year and your position is the only one making less it rubs people the wrong way, especially the employees in those positions. The scale of pay is irrelevant because this would be the case at a car wash, bowling alley, law firm, or the NFL.

I'm not really following. Teams don't value these employees (RBs) as much as other positions, which is precisely why they aren't paid as much, and yes, it's going to rub them the wrong way but that's how it goes.

Again, it's essentially a zero sum game- if you show RBs that you value them more, that means you're showing someone else that you value them less.

I would have to look at the guarantees because I don't remember them off the top of my head, but running backs aren't even getting long term deals with little guarantees.

Completely disagree with this last part. Punter, linebackers, special teamers don't complain about lower salaries because they aren't going backwards.

These are just example numbers, but say 3 years ago running backs made up 10 percent of a teams cap space on average. That number is going down.

Your last statement is completely wrong. There is turnover every year in the NFL, money gets moved all over, high paid vets that don't perform get moved out. These backs we are talking about are the best in the game right now and in their prime and rbs as a whole are going backwards in pay. Everyone should be getting a piece of a bigger pie (cap room) the running backs are getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

 

[rockaction]

These are just example numbers, but say 3 years ago running backs made up 10 percent of a teams cap space on average. That number is going down.

You sure about that?

 

[Chaka]

I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

This seems to be the problem. It deviates from reward-based performance, which is what we like to think governs America's labor supply. But this is not the case -- it is distinctly American because it's a CBA where both parties have to negotiate in good faith with each other because the conditions of management and union are met. It's the Wagner Act come to life. There is no judge forcing injunctions on players refusing to work and no strikes in other industries resulting from football work stoppages. It's the best we've got, and it's the seniority part of the negotiation process and the career duration that makes it unfair for RBs.

Much like the upstart in a blue-collar, highly-skilled labor industry kneecapped by seniority bargaining; so is this. It's skilled labor and the issues are no different, really, than other CBAs in other industries.

But it's not anti-American.

Thank you! Excellent response.

Now take it to the politics forum, Boris.

Nah, seriously great response.

 

[humpback]

My only problem with running back pay is that it is going backwards. CMC, Cook, Kamara, Henry etc signed deals for 13 to 16 AAV and now the top backs are having trouble getting 12 a year in a league that is basically printing money, all other positions are seeing increases in pay and the cap is going up.

I don't think AAV is the issue, I think it's guaranteed $. Even those guys didn't get a huge percentage of their deals guaranteed, they had to go out and keep performing in order to keep getting paid.

Really though, I think those guys all had better arguments to get paid than this recent crop. If a 23 year old CMC with his track record came on the market today I think he'd match or exceed the contract he got.

You aren't putting the human element into it. You show employees they are valued by paying them. When all the other positions within the NFL are making more money every year and your position is the only one making less it rubs people the wrong way, especially the employees in those positions. The scale of pay is irrelevant because this would be the case at a car wash, bowling alley, law firm, or the NFL.

I'm not really following. Teams don't value these employees (RBs) as much as other positions, which is precisely why they aren't paid as much, and yes, it's going to rub them the wrong way but that's how it goes.

Again, it's essentially a zero sum game- if you show RBs that you value them more, that means you're showing someone else that you value them less.

I would have to look at the guarantees because I don't remember them off the top of my head, but running backs aren't even getting long term deals with little guarantees.

Completely disagree with this last part. Punter, linebackers, special teamers don't complain about lower salaries because they aren't going backwards.

These are just example numbers, but say 3 years ago running backs made up 10 percent of a teams cap space on average. That number is going down.

Your last statement is completely wrong. There is turnover every year in the NFL, money gets moved all over, high paid vets that don't perform get moved out. These backs we are talking about are the best in the game right now and in their prime and rbs as a whole are going backwards in pay. Everyone should be getting a piece of a bigger pie (cap room) the running backs are getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

It takes two to tango- I would argue that running backs aren't getting long term deals with little guarantees because they won't sign them, they want more guaranteed money.

You haven't shown that RBs are going backwards. Miles Sanders signing for less than Christian McCaffrey isn't because the market went backwards. And you're missing the point- punters, linebackers, and special teamers would be making less (not necessarily going backwards) if RBs made more. They would complain if they made less.

My last sentence isn't wrong at all. Again, you haven't shown that they are getting a smaller piece of the pie for starters, but why should RBs get the same piece of the pie when their value has decreased? With a salary cap that is exactly how it works- if one position gets more another (or multiple others) get less.

 

[rockaction]

Thank you! Excellent response.

Now take it to the politics forum, Boris.

Nah, seriously great response.

I'm hit or miss, so I'll take the compliment, Chaka.

Thanks.

 

[Grahamburn]

Stop acting like they are

????? What? Who’s doing this? We were/are discussing how to fix the system for RB’s. No one (certainly not me) is crying for the plight of the millionaire.

Nothing needs to be fixed.

NFL offenses have shown time and again that they can take late round or undrafted RBs and make them extremely productive.

There will continue to be athletes more than willing to make money that pales in comparison to other positions.

And therefore, smart teams will continue to invest a very small percentage of their cap to the RB position.

 

[msudaisy26]

My only problem with running back pay is that it is going backwards. CMC, Cook, Kamara, Henry etc signed deals for 13 to 16 AAV and now the top backs are having trouble getting 12 a year in a league that is basically printing money, all other positions are seeing increases in pay and the cap is going up.

I don't think AAV is the issue, I think it's guaranteed $. Even those guys didn't get a huge percentage of their deals guaranteed, they had to go out and keep performing in order to keep getting paid.

Really though, I think those guys all had better arguments to get paid than this recent crop. If a 23 year old CMC with his track record came on the market today I think he'd match or exceed the contract he got.

You aren't putting the human element into it. You show employees they are valued by paying them. When all the other positions within the NFL are making more money every year and your position is the only one making less it rubs people the wrong way, especially the employees in those positions. The scale of pay is irrelevant because this would be the case at a car wash, bowling alley, law firm, or the NFL.

I'm not really following. Teams don't value these employees (RBs) as much as other positions, which is precisely why they aren't paid as much, and yes, it's going to rub them the wrong way but that's how it goes.

Again, it's essentially a zero sum game- if you show RBs that you value them more, that means you're showing someone else that you value them less.

I would have to look at the guarantees because I don't remember them off the top of my head, but running backs aren't even getting long term deals with little guarantees.

Completely disagree with this last part. Punter, linebackers, special teamers don't complain about lower salaries because they aren't going backwards.

These are just example numbers, but say 3 years ago running backs made up 10 percent of a teams cap space on average. That number is going down.

Your last statement is completely wrong. There is turnover every year in the NFL, money gets moved all over, high paid vets that don't perform get moved out. These backs we are talking about are the best in the game right now and in their prime and rbs as a whole are going backwards in pay. Everyone should be getting a piece of a bigger pie (cap room) the running backs are getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

It takes two to tango- I would argue that running backs aren't getting long term deals with little guarantees because they won't sign them, they want more guaranteed money.

You haven't shown that RBs are going backwards. Miles Sanders signing for less than Christian McCaffrey isn't because the market went backwards. And you're missing the point- punters, linebackers, and special teamers would be making less (not necessarily going backwards) if RBs made more. They would complain if they made less.

My last sentence isn't wrong at all. Again, you haven't shown that they are getting a smaller piece of the pie for starters, but why should RBs get the same piece of the pie when their value has decreased? With a salary cap that is exactly how it works- if one position gets more another (or multiple others) get less.

You can argue that, but you don't know if they are or aren't getting guarantees. Math isn't this hard.

Highest paid backs 2020

1. Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million
2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million
2. Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott: $15 million
4. Jets RB Le’Veon Bell: $13.1 million
5. Texans RB David Johnson: $13 million
6. Vikings RB Dalvin Cook: $12.5 million
6. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million
8. Bengals QB Joe Mixon: $12 million
9. Cardinals RB Kenyan Drake: $8.5 million
10. Broncos RB Melvin Gordon: $8 million


Highest paid backs 2023

1. 49ers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million

2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million

3. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million

4. Browns RB Nick Chubb: $12.2 million

5. Packers RB Aaron Jones: $11.5 million

6. Giants RB Saquon Barkley $10.1 million

6. Cowboys RB Tony Pollard: $10.1 million

6. Raiders RB Josh Jacobs: $10.1 million

9. Cardinals RB James: $7 million

10. Panthers RB Miles Sanders: $6.4 million

They are getting less when there is more money to go around.

 

[humpback]

My only problem with running back pay is that it is going backwards. CMC, Cook, Kamara, Henry etc signed deals for 13 to 16 AAV and now the top backs are having trouble getting 12 a year in a league that is basically printing money, all other positions are seeing increases in pay and the cap is going up.

I don't think AAV is the issue, I think it's guaranteed $. Even those guys didn't get a huge percentage of their deals guaranteed, they had to go out and keep performing in order to keep getting paid.

Really though, I think those guys all had better arguments to get paid than this recent crop. If a 23 year old CMC with his track record came on the market today I think he'd match or exceed the contract he got.

You aren't putting the human element into it. You show employees they are valued by paying them. When all the other positions within the NFL are making more money every year and your position is the only one making less it rubs people the wrong way, especially the employees in those positions. The scale of pay is irrelevant because this would be the case at a car wash, bowling alley, law firm, or the NFL.

I'm not really following. Teams don't value these employees (RBs) as much as other positions, which is precisely why they aren't paid as much, and yes, it's going to rub them the wrong way but that's how it goes.

Again, it's essentially a zero sum game- if you show RBs that you value them more, that means you're showing someone else that you value them less.

I would have to look at the guarantees because I don't remember them off the top of my head, but running backs aren't even getting long term deals with little guarantees.

Completely disagree with this last part. Punter, linebackers, special teamers don't complain about lower salaries because they aren't going backwards.

These are just example numbers, but say 3 years ago running backs made up 10 percent of a teams cap space on average. That number is going down.

Your last statement is completely wrong. There is turnover every year in the NFL, money gets moved all over, high paid vets that don't perform get moved out. These backs we are talking about are the best in the game right now and in their prime and rbs as a whole are going backwards in pay. Everyone should be getting a piece of a bigger pie (cap room) the running backs are getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

It takes two to tango- I would argue that running backs aren't getting long term deals with little guarantees because they won't sign them, they want more guaranteed money.

You haven't shown that RBs are going backwards. Miles Sanders signing for less than Christian McCaffrey isn't because the market went backwards. And you're missing the point- punters, linebackers, and special teamers would be making less (not necessarily going backwards) if RBs made more. They would complain if they made less.

My last sentence isn't wrong at all. Again, you haven't shown that they are getting a smaller piece of the pie for starters, but why should RBs get the same piece of the pie when their value has decreased? With a salary cap that is exactly how it works- if one position gets more another (or multiple others) get less.

You can argue that, but you don't know if they are or aren't getting guarantees. Math isn't this hard.

Highest paid backs 2020

1. Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million
2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million
2. Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott: $15 million
4. Jets RB Le’Veon Bell: $13.1 million
5. Texans RB David Johnson: $13 million
6. Vikings RB Dalvin Cook: $12.5 million
6. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million
8. Bengals QB Joe Mixon: $12 million
9. Cardinals RB Kenyan Drake: $8.5 million
10. Broncos RB Melvin Gordon: $8 million


Highest paid backs 2023

1. 49ers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million

2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million

3. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million

4. Browns RB Nick Chubb: $12.2 million

5. Packers RB Aaron Jones: $11.5 million

6. Giants RB Saquon Barkley $10.1 million

6. Cowboys RB Tony Pollard: $10.1 million

6. Raiders RB Josh Jacobs: $10.1 million

9. Cardinals RB James: $7 million

10. Panthers RB Miles Sanders: $6.4 million

They are getting less when there is more money to go around.

No, math isn't very hard. That's rich coming from someone who admittedly hasn't even looked at the numbers yet insists they know it's going backwards.

There are several flaws with simply comparing one specific year to another (and one player to another), but since you insist it doesn't seem like there is some drastic movement "backwards" as you keep claiming. Again, Miles Sanders signing for less than Christian McCaffrey isn't evidence of any kind of move backwards, they aren't on the same level as players. The best in the game right now aren't the same as the best in the game in 2020.

Out of all the metrics, AAV is one of the least meaningful. Obviously McCaffrey, Kamara, and Henry aren't going backwards by that measure because an average doesn't change over the course of a contract. If you look at something more relevant, like the % of cap dollars spent on the RB position ("% of the pie"), you'd see that in 2020 RBs received 3.06% of active roster cap dollars. In 2022 it was 3.07% (we can't compare 2023 yet because rosters aren't set- right now it's 4.17%, but a bunch of those guys won't be on the active roster).

Ironically enough punters actually have seen a decrease from .76% of active cap dollars in 2020 to .62% in 2022. When's their zoom call?

 

[rockaction]

Take Pat Tillman’s path.

Saw a little girl at the fast food joint the other night wearing a Pat Tillman jersey. What a sad story his was. I wondered how on earth she got that shirt and if she could possibly know what it all meant. She couldn't have been more than ten years old, and the shirt fit, so somebody got it for her specifically, it seemed.

Just a really adult topic manifest on a little girl's shirt.

 

[Chaka]

So, when all the top athletes stop playing RB and the Chubba Hubbard's and Wayne Gallman's of the world are the leading NFL RBs will Fantasy Football players finally start shifting to formats that actually value QBs or will the JD McKissics of the RB world still get drafted before Patrick Mahomes?

 

[rockaction]

the JD McKissics of the RB world still get drafted before Patrick Mahomes?

That doesn't really happen now. My cheat sheet for a quasi-standard league has Mahomes and Allen at 23rd and 24th, respectively. 6 point TD passing. Only seven running backs go before them in Draft Dominator.

It's not as extreme as you're making it. Where it does become a problem is when you start getting 2RB or multi-flex leagues where you really need 3 RBs for a title. There aren't enough backs to go around.

But your point is taken. How better to reflect the game should always be a concern for FF players.

 

[PIK95]

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.

This would help.

 

[Grahamburn]

Take Pat Tillman’s path.

Saw a little girl at the fast food joint the other night wearing a Pat Tillman jersey. What a sad story his was. I wondered how on earth she got that shirt and if she could possibly know what it all meant. She couldn't have been more than ten years old, and the shirt fit, so somebody got it for her specifically, it seemed.

Just a really adult topic manifest on a little girl's shirt.

I don’t think he’d agree that his was a sad story. A friendly fire ending not withstanding.

Jon Krakauer’s “Where Men Win Glory” is a nice read if you haven’t already or if anyone else is interested in Pat Tillman.

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

 

[Grahamburn]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

 

[eighsse2]

What is, in fact, the purpose of the franchise tag? Seems like it's to more or less be able to "cheat" a player out of money he could be making. (It's not actually cheating him since that is the way it is set up, but essentially.) I don't see any reason for it to exist.

 

[Chaka]

the JD McKissics of the RB world still get drafted before Patrick Mahomes?

That doesn't really happen now. My cheat sheet for a quasi-standard league has Mahomes and Allen at 23rd and 24th, respectively. 6 point TD passing. Only seven running backs go before them in Draft Dominator.

It's not as extreme as you're making it. Where it does become a problem is when you start getting 2RB or multi-flex leagues where you really need 3 RBs for a title. There aren't enough backs to go around.

But your point is taken. How better to reflect the game should always be a concern for FF players.

I chose McKissic with the premise that the McCaffrey's, Barkley's & Henry's of the future would be playing more lucrative positions leaving the RB position open to the Hubbard's, Gallman's & McKissics of the world.

Do we keep valuing those guys the same way we value today's feature backs? Do QBs still get short shrift against over the lesser quality RBs of the future?

 

[Mitchie]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

 

[Grahamburn]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

You think the NFLPA will go along with only one position type being exempt from franchise tags?

 

[Mitchie]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

You think the NFLPA will go along with only one position type being exempt from franchise tags?

Yes, why do you think they wouldn't? What would be the downside?

 

[Grahamburn]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

You think the NFLPA will go along with only one position type being exempt from franchise tags?

Yes, why do you think they wouldn't? What would be the downside?

Ask Devin White and Nick Bosa. Or any other player heading into their 5th year option that has demanded a trade or is holding out of camp. These guys want extensions with guaranteed money. They will not be ok with one specific position group not being subject to the same rules they are.

 

[pinkstapler]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

You think the NFLPA will go along with only one position type being exempt from franchise tags?

Yes, why do you think they wouldn't? What would be the downside?

I share your sentiments overall, but IMO it will be hard for the NFLPA to do considering they represent all players/positions in the league. While it's impacting RBs the most, I'm pretty sure most players don't like being tagged. It's pretty much universally used as a way to save money/retain a player who you can't agree on contract negotiations with. So when they propose to get rid of it for RBs, you'll likely have the majority of the rest of the league saying "what about us?"

 

[Chaka]

Four year contracts and elimination of the franchise tag would go a long way towards fixing the current system.

The question is what would players have to give up to get those concessions? A lot IMO. Adding an 18th game would almost certainly be part of ownership's ask.

 

[Mitchie]

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.

This would help.

You’d have to eliminate the tags altogether obviously.

Maybe extend the length of rookie deals and add mutual team/player options based on the old franchise tag figures in the 5th-7th years for all players.

ok i'll bite, why?

You think the NFLPA will go along with only one position type being exempt from franchise tags?

Yes, why do you think they wouldn't? What would be the downside?

I share your sentiments overall, but IMO it will be hard for the NFLPA to do considering they represent all players/positions in the league. While it's impacting RBs the most, I'm pretty sure most players don't like being tagged. It's pretty much universally used as a way to save money/retain a player who you can't agree on contract negotiations with. So when they propose to get rid of it for RBs, you'll likely have the majority of the rest of the league saying "what about us?"

that's a good point, may be a way to workaround that since RB position is rather unique but agree not at all straightforward and maybe not viable

 

[Joe Bryant]

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

It's maybe not exactly fair but this is where these discussions almost always wind up for me.

In a zero sum game where the "crime" is a GM or Owner deciding he'll distribute the money to different parts of the team than the star RB would prefer feels pretty minimal when the players are still making millions. And when regular people like teachers and firefighters and nurses are making a fraction of that while they cheer for the millionaires playing the game.

 

[pinkstapler]

Four year contracts and elimination of the franchise tag would go a long way towards fixing the current system.

The question is what would players have to give up to get those concessions? A lot IMO. Adding an 18th game would almost certainly be part of ownership's ask.

I don't mean to make this option sound easy by any means, but every time I read the bolded argument made (as it understandably comes up often in these discussions) I feel like the unsaid answer is "Nothing. We concede nothing and don't return to the field until you meet demands."

They make the point that they have long had one of the worst CBAs in sports, if not broader. The league made $18 billion dollars last year, and they signed a new media deal two years ago that rolls out this year for ~ $110 billion over 11 years, more than double any of their previous contracts. The players have made concessions since the league's inception. All players, not just the superstars, need to be taken care of from the minute they get into the league, until long after they exit the league (talking medical care here). If that means owners and CEOs can't record record breaking profits every single year so be it. When someone like Dan Snyder can spend 20 years running a franchise into the dirt, being about as poor of a business owner as possible, and turn a profit of $5.25 billion, but the average NFL players career is about 3 years and their MEDIAN earning is about $800k (ridiculous QB salaries completely skew average earning numbers to something like $2 million which is not at all representative), something doesn't add up. NFL is the most profitable sports league in the country, where it's players have not only the lowest average/median earnings, but also the shortest careers. I don't think it's a tough argument to make it's also one of the most physically demanding with the most long term negative health repercussions either.

Same breath it will be hard for the majority of the league took look at their 3 year window to earn their $2 million or so and potentially give one of those years up to push change. But if they don't... you're right, they'll likely have to make quite a few concessions to get anything in the new CBA.

 

[pinkstapler]

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

It's maybe not exactly fair but this is where these discussions almost always wind up for me.

In a zero sum game where the "crime" is a GM or Owner deciding he'll distribute the money to different parts of the team than the star RB would prefer feels pretty minimal when the players are still making millions. And when regular people like teachers and firefighters and nurses are making a fraction of that while they cheer for the millionaires playing the game.

Because its faulty logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. What about people who donate money only to the ASPCA? Do we question their morals that they seemingly care more about animals than humans? Why not donate to St. Judes? Are they basically enabling children to die of cancer in favor of saving stray cats? It's a ridiculous argument to make. So is trying to compare a teacher's salary to that of an NFL player. They exist in different realms for very obvious reasons. We can "aw shucks" about how important teaching our youth is, but teachers don't operate as part of collective business that makes a financial profit. NFL players do. And so they are in a position to bargain for part of the earnings that business makes.

It's fine to have feelings about the world we live in and some of the terrible ways it works, as well as try to work to change that. But it has no place in logical discussions of these entirely different realms. Nor does one system have to change in order for the other to benefit. This is a common theme breaking out in politics and social agendas the past few years that is mind boggling to me. People seem to push this idea that anyone who has more than baseline "x" isn't allowed to ever take issue with anything. At all. Ever. Like 1/4 of these board discussions on salaries is filled with "who cares, I don't feel bad for them, they make enough, they play a game for a living, etc. etc. etc." No one is asking you to care. Quite frankly I'd say most of the people trying to carry on a civil logical discussion also don't care about you're feelings about their feelings lol. Feelings inception. They are blatantly obvious interjections which do nothing to further a conversation, and most times work to completely derail it.

edit: hopefully you, Joe, understand my comments are more the "royal you" lol, speaking to board and not you specifically. Appreciate your job as a moderator and contributor to the boards. The former of those things I'd never attempt to claim to have the patience or couth to perform to the ability you and the other mods do.

 

[DocHolliday]

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

It's maybe not exactly fair but this is where these discussions almost always wind up for me.

In a zero sum game where the "crime" is a GM or Owner deciding he'll distribute the money to different parts of the team than the star RB would prefer feels pretty minimal when the players are still making millions. And when regular people like teachers and firefighters and nurses are making a fraction of that while they cheer for the millionaires playing the game.

RBs don’t have the value they once did in today’s pass heavy NFL And their pay reflects that. I don’t know if it’s ”fair” but there are still plenty of athletes fighting for those RB positions in HS, college, and the NFL. The RBs can still make a ton of money to play a game for a living.

To maximize their value, RBs should ensure they excel at pass blocking, running routes out of the backfield and catching passes. The days of one-dimensional RBs are gone for the most part.

 

[Chaka]

Four year contracts and elimination of the franchise tag would go a long way towards fixing the current system.

The question is what would players have to give up to get those concessions? A lot IMO. Adding an 18th game would almost certainly be part of ownership's ask.

I don't mean to make this option sound easy by any means, but every time I read the bolded argument made (as it understandably comes up often in these discussions) I feel like the unsaid answer is "Nothing. We concede nothing and don't return to the field until you meet demands."

They make the point that they have long had one of the worst CBAs in sports, if not broader. The league made $18 billion dollars last year, and they signed a new media deal two years ago that rolls out this year for ~ $110 billion over 11 years, more than double any of their previous contracts. They've made concessions since the league's inception. All players, not just the superstars, need to be taken care of from the minute they get into the league, until long after they exit the league (talking medical care here). If that means owners and CEOs can't record record breaking profits every single year so be it. When someone like Dan Snyder can spend 20 years running a franchise into the dirt, being about as poor of a business owner as possible, and turn a profit of $5.25 billion, but the average NFL players career is about 3 years and their MEDIAN earning is about $800k (ridiculous QB salaries completely skew average earning numbers to something like $2 million which is not at all representative), something doesn't add up. NFL is the most profitable sports league in the country, where it's players have not only the lowest average/median earnings, but also the shortest careers. I don't think it's a tough argument to make it's also one of the most physically demanding with the most long term negative health repercussions either.

Same breath it will be hard for the majority of the league took look at their 3 year window to earn their $2 million or so and potentially give one of those years up to push change. But if they don't... you're right, they'll likely have to make quite a few concessions to get anything in the new CBA.

The problem is how much of a war chest do individual players have to sustain a protracted holdout. The NFL Players would have to follow the model of the 1994 (I think) MLB strike; play 70% of the season and be willing to walk before the start of the playoffs are set (IIRC the Expos got screwed of their best shot at a World Series in 1994). The World Series was cancelled and the strike lasted 7 or 8 months. The important thing is the players had already received 70% of their game checks for the season so they had plenty of cash (relatively) to hold out and most of the strike occurred when they wouldn't really be getting paid, for the most part, anyway. The strike settled somewhere just around the start of spring training.

The NFL Players need to be willing to walk out mid season, after game 12 or so, that's their only real leverage. The players don't have the stomach for a strike that starts after the Super Bowl because by the time TC rolls around and they face the prospect of missing game checks they already haven't received any cash in around 6 months.

 

[pinkstapler]

Four year contracts and elimination of the franchise tag would go a long way towards fixing the current system.

The question is what would players have to give up to get those concessions? A lot IMO. Adding an 18th game would almost certainly be part of ownership's ask.

I don't mean to make this option sound easy by any means, but every time I read the bolded argument made (as it understandably comes up often in these discussions) I feel like the unsaid answer is "Nothing. We concede nothing and don't return to the field until you meet demands."

They make the point that they have long had one of the worst CBAs in sports, if not broader. The league made $18 billion dollars last year, and they signed a new media deal two years ago that rolls out this year for ~ $110 billion over 11 years, more than double any of their previous contracts. They've made concessions since the league's inception. All players, not just the superstars, need to be taken care of from the minute they get into the league, until long after they exit the league (talking medical care here). If that means owners and CEOs can't record record breaking profits every single year so be it. When someone like Dan Snyder can spend 20 years running a franchise into the dirt, being about as poor of a business owner as possible, and turn a profit of $5.25 billion, but the average NFL players career is about 3 years and their MEDIAN earning is about $800k (ridiculous QB salaries completely skew average earning numbers to something like $2 million which is not at all representative), something doesn't add up. NFL is the most profitable sports league in the country, where it's players have not only the lowest average/median earnings, but also the shortest careers. I don't think it's a tough argument to make it's also one of the most physically demanding with the most long term negative health repercussions either.

Same breath it will be hard for the majority of the league took look at their 3 year window to earn their $2 million or so and potentially give one of those years up to push change. But if they don't... you're right, they'll likely have to make quite a few concessions to get anything in the new CBA.

The problem is how much of a war chest do individual players have to sustain a protracted holdout. The NFL Players would have to follow the model of the 1994 (I think) MLB strike; play 70% of the season and be willing to walk before the start of the playoffs are set (IIRC the Expos got screwed of their best shot at a World Series in 1994). The World Series was cancelled and the strike lasted 7 or 8 months. The important thing is the players had already received 70% of their game checks for the season so they had plenty of cash (relatively) to hold out and most of the strike occurred when they wouldn't really be getting paid, for the most part, anyway. The strike settled somewhere just around the start of spring training.

The NFL Players need to be willing to walk out mid season, after game 12 or so, that's their only real leverage. The players don't have the stomach for a strike that starts after the Super Bowl because by the time TC rolls around and they face the prospect of missing game checks they already haven't received any cash in around 6 months.

Good points. I was never much of a baseball fan so tbh, I've never really dove deep on sports strike implications. Probably the only thing I've followed remotely close to this would be the LIV/PGA stuff. Well, unless something drastic happens, they have 7 years to get their act together and come up with a game plan. Hopefully this RB stuff is the impetus for all the players to get together and start coming up with what they really need in the new CBA in 2030. I don't know much about the new exec. director Howell, but I know the NFLPA has done them no favors in past negotiations.

 

[renesauz]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Disagree with this. It is every bit American. Problem is you INSIST on seeing the NFL as 32 different companies colluding...and it isn't. It's every bit as fair to consider it as one big company with 32 branch offices.

Obviously neither description is completely accurate, and any reasonable discussion about the issue must necessarily acknowledge that. Pro sports leagues are absolutely unique among business models.

That said, there is clearly an issue with RB pay. The failure is in the CBA

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Disagree with this. It is every bit American. Problem is you INSIST on seeing the NFL as 32 different companies colluding...and it isn't. It's every bit as fair to consider it as one big company with 32 branch offices.

Obviously neither description is completely accurate, and any reasonable discussion about the issue must necessarily acknowledge that. Pro sports leagues are absolutely unique among business models.

That said, there is clearly an issue with RB pay. The failure is in the CBA

Legally, according to the Federal government the NFL is 32 individual companies that are part of a trade association. By the standard of "Did anyone see Jerry Jones tell Mike Brown not give his players cherry lime rickey flavored Gatorade?" collusion can, and will never be proven. But collusion absolutely occurs under this business format.

@rockaction was correct that a union negotiating against a corporation or trade association is deeply American at it's core. That type of negotiation is how we got the 40 hour work week, paid lunch breaks, holidays, ended child labor etc. But the Warner Act was enacted, like 100 years ago and has been systematically neutered over the ensuing decades, very notably by upholding right-to-work laws. I am not certain but I believe, somehow, the NFL & NFLPA seems to be exempted from those right-to-work laws. It would be nice if someone who knows more than I do (i.e. anyone) could expand on the details of how union membership dues are mandatory in the NFLPA and the league seems to support it. Unions have lost a ton of their negotiating power over the last 100 years.

But, even if the NFL and NFLPA agree to the standard, the very idea of the NFL draft is deeply un-American. What is American about being forced to work for a specific employer at a rate that cannot be renegotiated for up to six years?

 

[TripleThreat]

ETN had it right IMO... for me it comes down to a baseball statistic. WAR or RAR. Wins or Runs above replacement...

 

[Joe Bryant]

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

It's maybe not exactly fair but this is where these discussions almost always wind up for me.

In a zero sum game where the "crime" is a GM or Owner deciding he'll distribute the money to different parts of the team than the star RB would prefer feels pretty minimal when the players are still making millions. And when regular people like teachers and firefighters and nurses are making a fraction of that while they cheer for the millionaires playing the game.

Because its faulty logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. What about people who donate money only to the ASPCA? Do we question their morals that they seemingly care more about animals than humans? Why not donate to St. Judes? Are they basically enabling children to die of cancer in favor of saving stray cats? It's a ridiculous argument to make. So is trying to compare a teacher's salary to that of an NFL player. They exist in different realms for very obvious reasons. We can "aw shucks" about how important teaching our youth is, but teachers don't operate as part of collective business that makes a financial profit. NFL players do. And so they are in a position to bargain for part of the earnings that business makes.

It's fine to have feelings about the world we live in and some of the terrible ways it works, as well as try to work to change that. But it has no place in logical discussions of these entirely different realms. Nor does one system have to change in order for the other to benefit. This is a common theme breaking out in politics and social agendas the past few years that is mind boggling to me. People seem to push this idea that anyone who has more than baseline "x" isn't allowed to ever take issue with anything. At all. Ever. Like 1/4 of these board discussions on salaries is filled with "who cares, I don't feel bad for them, they make enough, they play a game for a living, etc. etc. etc." No one is asking you to care. Quite frankly I'd say most of the people trying to carry on a civil logical discussion also don't care about you're feelings about their feelings lol. Feelings inception. They are blatantly obvious interjections which do nothing to further a conversation, and most times work to completely derail it.

edit: hopefully you, Joe, understand my comments are more the "royal you" lol, speaking to board and not you specifically. Appreciate your job as a moderator and contributor to the boards. The former of those things I'd never attempt to claim to have the patience or couth to perform to the ability you and the other mods do.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm saying it seems to me there isn't a lot of sympathy for running backs when in a salary cap system, the GM or owner decides to allocate money to other positions. It's not "unfair" they might want to spend more on a left tackle or edge rusher. It just is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe it might help to back up to the beginning and the original question.

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

 

[pinkstapler]

Talk about guys that are underpaid.

It's maybe not exactly fair but this is where these discussions almost always wind up for me.

In a zero sum game where the "crime" is a GM or Owner deciding he'll distribute the money to different parts of the team than the star RB would prefer feels pretty minimal when the players are still making millions. And when regular people like teachers and firefighters and nurses are making a fraction of that while they cheer for the millionaires playing the game.

Because its faulty logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. What about people who donate money only to the ASPCA? Do we question their morals that they seemingly care more about animals than humans? Why not donate to St. Judes? Are they basically enabling children to die of cancer in favor of saving stray cats? It's a ridiculous argument to make. So is trying to compare a teacher's salary to that of an NFL player. They exist in different realms for very obvious reasons. We can "aw shucks" about how important teaching our youth is, but teachers don't operate as part of collective business that makes a financial profit. NFL players do. And so they are in a position to bargain for part of the earnings that business makes.

It's fine to have feelings about the world we live in and some of the terrible ways it works, as well as try to work to change that. But it has no place in logical discussions of these entirely different realms. Nor does one system have to change in order for the other to benefit. This is a common theme breaking out in politics and social agendas the past few years that is mind boggling to me. People seem to push this idea that anyone who has more than baseline "x" isn't allowed to ever take issue with anything. At all. Ever. Like 1/4 of these board discussions on salaries is filled with "who cares, I don't feel bad for them, they make enough, they play a game for a living, etc. etc. etc." No one is asking you to care. Quite frankly I'd say most of the people trying to carry on a civil logical discussion also don't care about you're feelings about their feelings lol. Feelings inception. They are blatantly obvious interjections which do nothing to further a conversation, and most times work to completely derail it.

edit: hopefully you, Joe, understand my comments are more the "royal you" lol, speaking to board and not you specifically. Appreciate your job as a moderator and contributor to the boards. The former of those things I'd never attempt to claim to have the patience or couth to perform to the ability you and the other mods do.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm saying it seems to me there isn't a lot of sympathy for running backs when in a salary cap system, the GM or owner decides to allocate money to other positions. It's not "unfair" they might want to spend more on a left tackle or edge rusher. It just is.

I do see that people are conflating two separate issues that somewhat overlap. Probably the simplest way to put what I think most people are expressing is: yes, sure, the RB market is fair based on the current system. Meanwhile, the current system isn't fair/is broken and is one of the major causes of current state of the RB market. Because, as most things in life, it's not as simple as most people are projecting it to be. And there have been a lot of very good points made pointing out why that is, specifically to RBs.

But I also still do not see how any of this is relevant to military/teacher/firefighter salaries. Nor do I see how a thread titled "How does the RB pay scale problem get solved" is contributed to by people who just say some derivation of "who cares/they play a game for a living/they make millions already/choose another career". None of those comments are constructive, let alone on topic. They are just interjections of feelings, not whatsoever germane to the thread. Nor by people putting up strawmen as though anyone pointing out some of the broken parts of the current system is crying "oh the humanity!! Won't someone please thing of the RBs!!" and trying to get petitions signed or donations for a go-fund-me. It would be like going to a thread about how to get cheaper/better car insurance and clogging it up with posts about how the whole thing is a scam. You pay more than you use/you need to use it and they just raise your rates to recoup their losses/you're subsidizing the uninsured. Those comments may be valid on their own, but it's completely derailing and off topic of the OP and the discussion trying to take place.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Four year contracts and elimination of the franchise tag would go a long way towards fixing the current system.

The question is what would players have to give up to get those concessions? A lot IMO. Adding an 18th game would almost certainly be part of ownership's ask.

I don't mean to make this option sound easy by any means, but every time I read the bolded argument made (as it understandably comes up often in these discussions) I feel like the unsaid answer is "Nothing. We concede nothing and don't return to the field until you meet demands."

They make the point that they have long had one of the worst CBAs in sports, if not broader. The league made $18 billion dollars last year, and they signed a new media deal two years ago that rolls out this year for ~ $110 billion over 11 years, more than double any of their previous contracts. They've made concessions since the league's inception. All players, not just the superstars, need to be taken care of from the minute they get into the league, until long after they exit the league (talking medical care here). If that means owners and CEOs can't record record breaking profits every single year so be it. When someone like Dan Snyder can spend 20 years running a franchise into the dirt, being about as poor of a business owner as possible, and turn a profit of $5.25 billion, but the average NFL players career is about 3 years and their MEDIAN earning is about $800k (ridiculous QB salaries completely skew average earning numbers to something like $2 million which is not at all representative), something doesn't add up. NFL is the most profitable sports league in the country, where it's players have not only the lowest average/median earnings, but also the shortest careers. I don't think it's a tough argument to make it's also one of the most physically demanding with the most long term negative health repercussions either.

Same breath it will be hard for the majority of the league took look at their 3 year window to earn their $2 million or so and potentially give one of those years up to push change. But if they don't... you're right, they'll likely have to make quite a few concessions to get anything in the new CBA.

The problem is how much of a war chest do individual players have to sustain a protracted holdout. The NFL Players would have to follow the model of the 1994 (I think) MLB strike; play 70% of the season and be willing to walk before the start of the playoffs are set (IIRC the Expos got screwed of their best shot at a World Series in 1994). The World Series was cancelled and the strike lasted 7 or 8 months. The important thing is the players had already received 70% of their game checks for the season so they had plenty of cash (relatively) to hold out and most of the strike occurred when they wouldn't really be getting paid, for the most part, anyway. The strike settled somewhere just around the start of spring training.

The NFL Players need to be willing to walk out mid season, after game 12 or so, that's their only real leverage. The players don't have the stomach for a strike that starts after the Super Bowl because by the time TC rolls around and they face the prospect of missing game checks they already haven't received any cash in around 6 months.

The NFL would use replacement players and make even more money

 

[pinkstapler]

Maybe it might help to back up to the beginning and the original question.

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

Ironically enough, that seems to be part of the problem lol. After all the discourse I'd say it seems to once again be a CBA/systemic issue. And while RBs are currently impacted the most by it, it should probably get solved for everyone. The franchise tag seems to be one of the major culprits. It feels to have almost 0 benefit for the players themselves, though I could definitely be overlooking something. In a system that seems to greatly tilt favor towards the owners and away from the players, especially when compared to other sports leagues, I'd say things like the franchise tag, which feels like a primarily owner benefit, should be reworked or gotten rid of.

A second one; I understand some of the reasoning behind rookie pay scales, but as I've said in other threads, after seeing it in action the way it's currently implemented, it also works against the players. Not only the rookies, but the non-super star vets as well. (and again, we are seeing RBs probably getting it the worst, but it is all players really). Some tweaking there, along with shortening the length of rookie contracts/giving them more of an option on rookie contract length, would probably go a long way to solving some of these issues.

 

[Chaka]

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

RBs give their most on field value when they are forbidden from being compensated relative to their contributions.

People, IMO, mistakenly see RBs as less valuable because veteran RB salaries appear to be on the decline. If RBs were able to negotiate contracts before years 1, 2, 3 or 4 of their careers their monetary value would likely track closer to norms at other positions. If RBs were truly less valuable they would not get drafted at #6 & #12 overall. Gibbs and Bijan are essentially forbidden from financially realizing their real world contributions until the point when there has to be legitimate concerns as to whether they will be able to continue delivering at the same level.

That's a flaw in the current system that the owners are, rightly, exploiting.

 

[Grahamburn]

Maybe it might help to back up to the beginning and the original question.

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

Ironically enough, that seems to be part of the problem lol. After all the discourse I'd say it seems to once again be a CBA/systemic issue. And while RBs are currently impacted the most by it, it should probably get solved for everyone. The franchise tag seems to be one of the major culprits. It feels to have almost 0 benefit for the players themselves, though I could definitely be overlooking something. In a system that seems to greatly tilt favor towards the owners and away from the players, especially when compared to other sports leagues, I'd say things like the franchise tag, which feels like a primarily owner benefit, should be reworked or gotten rid of.

A second one; I understand some of the reasoning behind rookie pay scales, but as I've said in other threads, after seeing it in action the way it's currently implemented, it also works against the players. Not only the rookies, but the non-super star vets as well. (and again, we are seeing RBs probably getting it the worst, but it is all players really). Some tweaking there, along with shortening the length of rookie contracts/giving them more of an option on rookie contract length, would probably go a long way to solving some of these issues.

It works against the players that are productive and out-perform their rookie contracts. What about the ones who flame out quickly or get injured and never really see the field or produce? The owners can't ask for their money back.

 

[Grahamburn]

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

RBs give their most on field value when they are forbidden from being compensated relative to their contributions.

People, IMO, mistakenly see RBs as less valuable because veteran RB salaries appear to be on the decline. If RBs were able to negotiate contracts before years 1, 2, 3 or 4 of their careers their monetary value would likely track closer to norms at other positions. If RBs were truly less valuable they would not get drafted at #6 & #12 overall. Gibbs and Bijan are essentially forbidden from financially realizing their real world contributions until the point when there has to be legitimate concerns as to whether they will be able to continue delivering at the same level.

That's a flaw in the current system that the owners are, rightly, exploiting.

Isn't that true for every position though? Wouldn't any player who outperforms their monetary value be in line for a raise? The rookie wage scale isn't determined by position.

Can I ask Trent Richardson to take a pay cut if he doesn't live up to being the 3rd overall pick? Can I get back his $20M+ guaranteed when he can only average 3.3 ypc? It goes both ways.

They're definitely exploiting it, but it isn't only the RBs who are being "exploited." Gibbs or Bijan could just as easily flop as they could be "exploited" into an $11M franchise tag in their 6th year.

 

[pinkstapler]

Maybe it might help to back up to the beginning and the original question.

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

Ironically enough, that seems to be part of the problem lol. After all the discourse I'd say it seems to once again be a CBA/systemic issue. And while RBs are currently impacted the most by it, it should probably get solved for everyone. The franchise tag seems to be one of the major culprits. It feels to have almost 0 benefit for the players themselves, though I could definitely be overlooking something. In a system that seems to greatly tilt favor towards the owners and away from the players, especially when compared to other sports leagues, I'd say things like the franchise tag, which feels like a primarily owner benefit, should be reworked or gotten rid of.

A second one; I understand some of the reasoning behind rookie pay scales, but as I've said in other threads, after seeing it in action the way it's currently implemented, it also works against the players. Not only the rookies, but the non-super star vets as well. (and again, we are seeing RBs probably getting it the worst, but it is all players really). Some tweaking there, along with shortening the length of rookie contracts/giving them more of an option on rookie contract length, would probably go a long way to solving some of these issues.

It works against the players that are productive and out-perform their rookie contracts. What about the ones who flame out quickly or get injured and never really see the field or produce? The owners can't ask for their money back.

I'm assuming your question is based on the rookie pay scale portion of my post. I'd say they get cut. I believe only the top 24 picks are fully guaranteed. Everyone else plays for their supper currently. Even players who wind up signing to high rookie contracts can be cut for next to nothing at any time (I believe less than half of the rookie minimum was what was negotiated).

And again, that's only half of the issue as I see it. Because now we see that having rookies playing for next to nothing makes it all the easier to cut a vet player who probably carries a lot more intangible value to a team that most wouldn't mind paying a small difference for, but the cost difference now makes it prohibitive. So really, it hurts almost all players.