If the draft were abolished, how would it affect your love of the NFL? (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

Again, I get your position. It's just that I see the other side as well. There ARE other football leagues to play for, and there are a TON of other employment options for highly skilled athletes. You can still exercise your open market options, you just can't do it within one particular league.

I think this idea is preposterous. There's only one league in the world where elite american football players perform. In order for an highly skilled athlete to be an nba or Mlb or other major sports league player, they would have had to have been focusing on those sports in high school and college, and achieved those skill sets. They are not world class basketball players, they are world class football players. And this isn't soccer, where there are many top level leagues a player can play at. There is only one league for an elite football player. The CFL and the arena league are not competing with the nfl for talent, or fan attention.Really, there is only one other football league that competes with the NFL for fan attention and revenues, and employs elite level football players. And if you think my views on the NFL are radical, you should hear how exploitative and unfair I think the NCAA is.

I was not suggesting other sports, just other leagues. The CFL DOES compete for talent. They just lose badly. There have been cases where fringe guys didn't like the deals they were getting in the NFL and chose to go the the CFL to play. And there are lots of coaching jobs at all levels. Then there is scouting etc.The point is that it just isn't true that the only place to ply your trade as a football player is the NFL. If nothing else, there is NOTHING stopping these guys from getting together and forming their own new league to play in. Nothing says they have to play by NFL rules. They just need to convince enough of their fellow elite players that the they are getting screwed and then do what it takes to put together and sell their product. They would very likely fail miserably, but it is an option in theory. The players make the league after all (according to most). The primary reason they DON'T do this, is that the NFL has been REMARKABLY successful at making both the owners and the players a ton of money. One of the ways they've done that is by having a draft.

 

[RobertBobson]

I wonder how the NFL's partners like ESPN...or even just the NFL Network...would feel about not having a draft. ESPN makes a ton of money and fills a lot of programming space with coverage of the actual draft, the buildup, the reaction, etc.

ESPN would lose millions. The draft is one of their highest rated shows of the year.

 

[renesauz]

The primary point is that the LEAGUE is an entity in and of itself. The teams are individual businesses, but they are also part of a larger organization. When discussing employer/employee relationships with the players, you need to look at the league both ways.

Either way you look at it, i don't see how its fair to a worker to have artificially lower salaries and restriction of employment to one city for 6-7 years. If the league is one entity, that this worker unfairness is a product of their monopoly on the market.

Your POV is well-conceived, but in some ways almosy irrelevant. I say that because if you truly felt that way, then you would NOT be an NFL fan. If that were the case, you wouldn't be here arguing about the system.Most of us are not such fans of the "free market system" that we believe it should rule in all things everywhere. Remember, if that system truly ruled, then Unions would ALSO be illegal. I can only conclude that you aren't so much an advocate of a free market system as you are entrenched in an anti-big business, pro-labor at all costs mentality.

 

[CharrdWood]

I always find it funny, how the last bastions of communism in this country are found in the heart of sports fans. Guys who are so conservative about all other aspects of their life, about economics, politics... the idea of players actually being able ply their wares on a labor free market sends them into a tailspin. Teams should have salary caps, teams should be equal.. in no other place in our culture and or economy is there such rampant and wide spread defense of this sort of thing.Imagine what it would be like if you came out of college, with an economics degree. You were at the top of your class, and you are a highly prized college graduate. Instead of getting to chose what bank or consulting firm you got hired it, letting them bid against each other, getting your true worth at one of the premier institutions in the country, you got drafted by a small brokerage firm in toledo, who got to draft you because their business was so poorly mismanaged that they finished at the bottom of the pile. So you have to move to some terrible city, working for a terrible organization, with a salary that is artificially low and the best part is, you can't get a new job and move to someplace good with a good firm for... 6 years. In what world is that fair? Yes, yes, I know. Players get paid a lot of money. So do owners. Players get paid a lot of money, because their business generates a lot of revenue. Yes, Yes, I know, players don't HAVE to play in the NFL, they can play for the CFL if they don't like the way the NFL operates. That doesn't make the way the NFL operates fair. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the draft, I think it's fun. But, philosophically, I think the draft is fundamentally unamerican and unfair.

You know what? As a rock-ribbed Republican I agree entirely with your position.However...as a sports fan I think you're seriously discounting the emotional investment of a fan versus the financial investment of anyone else. It can't really be quantified, and I think sports fans want to believe that there's a level playing field.Sports is NOT just business, bro. There are sportsFANS.

 

[renesauz]

What I don't understand is why the public is interested in keeping player salaries artificially low. I don't see how the elimination of the draft, and allowing players to have free agency, straight out of college, would destroy the league and cause 3 or 4 teams to dominate. NFL teams would still share Television revenues. I don't see how the draft, specifically, is for the benefit of the public good, other than it makes a nice television event every year. I think it would be tough to use "entertainment value" as a defensive in a court of law.

NOBODY is arguing to keep salaries artificially low. WE're arguing for a system that promotes parity in the league. I would contend that when player costs easily exceed 50% of revenue, it's very disengenuous to then state that salaries are artificially depressed, at least by any significant amount.Leagues which operate as you suggest do exist in this world...many European soccer leagues work like this. And in those leagues, the same 3 or 4 teams dominate year in and year out. Baseball has some aspects of what you suggest, but they retain a draft, and some limited revenue sharing. But most people see the grossly unequal payrolls and see a league lacking parity (real or illusioned...not the argument here, and in the NFL, payroll disparity would be a much greater factor since there are no developmental leagues).I'm 100% for keeping player salaries reasonably high. I'm NOT for teams having grossly differant player payrolls. That means a cap AND revenue sharing. Use both, and player salaries are NOT "artifically depressed".

 

[RobertBobson]

I was not suggesting other sports, just other leagues. The CFL DOES compete for talent. They just lose badly. There have been cases where fringe guys didn't like the deals they were getting in the NFL and chose to go the the CFL to play. And there are lots of coaching jobs at all levels. Then there is scouting etc.The point is that it just isn't true that the only place to ply your trade as a football player is the NFL. If nothing else, there is NOTHING stopping these guys from getting together and forming their own new league to play in. Nothing says they have to play by NFL rules. They just need to convince enough of their fellow elite players that the they are getting screwed and then do what it takes to put together and sell their product. They would very likely fail miserably, but it is an option in theory.

Another option would be to allow players to allow the market to determine their salary, and not have them artificially capped by collusion by the nfl.

The primary reason they DON'T do this, is that the NFL has been REMARKABLY successful at making both the owners and the players a ton of money. One of the ways they've done that is by having a draft.

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

 

[RobertBobson]

Your POV is well-conceived, but in some ways almosy irrelevant. I say that because if you truly felt that way, then you would NOT be an NFL fan. If that were the case, you wouldn't be here arguing about the system.

I have had just about ### #### enough of you repeatedly questioning if I am an NFL football fan or not. Because I don't blindly approve of all the NFL's business practices, does not mean I am not a fan of the sport.

Most of us are not such fans of the "free market system" that we believe it should rule in all things everywhere. Remember, if that system truly ruled, then Unions would ALSO be illegal. I can only conclude that you aren't so much an advocate of a free market system as you are entrenched in an anti-big business, pro-labor at all costs mentality.

When it comes to the NFL, I am most definitely pro labor. It is the players and teams that I root for, not the owners.

 

[renesauz]

I was not suggesting other sports, just other leagues. The CFL DOES compete for talent. They just lose badly. There have been cases where fringe guys didn't like the deals they were getting in the NFL and chose to go the the CFL to play. And there are lots of coaching jobs at all levels. Then there is scouting etc.The point is that it just isn't true that the only place to ply your trade as a football player is the NFL. If nothing else, there is NOTHING stopping these guys from getting together and forming their own new league to play in. Nothing says they have to play by NFL rules. They just need to convince enough of their fellow elite players that the they are getting screwed and then do what it takes to put together and sell their product. They would very likely fail miserably, but it is an option in theory.

Another option would be to allow players to allow the market to determine their salary, and not have them artificially capped by collusion by the nfl.

The primary reason they DON'T do this, is that the NFL has been REMARKABLY successful at making both the owners and the players a ton of money. One of the ways they've done that is by having a draft.

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

Sounds like a good argument for an auction style draft with no rookie salary cap. It doesn't supercede the benefits of a hard cap (parity) provided that cap remains a substantial, negotiated % of revenues.

 

[renesauz]

I have had just about ### #### enough of you repeatedly questioning if I am an NFL football fan or not. Because I don't blindly approve of all the NFL's business practices, does not mean I am not a fan of the sport.

I'm saying what I am because you have taken a VERY STRONG stand against virtually every practice the NFL has...many of which even those most strongly in the "pro-player" camp concede have made the NFL the success it is. Because the overwhelming majority of fans do NOT want a free for all style of labor, where there's no draft, no cap, no parity. Because your love of the "free market system" is very clearly more dear to you than the parity and success the NFL has enjoyed.

Perhaps my statements about whether or not you're a fan are overboard...apologies for offending with them.

 

[renesauz]

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

This is probably true in a short-term sense, but not in a long term sense. As long as player salaries are tied to revenues, and the draft helps drive those revenues upwards, the players benefit also. WHile it's true that some players may not reach the full potential salary possible without a cap in any given year, it's HIGHLY doubtful that the NFL would have ever reached the levels of success it had without years of a cap and draft promoting parity. IE: Longer-term, player salaries would be MORE depressed by a lack of parity (resulting in lack of fan interest). Manning might make 40 or 50 million without a cap if it were removed today, but if there was no cap and no draft since 1990, I doubt he'd be approaching the 20 million or so he gets now.The players most definately benefit from a cap (as well as the minimum salaries it also offers!)

 

[RobertBobson]

NOBODY is arguing to keep salaries artificially low. WE're arguing for a system that promotes parity in the league. I would contend that when player costs easily exceed 50% of revenue, it's very disengenuous to then state that salaries are artificially depressed, at least by any significant amount.

False. Because players make a lot of money, doesn't mean they are making what they should. They should make what owners are willing to pay.

Leagues which operate as you suggest do exist in this world...many European soccer leagues work like this. And in those leagues, the same 3 or 4 teams dominate year in and year out.

The champion's league is one of the most compelling sporting leagues in the world.

Baseball has some aspects of what you suggest, but they retain a draft, and some limited revenue sharing. But most people see the grossly unequal payrolls and see a league lacking parity (real or illusioned...not the argument here, and in the NFL, payroll disparity would be a much greater factor since there are no developmental leagues).

Well, due to the nature of revenue generation by the NFL, there would not be as big of gap between NFL teams and baseball teams. Most baseball revenue is generated by local attendance and local TV/radio contracts. So teams like the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, that have major local TV contracts make more than small market teams. In the NFL, most of the revenue is generated by the massive national television contracts. So if you removed the salary cap, the teams would all roughly make the same amount of money, and have the same amount to spend. There would be a view that would charge a little more for tickets, or have a little better radio contract, but for the most part revenues would be roughtly the same, certainly not have the disparity that there is in the NFL.And for the record, I don't think MLB should have a draft, and I think large market teams should be allowed to spend as much as they want on the team. They make more money because they are more popular, have more fans.

I'm 100% for keeping player salaries reasonably high. I'm NOT for teams having grossly differant player payrolls. That means a cap AND revenue sharing. Use both, and player salaries are NOT "artifically depressed".

If there is a cap, they are artificially low. If the revenue sharing is 50 percent (or 35% as I see the owners want it for the next cba), but without a cap the owners would be willing to spend 80 percent of revenue on player salaries, players salaries are kept artificially low to maximize owner profits, and to save owners from themselves. But, even if you have a cap, even if you have revenue sharing, none of that means you have to have a draft. There is no reason that players shouldn't be able to negotiate where they should play out of college. You can still have players be free agents out of college, and have a cap.

 

[az_prof]

Hypothetically if the draft was gone, it could kill my love for the game as an actual fan, and I may just go purely NCAA football.

Yea, because that NCAA draft of college players is so awesome right?

Good comment and points out how silly this is.Bottom line is that you don't know what process would replace it. It might be more interesting. An auction would be really cool to watch I think and would add much more strategy. Instead of doing mock drafts we will do mock auctions. Instead of the talking heads talking who is going in the first round, they will be talking about how much money a player may go for and which team is willing and able to really go after his services.

 

[CharrdWood]

The champion's league is one of the most compelling sporting leagues in the world.

No, it really isn't. Follow European Football for a season or two and you'll realize that it's mostly turgid these days. And, seriously, they (especially the Premier League) should adopt many of the financial insurances in place before we start to look to them.

 

[RobertBobson]

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

This is probably true in a short-term sense, but not in a long term sense. As long as player salaries are tied to revenues, and the draft helps drive those revenues upwards, the players benefit also. WHile it's true that some players may not reach the full potential salary possible without a cap in any given year, it's HIGHLY doubtful that the NFL would have ever reached the levels of success it had without years of a cap and draft promoting parity. IE: Longer-term, player salaries would be MORE depressed by a lack of parity (resulting in lack of fan interest). Manning might make 40 or 50 million without a cap if it were removed today, but if there was no cap and no draft since 1990, I doubt he'd be approaching the 20 million or so he gets now.The players most definately benefit from a cap (as well as the minimum salaries it also offers!)

I don't think that's true. Not with the way Profits are generated in the NFL. Very few NFL teams fail to sellout. Again,the national TV revenues are the bulk of a team's profits. So, there would only like TV revenues, and perhaps teams like Dallas that have bigger stadiums and can charge more money, that would have a little more money to spend, but not to the point where I think it would leave teams like Carolina at a huge competitive disadvantage. I don't think there would be any yankees if you removed the cap. You might have some teams spending too much money, more than revenues. But that is a business decision each owner has to make and live with. I think the salary cap exists to save owners from them selves, and ensure profits, because I think so many owners aren't competent business people. Many teams are family businesses that have been handed down from father to child, and don't have any experience owning a real business that can actually fail.

But, even if you wanted a cap, to promote parity, to save owners from themselves, and to prevent teams like the cowboys or owners like Synder from throwing money at players, I don't see how a draft would hurt parody. If there was a salary cap, every team would have to manage their money like every other team, and would have the same chance to bid on players. In fact, I think you could argue that bad team could get rid of their dead wood, clear up a bunch of cap space, and rebuild much faster than they could in the draft. You say there is parody, and there is to a point in the NFL, but there are still incompetent franchises, that draft the wrong players and pay too much for the wrong veteran players. No draft would just mean the incompetent franchises would pay too much for the wrong young players.

 

[RobertBobson]

No, it really isn't. Follow European Football for a season or two and you'll realize that it's mostly turgid these days. And, seriously, they (especially the Premier League) should adopt many of the financial insurances in place before we start to look to them.

I do, and I disagree. I actually think the top european teams should leave their national leagues, and forum a super-european league. It would be so much more compelling if you had Barce-Arsenal, Ajax-Porto, Liverpool-inter... every week.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

 

[Go deep]

Absolutely. One of the things the NFL has going for it is parity. Sure, there are organization (e.g., NE, PIT, PHI) that seem to win more in the modern era than not, and those on the other end of things too, but so many factors are held constant. Imagine if all the things that alter the course now, such as ownership commitment, infrastructure, scouting budget/process, coaching hiring/budget/process were then thrown into a mix that now included: widely different team payrolls, open bidding on all incoming athletes, no protection of existing free agents, different agreements for licensing, merchandising, ancillary media revenues, etc...

It would become a case of the haves and have nots. The teams with the most money would, almost assuredly, always be competitive if not dominant.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Absolutely. One of the things the NFL has going for it is parity. Sure, there are organization (e.g., NE, PIT, PHI) that seem to win more in the modern era than not, and those on the other end of things too, but so many factors are held constant. Imagine if all the things that alter the course now, such as ownership commitment, infrastructure, scouting budget/process, coaching hiring/budget/process were then thrown into a mix that now included: widely different team payrolls, open bidding on all incoming athletes, no protection of existing free agents, different agreements for licensing, merchandising, ancillary media revenues, etc...

It would become a case of the haves and have nots. The teams with the most money would, almost assuredly, always be competitive if not dominant.

To be fair, he did say it would become a case of the haves and the have-nots. He just mentioned both sides in his examples.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

No, it really isn't. Follow European Football for a season or two and you'll realize that it's mostly turgid these days. And, seriously, they (especially the Premier League) should adopt many of the financial insurances in place before we start to look to them.

I do, and I disagree. I actually think the top european teams should leave their national leagues, and forum a super-european league. It would be so much more compelling if you had Barce-Arsenal, Ajax-Porto, Liverpool-inter... every week.

El Clasico four times in three weeks!

 

[Donsmith753]

Premier League champions

Season Champions

1992–93 Manchester United

1993–94 Manchester United

1994–95 Blackburn Rovers

1995–96 Manchester United

1996–97 Manchester United

1997–98 Arsenal

1998–99 Manchester United

1999–2000 Manchester United

2000–01 Manchester United

2001–02 Arsenal

2002–03 Manchester United

2003–04 Arsenal

2004–05 Chelsea

2005–06 Chelsea

2006–07 Manchester United

2007–08 Manchester United

2008–09 Manchester United

2009–10 Chelsea

Please keep the draft.

 

[roadkill1292]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I've been waiting for you to show up on the side of right.Bob Bobson, who is growing on me (and where's HE been, too?), makes a good point about an auction being better for parity than the draft is. Assuming no movement in draft position, the Panthers wind up with one more player selected than the Packers (and a costly one at that). As Bobson noted, in an auction they could clear cap and maybe buy three of the top 25 rookies. Do that for a couple of years and they're right back in the hunt. This assumes a cap, of course, which I believe is in the players' best interest to retain.

 

[renesauz]

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

This is probably true in a short-term sense, but not in a long term sense. As long as player salaries are tied to revenues, and the draft helps drive those revenues upwards, the players benefit also. WHile it's true that some players may not reach the full potential salary possible without a cap in any given year, it's HIGHLY doubtful that the NFL would have ever reached the levels of success it had without years of a cap and draft promoting parity. IE: Longer-term, player salaries would be MORE depressed by a lack of parity (resulting in lack of fan interest). Manning might make 40 or 50 million without a cap if it were removed today, but if there was no cap and no draft since 1990, I doubt he'd be approaching the 20 million or so he gets now.The players most definately benefit from a cap (as well as the minimum salaries it also offers!)

I don't think that's true. Not with the way Profits are generated in the NFL. Very few NFL teams fail to sellout. Again,the national TV revenues are the bulk of a team's profits. So, there would only like TV revenues, and perhaps teams like Dallas that have bigger stadiums and can charge more money, that would have a little more money to spend, but not to the point where I think it would leave teams like Carolina at a huge competitive disadvantage. I don't think there would be any yankees if you removed the cap. You might have some teams spending too much money, more than revenues. But that is a business decision each owner has to make and live with. I think the salary cap exists to save owners from them selves, and ensure profits, because I think so many owners aren't competent business people. Many teams are family businesses that have been handed down from father to child, and don't have any experience owning a real business that can actually fail.

But, even if you wanted a cap, to promote parity, to save owners from themselves, and to prevent teams like the cowboys or owners like Synder from throwing money at players, I don't see how a draft would hurt parody. If there was a salary cap, every team would have to manage their money like every other team, and would have the same chance to bid on players. In fact, I think you could argue that bad team could get rid of their dead wood, clear up a bunch of cap space, and rebuild much faster than they could in the draft. You say there is parody, and there is to a point in the NFL, but there are still incompetent franchises, that draft the wrong players and pay too much for the wrong veteran players. No draft would just mean the incompetent franchises would pay too much for the wrong young players.

Look at MLB for a second. MLB RULED the sports world just 25 years ago. But it has no cap (sorry...the silly luxury tax thing has proven itself woefully inadequate). Now, it's popularity is so low that a WS game can't match up to a late season non-division Sunday afternoon game between two losing NFL teams. MLB payrolls are, on average, significantly lower than NFL teams. Obviously this is due to revenues, but revenues (TV RATINGS) are generated based on popularity. The key to the NFL's meteoric rise in popularity is parity. Thus, the key to maintaining player payrolls high (on aggregate) is PARITY. The single most important factor leading to that parity is the salary cap.Other non-free market principles also aid in this...roster limitations for example, and some limits on free agency. As with a draft, it isn't necessary to have ALL of these things, nor perhaps to apply them the same way they were applied 20 years ago, but we can't get rid of them all and expect parity to remain, therefore popularity to remain, therefore player salaries maximized.

You can make a very good argument to get rid of the draft. The draft, in and of itself, and by ITSELF, does not give parity. It's just one (popular) piece of that puzzle. BUt you can't get rid of everything, and you have to keep the hard cap (along with the hard minimum payroll it also ensures!) It's MHO that as long as that payroll remains a SIGNIFICANT chunk of revenues (50%+) and is fairly negotiated, it does indeed benefit players (financially) in aggregate in the longer term.

I would prefer to attack other restrictions, such as the franchise tags and limited Free agency.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I've been waiting for you to show up on the side of right.Bob Bobson, who is growing on me (and where's HE been, too?), makes a good point about an auction being better for parity than the draft is. Assuming no movement in draft position, the Panthers wind up with one more player selected than the Packers (and a costly one at that). As Bobson noted, in an auction they could clear cap and maybe buy three of the top 25 rookies. Do that for a couple of years and they're right back in the hunt. This assumes a cap, of course, which I believe is in the players' best interest to retain.

Is an auction any different than just free agency? By abolishing the draft, if the worst team in the league has a low cap (which it often will), it can then pay for 3 of the top 25 rookies.

 

[roadkill1292]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I've been waiting for you to show up on the side of right.Bob Bobson, who is growing on me (and where's HE been, too?), makes a good point about an auction being better for parity than the draft is. Assuming no movement in draft position, the Panthers wind up with one more player selected than the Packers (and a costly one at that). As Bobson noted, in an auction they could clear cap and maybe buy three of the top 25 rookies. Do that for a couple of years and they're right back in the hunt. This assumes a cap, of course, which I believe is in the players' best interest to retain.

Is an auction any different than just free agency? By abolishing the draft, if the worst team in the league has a low cap (which it often will), it can then pay for 3 of the top 25 rookies.

I think there's a small but important difference, which came to me when I was pondering if owners were forced into overpaying their high rookie picks: transparency. When a free agent negotiates with teams, only the FA knows what's really on the table. In an open auction, everybody sees everybody else's bid and overbidding occurs only because of poor judgment, not because of lack of data.If you are in a fantasy league with blind bidding for free agents, you are far more likely to overpay (relative to your competitors) for a free agent than you are during your league's auction.Good to have you in the conversation. The Jets suck.

 

[renesauz]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I've been waiting for you to show up on the side of right.Bob Bobson, who is growing on me (and where's HE been, too?), makes a good point about an auction being better for parity than the draft is. Assuming no movement in draft position, the Panthers wind up with one more player selected than the Packers (and a costly one at that). As Bobson noted, in an auction they could clear cap and maybe buy three of the top 25 rookies. Do that for a couple of years and they're right back in the hunt. This assumes a cap, of course, which I believe is in the players' best interest to retain.

Is an auction any different than just free agency? By abolishing the draft, if the worst team in the league has a low cap (which it often will), it can then pay for 3 of the top 25 rookies.

Only provided the rookies are obligated to go to the highest bidder. The draft promotes parity, but the most important thing to parity is the salary cap/minimum. Parity is the key to fan interest. The draft helps that, but abolishing just the draft would not automatically destroy fan interest.

 

[FUBAR]

If the NFL abolished the draft, raised the salary floor, and kept the floor within 20% of the salary cap, I would probably like the NFL even more. Abolishing the draft would help the smartest teams and best run organizations.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I've been waiting for you to show up on the side of right.Bob Bobson, who is growing on me (and where's HE been, too?), makes a good point about an auction being better for parity than the draft is. Assuming no movement in draft position, the Panthers wind up with one more player selected than the Packers (and a costly one at that). As Bobson noted, in an auction they could clear cap and maybe buy three of the top 25 rookies. Do that for a couple of years and they're right back in the hunt. This assumes a cap, of course, which I believe is in the players' best interest to retain.

Is an auction any different than just free agency? By abolishing the draft, if the worst team in the league has a low cap (which it often will), it can then pay for 3 of the top 25 rookies.

This makes sense, but is it true? Would the worst teams pay for the top rookies? Would those rookies then bust and make the money spent a waste? Seems like a good way to stay at the bottom, depending on the contracts.

 

[RobertBobson]

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

This is probably true in a short-term sense, but not in a long term sense. As long as player salaries are tied to revenues, and the draft helps drive those revenues upwards, the players benefit also. WHile it's true that some players may not reach the full potential salary possible without a cap in any given year, it's HIGHLY doubtful that the NFL would have ever reached the levels of success it had without years of a cap and draft promoting parity. IE: Longer-term, player salaries would be MORE depressed by a lack of parity (resulting in lack of fan interest). Manning might make 40 or 50 million without a cap if it were removed today, but if there was no cap and no draft since 1990, I doubt he'd be approaching the 20 million or so he gets now.The players most definately benefit from a cap (as well as the minimum salaries it also offers!)

I don't think that's true. Not with the way Profits are generated in the NFL. Very few NFL teams fail to sellout. Again,the national TV revenues are the bulk of a team's profits. So, there would only like TV revenues, and perhaps teams like Dallas that have bigger stadiums and can charge more money, that would have a little more money to spend, but not to the point where I think it would leave teams like Carolina at a huge competitive disadvantage. I don't think there would be any yankees if you removed the cap. You might have some teams spending too much money, more than revenues. But that is a business decision each owner has to make and live with. I think the salary cap exists to save owners from them selves, and ensure profits, because I think so many owners aren't competent business people. Many teams are family businesses that have been handed down from father to child, and don't have any experience owning a real business that can actually fail.

But, even if you wanted a cap, to promote parity, to save owners from themselves, and to prevent teams like the cowboys or owners like Synder from throwing money at players, I don't see how a draft would hurt parody. If there was a salary cap, every team would have to manage their money like every other team, and would have the same chance to bid on players. In fact, I think you could argue that bad team could get rid of their dead wood, clear up a bunch of cap space, and rebuild much faster than they could in the draft. You say there is parody, and there is to a point in the NFL, but there are still incompetent franchises, that draft the wrong players and pay too much for the wrong veteran players. No draft would just mean the incompetent franchises would pay too much for the wrong young players.

Look at MLB for a second. MLB RULED the sports world just 25 years ago. But it has no cap (sorry...the silly luxury tax thing has proven itself woefully inadequate). Now, it's popularity is so low that a WS game can't match up to a late season non-division Sunday afternoon game between two losing NFL teams. MLB payrolls are, on average, significantly lower than NFL teams. Obviously this is due to revenues, but revenues (TV RATINGS) are generated based on popularity. The key to the NFL's meteoric rise in popularity is parity. Thus, the key to maintaining player payrolls high (on aggregate) is PARITY. The single most important factor leading to that parity is the salary cap.Other non-free market principles also aid in this...roster limitations for example, and some limits on free agency. As with a draft, it isn't necessary to have ALL of these things, nor perhaps to apply them the same way they were applied 20 years ago, but we can't get rid of them all and expect parity to remain, therefore popularity to remain, therefore player salaries maximized.

I would argue there are other reasons for baseball's lack of popularity over the last 25 years other than parity. Baseball was never more popular than it was when the yankee's were winning every world series from 1920 to 1960.I would guess that the NFL's rise to supremacy over baseball has more to do with 1) the lack of youth playing baseball, while youth football grows and grows 2) the fact that it's a boring, slow game in an era where attention spans shorten and shorten 3) it dilutes it's product by having 162 games a year making any one game near meaningless 4) Kids grow up playing Madden which makes them intimately familiar with the league and the sport 5) the explosion of fantasy football 6) gambling.

 

[belljr]

The draft is beneficial to the owners only. It allows contracts to be artificially low, and rewards incompetent franchises for their incompetence by giving them high draft picks. Yes, high first round draft picks make lots of money. But if Player x gets a 40 million dollar contract, and he could have made 70 million in free agency, the draft has cost him millions of dollars, and it's unfair. I know it doesn't gain any sympathy from fans, because 40 million is a lot . But so is the 30 million the owners don't have to spend on him.

This is probably true in a short-term sense, but not in a long term sense. As long as player salaries are tied to revenues, and the draft helps drive those revenues upwards, the players benefit also. WHile it's true that some players may not reach the full potential salary possible without a cap in any given year, it's HIGHLY doubtful that the NFL would have ever reached the levels of success it had without years of a cap and draft promoting parity. IE: Longer-term, player salaries would be MORE depressed by a lack of parity (resulting in lack of fan interest). Manning might make 40 or 50 million without a cap if it were removed today, but if there was no cap and no draft since 1990, I doubt he'd be approaching the 20 million or so he gets now.The players most definately benefit from a cap (as well as the minimum salaries it also offers!)

I don't think that's true. Not with the way Profits are generated in the NFL. Very few NFL teams fail to sellout. Again,the national TV revenues are the bulk of a team's profits. So, there would only like TV revenues, and perhaps teams like Dallas that have bigger stadiums and can charge more money, that would have a little more money to spend, but not to the point where I think it would leave teams like Carolina at a huge competitive disadvantage. I don't think there would be any yankees if you removed the cap. You might have some teams spending too much money, more than revenues. But that is a business decision each owner has to make and live with. I think the salary cap exists to save owners from them selves, and ensure profits, because I think so many owners aren't competent business people. Many teams are family businesses that have been handed down from father to child, and don't have any experience owning a real business that can actually fail.

But, even if you wanted a cap, to promote parity, to save owners from themselves, and to prevent teams like the cowboys or owners like Synder from throwing money at players, I don't see how a draft would hurt parody. If there was a salary cap, every team would have to manage their money like every other team, and would have the same chance to bid on players. In fact, I think you could argue that bad team could get rid of their dead wood, clear up a bunch of cap space, and rebuild much faster than they could in the draft. You say there is parody, and there is to a point in the NFL, but there are still incompetent franchises, that draft the wrong players and pay too much for the wrong veteran players. No draft would just mean the incompetent franchises would pay too much for the wrong young players.

Look at MLB for a second. MLB RULED the sports world just 25 years ago. But it has no cap (sorry...the silly luxury tax thing has proven itself woefully inadequate). Now, it's popularity is so low that a WS game can't match up to a late season non-division Sunday afternoon game between two losing NFL teams. MLB payrolls are, on average, significantly lower than NFL teams. Obviously this is due to revenues, but revenues (TV RATINGS) are generated based on popularity. The key to the NFL's meteoric rise in popularity is parity. Thus, the key to maintaining player payrolls high (on aggregate) is PARITY. The single most important factor leading to that parity is the salary cap.Other non-free market principles also aid in this...roster limitations for example, and some limits on free agency. As with a draft, it isn't necessary to have ALL of these things, nor perhaps to apply them the same way they were applied 20 years ago, but we can't get rid of them all and expect parity to remain, therefore popularity to remain, therefore player salaries maximized.

I would argue there are other reasons for baseball's lack of popularity over the last 25 years other than parity. Baseball was never more popular than it was when the yankee's were winning every world series from 1920 to 1960.I would guess that the NFL's rise to supremacy over baseball has more to do with 1) the lack of youth playing baseball, while youth football grows and grows 2) the fact that it's a boring, slow game in an era where attention spans shorten and shorten 3) it dilutes it's product by having 162 games a year making any one game near meaningless 4) Kids grow up playing Madden which makes them intimately familiar with the league and the sport 5) the explosion of fantasy football 6) gambling.

There is something to be said for this because when I was a kid we went out and played baseball. And any video games we had of baseball, football were just generic types. However there were and are some GREAT baseball games so I don't know if video games has much to do with it

 

[RobertBobson]

There is something to be said for this because when I was a kid we went out and played baseball. And any video games we had of baseball, football were just generic types. However there were and are some GREAT baseball games so I don't know if video games has much to do with it

I think madden is just about the perfect competitive video game, to pvp with. I Know that other sports have games, but I personally prefer playing soccer and hockey games to baseball and basketball.I'm not sure if Madden is popular because football is popular, or if it's popular because it's a superiorly entertaining game, but it dwarfs the sales of baseball games. I would argue that football itself is a superiorly entertaining game to baseball. I understand this is subjective, but I can't possibly see how baseball games are more exciting than football, particularly on tv. Baseball is a great game to see live, and was a great game to listen to on the radio, in a slower time. But i don't think it compares to football in the HD age.

 

[renesauz]

There is something to be said for this because when I was a kid we went out and played baseball. And any video games we had of baseball, football were just generic types. However there were and are some GREAT baseball games so I don't know if video games has much to do with it

I think madden is just about the perfect competitive video game, to pvp with. I Know that other sports have games, but I personally prefer playing soccer and hockey games to baseball and basketball.I'm not sure if Madden is popular because football is popular, or if it's popular because it's a superiorly entertaining game, but it dwarfs the sales of baseball games. I would argue that football itself is a superiorly entertaining game to baseball. I understand this is subjective, but I can't possibly see how baseball games are more exciting than football, particularly on tv. Baseball is a great game to see live, and was a great game to listen to on the radio, in a slower time. But i don't think it compares to football in the HD age.

While you can make a compelling argument about why baseballs popularity diminished as far as it has, I think it's a mistake to place most of the reasoning in one place. You are grossly under-valuing the importance and influence of parity on the success of any sport.I used to love baseball as a kid, grew up a Phillies fan. When I became an adult, and saw the financial inequity in Baseball, I started to lose interest. WHen I looked even closer, I gave up the sport (although I still watch an occassional game and smile when Philly does well, I could count the # of MLB games I see in a season on one hand!) Same with college football. Die hard Penn State fan, but there's no parity in college football either. It got old watching my Lions crush nobodies early in the season, then lose to a better team 6 or 7 weeks in. At that point, being effectively eliminated...I'd lose interest. EVentually I came to realize that not only did the bowl system present major problems, but the same schools were ALWAYS good...no parity. I was NOT an NFL fan as a kid...I watched MLB and college football.

Call me unique if you want to, but how many people have to think like me to make my position correct? How many people have to have parity to remain heavily invested in a sport emotionally? I don't know the number, but it's far from zero. If it's 50%, that's a HUGE hit to a sports popularity if it loses parity. If it's even 10%, it will damage the sport. I can only guess at the number, but it's much higher than 10%. I can only imagine how much more MLB would have been before, and now, if it had had the kind of parity football does. Baseball is still a GREAT game.

 

[RobertBobson]

Only provided the rookies are obligated to go to the highest bidder.

Now, this is interesting. I think it's the obligation that I really have a problem with. I can see the argument that obligating them to go to the highest better is better for the league. If you had a cap, it wouldn't give any team any particular economic advantage, but it would make certain teams, in large markets or warm climates more desirable to young players than Smaller markets and colder weather teams. This is an advantage that schools like USC, UT, and various SEC and florida schools have in the NCAA. Further, it would give states with no state income tax an advantage over states without it. All things being equal, it would make it difficult for teams like green bay and buffalo to get top tier college prospects, if their offers were similar to a miami offer. I would say two things to this: One this already happens, in free agency. It would only make free agency start after college. Warm weather, large market and no income tax teams already have this advantage. secondly, and more importantly to me, because it would encourage more parity, doesn't make it right. I am philosophically opposed to being "obligated" to having to go to work for an employer you don't want to work for. I sympathize with players who get drafted by teams like buffalo, or incompetent franchises like the Raiders. I wouldn't want to play for years, sacrificing my body for an organization I didn't like, and live in a city I didn't want to live in. I understand players are well compensated for playing in undesirable cities, and bad organizations... but so are players playing in desirable cities for good organization. In general, I think forcing players to play for certain franchises ( if they want to work in the one industry they are likely to be able to make millions in) commodifies them, treats them as objects and not as people, and as an ardent individualist, I bristle at this concept. I understand as a bears fan, in a cold weather city with a less than sterling reputation for organizational competence, my team could suffer. But what's right is right.

 

[RobertBobson]

I used to love baseball as a kid, grew up a Phillies fan. When I became an adult, and saw the financial inequity in Baseball, I started to lose interest. WHen I looked even closer, I gave up the sport (although I still watch an occassional game and smile when Philly does well, I could count the # of MLB games I see in a season on one hand!) Same with college football. Die hard Penn State fan, but there's no parity in college football either. It got old watching my Lions crush nobodies early in the season, then lose to a better team 6 or 7 weeks in. At that point, being effectively eliminated...I'd lose interest. EVentually I came to realize that not only did the bowl system present major problems, but the same schools were ALWAYS good...no parity. I was NOT an NFL fan as a kid...I watched MLB and college football.

I think you are projecting your own experience onto the rest of fandom, however. College football, for example, has never been more popular as is easily the number 2 sport in popularity and revenue generation in this country. And there is nothing equitable about the college football system. I think this to me suggests there is something inherently more compelling about the game of fooball than there is about the game of baseball.

Call me unique if you want to, but how many people have to think like me to make my position correct? How many people have to have parity to remain heavily invested in a sport emotionally? I don't know the number, but it's far from zero. If it's 50%, that's a HUGE hit to a sports popularity if it loses parity. If it's even 10%, it will damage the sport. I can only guess at the number, but it's much higher than 10%. I can only imagine how much more MLB would have been before, and now, if it had had the kind of parity football does. Baseball is still a GREAT game.

I respectfully disagree about baseball being a great game. I too as a child was a baseball fan. A cubs fan, in fact. The cubs are one of the top 5 teams that stand to benefit the most from the economic inequalities of baseball, and yet as I grew older, I found the game effectively unwatchable outside of the playoffs. The regular season just has no drama, and the game itself I find tedious. I find the playoffs more compelling because of the drama. When there are stakes, every pitch, every at bat has meaning. But it's just not the case in the regular season. I think that's a fundamental advantage of football, is the scarcity of the games makes each one have much more value. That's out side of the fact I just find the game more interesting, both cerebral tactics of it and physicality of it.

 

[renesauz]

Only provided the rookies are obligated to go to the highest bidder.

Now, this is interesting. I think it's the obligation that I really have a problem with. I can see the argument that obligating them to go to the highest better is better for the league. If you had a cap, it wouldn't give any team any particular economic advantage, but it would make certain teams, in large markets or warm climates more desirable to young players than Smaller markets and colder weather teams. This is an advantage that schools like USC, UT, and various SEC and florida schools have in the NCAA. Further, it would give states with no state income tax an advantage over states without it. All things being equal, it would make it difficult for teams like green bay and buffalo to get top tier college prospects, if their offers were similar to a miami offer. I would say two things to this: One this already happens, in free agency. It would only make free agency start after college. Warm weather, large market and no income tax teams already have this advantage. secondly, and more importantly to me, because it would encourage more parity, doesn't make it right. I am philosophically opposed to being "obligated" to having to go to work for an employer you don't want to work for. I sympathize with players who get drafted by teams like buffalo, or incompetent franchises like the Raiders. I wouldn't want to play for years, sacrificing my body for an organization I didn't like, and live in a city I didn't want to live in. I understand players are well compensated for playing in undesirable cities, and bad organizations... but so are players playing in desirable cities for good organization. In general, I think forcing players to play for certain franchises ( if they want to work in the one industry they are likely to be able to make millions in) commodifies them, treats them as objects and not as people, and as an ardent individualist, I bristle at this concept. I understand as a bears fan, in a cold weather city with a less than sterling reputation for organizational competence, my team could suffer. But what's right is right.

Your objections have been made before. IN fact...they are exactly what the last "big" impasse and round of lawsuits was about. A 4 or 5 year limitation on a team's exclusive rights provides at least a partial answer and has shown itself to be a relatively reasonable compromise. WHile teams can extend via a "franchise tag", if you read the rules of the tag, it's only good for a year, MAYBE 2 on a once-in-a-generation type player. Thus, no player is forced to play for a specific team for an entire career, especially the better players making millions. (IE: Unless their career is short due to injury or lack of talent.)An auction would be quite literally worthless without the obligation, but would at least adress your concern about maximizing income (within the reasonable limits presented by a team salary cap)

 

[RobertBobson]

Your objections have been made before. IN fact...they are exactly what the last "big" impasse and round of lawsuits was about. A 4 or 5 year limitation on a team's exclusive rights provides at least a partial answer and has shown itself to be a relatively reasonable compromise. WHile teams can extend via a "franchise tag", if you read the rules of the tag, it's only good for a year, MAYBE 2 on a once-in-a-generation type player. Thus, no player is forced to play for a specific team for an entire career, especially the better players making millions. (IE: Unless their career is short due to injury or lack of talent.)An auction would be quite literally worthless without the obligation, but would at least adress your concern about maximizing income (within the reasonable limits presented by a team salary cap)

Well, I think we're just going to be going around and around in circles now. I understand that players have a 4-5 year limitation on where they play, which get extended by the franchise tag. 6 years is about twice the length of the average NFL career. For a position like a running back, by the time they reach free agency, their best years are likely behind them, they are unlikely to ever get a contract where they are compensated for their worth ( unless they are the rare high first round running back pick). An auction without an obligation wouldn't be worthless. It would be free agency, and that's what I would argue is fair to the players.

 

[RobertBobson]

God, I'm having a problem with double posts on this site.

 

[renesauz]

I think you are projecting your own experience onto the rest of fandom, however. College football, for example, has never been more popular as is easily the number 2 sport in popularity and revenue generation in this country. And there is nothing equitable about the college football system. I think this to me suggests there is something inherently more compelling about the game of fooball than there is about the game of baseball.

Perhaps I am, but I don't think I am all that unique. The point is that parity does not have to be the biggest reason for a sports success, only a significant reason. It doesn't have to be the reason most fans love the game, just a reason a lot of fans like the game. I don't think it's a stretch whatsoever to say that parity is a significant reason for the NFL's success and popularity. As to college football, I've suggested that college football would be MORE popular if it had parity.

I respectfully disagree about baseball being a great game. I too as a child was a baseball fan. A cubs fan, in fact. The cubs are one of the top 5 teams that stand to benefit the most from the economic inequalities of baseball, and yet as I grew older, I found the game effectively unwatchable outside of the playoffs. The regular season just has no drama, and the game itself I find tedious. I find the playoffs more compelling because of the drama. When there are stakes, every pitch, every at bat has meaning. But it's just not the case in the regular season. I think that's a fundamental advantage of football, is the scarcity of the games makes each one have much more value. That's out side of the fact I just find the game more interesting, both cerebral tactics of it and physicality of it.

And I can respect that opinion. I do still like the game though, and again, I doubt that I'm that unique. I even take in 2 or 3 live AAA games every summer (Norfolk Tides). If you ever loved baseball, and have a summer afternoon free, a AAA baseball game is a great bargain compared to other "pro" sports. IE: I still like the game , but dislike the league.ETA: If you think NFL players have it bad....look at lower end baseball players. It's not at all uncommon for a player to play for 2 or 3 different teams every year for the first 5 years of his career.

 

[renesauz]

Your objections have been made before. IN fact...they are exactly what the last "big" impasse and round of lawsuits was about. A 4 or 5 year limitation on a team's exclusive rights provides at least a partial answer and has shown itself to be a relatively reasonable compromise. WHile teams can extend via a "franchise tag", if you read the rules of the tag, it's only good for a year, MAYBE 2 on a once-in-a-generation type player. Thus, no player is forced to play for a specific team for an entire career, especially the better players making millions. (IE: Unless their career is short due to injury or lack of talent.)An auction would be quite literally worthless without the obligation, but would at least adress your concern about maximizing income (within the reasonable limits presented by a team salary cap)

Well, I think we're just going to be going around and around in circles now. I understand that players have a 4-5 year limitation on where they play, which get extended by the franchise tag. 6 years is about twice the length of the average NFL career. For a position like a running back, by the time they reach free agency, their best years are likely behind them, they are unlikely to ever get a contract where they are compensated for their worth ( unless they are the rare high first round running back pick). An auction without an obligation wouldn't be worthless. It would be free agency, and that's what I would argue is fair to the players.

Actually, I've long wondered why they use the same terms for every position. 5 years for a QB is not equivalent to 5 years on a RB. I would support a change to 3 years for RB's (not that either of our' support or non-support means a darn thing! )

 

[RobertBobson]

And I can respect that opinion. I do still like the game though, and again, I doubt that I'm that unique. I even take in 2 or 3 live AAA games every summer (Norfolk Tides). If you ever loved baseball, and have a summer afternoon free, a AAA baseball game is a great bargain compared to other "pro" sports. IE: I still like the game , but dislike the league.

ETA: If you think NFL players have it bad....look at lower end baseball players. It's not at all uncommon for a player to play for 2 or 3 different teams every year for the first 5 years of his career.

I actually went to an omaha royals game last season, one of the last before the their old stadium got burned down. And while I did have fun, the game was not what interested me. IN fact, I couldn't begin to tell you the score, or even who won. I enjoyed the atmosphere, the people watching, the goofy minor league promotions. It was a smorgasbord for a connoisseur of unintentional comedy like me, but the game itself? It just does nothing for me at this point.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I respectfully disagree about baseball being a great game.

How is that even an issue? Baseball is stupid.

 

[pollardsvision]

I was reading some scary quotes from Kevin Mawae about the draft. I've heard that some of the lawyers representing the players would like to get the draft abolished.

This a scare tactic by the players, other reports have said they player would never try to get rid of the draft because of what is stated above. Top Rookies and FA get paid way too much, everybody else much less. Plus the players understand something like that would kill the league. I can see the Franchise and Transitional tags gone with a new CBA, but not the draft.Hypothetically if the draft was gone, it could kill my love for the game as an actual fan, and I may just go purely NCAA football.

If a lack of a draft would kill your love of the NFL, it seems odd that you'd turn to NCAA football. Without a draft, the NFL would be alot more like the NCAA (you know, except with better athletes and playoffs).

 

[johnadams]

Interesting discussion, but a poorly run organization will inevitably sink to the bottom while a well run organization will rise to the top. I'd suggest that the draft has almost nothing to do with parity as in reality the teams with the better picks typically pay well over market (the veteran market anyway) value for their players which actually prevents them from spreading the scarce resource of salary cap dollars to other players. That inequality of their salary cap dollar distribution can be a major hindrance. The salary cap is what really keeps the moderate amount of parity that exists in the NFL in place.

And the concept that revenues are fairly even because the big contributor is TV deals misses the other areas where franchises can gain competitive advantages. Stadium naming rights, difference in ticket prices/stadium capacity, available of club/luxury box and price differentials, concession deals, public/private stadium financing ratios, ability to leverage other assets for access to funds, and a host of other items could easily make a huge difference in revenue. Looking at Forbes, the difference in operating income between the top team (DAL) and the bottom team (MIA) is $150 million. Granted, some of this is estimated and it's not a complete picture, but it's paints a scary picture for an uncapped NFL as value is often derived from winning and brand identity which would ensure that teams that continue to outspend and outproduce would continue to grow revenue while those that cannot, just like we see in MLB.

In theory, I abhor the concept of a salary cap. But if the NFL can make a compelling argument to the players for a salary cap, who are the most affected, than I have no isues with it.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.

-QG

 

[RobertBobson]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.-QG

I've got news for you. they already are.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.-QG

I've got news for you. they already are.

Nope - the draft prevents this, as does the salary floor, as does factors like restricted free agency and things that force the playing field to be more level. Take that away and things like 2 division titles in the last 6 years won't ever be possible again.-QG

 

[RobertBobson]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.-QG

I've got news for you. they already are.

Nope - the draft prevents this, as does the salary floor, as does factors like restricted free agency and things that force the playing field to be more level. Take that away and things like 2 division titles in the last 6 years won't ever be possible again.-QG

It was a joke, captain literal.

 

[RobertBobson]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.-QG

I've got news for you. they already are.

Nope - the draft prevents this, as does the salary floor, as does factors like restricted free agency and things that force the playing field to be more level. Take that away and things like 2 division titles in the last 6 years won't ever be possible again.-QG

It was a joke, captain literal.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My team (the Bengals) would officially become the Pittsburgh Pirates.-QG

I've got news for you. they already are.

Nope - the draft prevents this, as does the salary floor, as does factors like restricted free agency and things that force the playing field to be more level. Take that away and things like 2 division titles in the last 6 years won't ever be possible again.-QG

It was a joke, captain literal.

I know, but the prospect of no draft is really that scary to Bengals fans. Brown will try to run the team on like a $10m/year budget if there's no floor.3rd place will become a good year.-QG