NFL Commish Wants Lower Pay For Rookies (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date).

Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

I don't think so. At some point, I think the league has to promise that the teams will be free to pay what they want to the players (particularly if they want to kill the cap). If a team is willing to pay Walker, who is a veteran, they only have themselves to blame if he's a bust and they have wasted their money. Rookies are treated differently because they should be a bigger risk than a veteran player.

The league has to allow for big pay days eventually or else the CFL, the Arena League, or even some new startup league can take away the top talent. I think most college players would be willing to pay their dues for three years before cashing in. More than that, and I think they start looking elsewhere.

The problem is that with rookie contracts there's little room for negotiation. Players expect to get paid more than the previous year's pick and the player's union would raise hell if the owners colluded to lower guaranteed money to rookies. However, the system is broken and is hurting the league. Teams drafting first have to pay outrageous amounts to sign the top player's who most often than not turn out to be complete busts in the NFL.

 

[NoFBinLA]

As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor.

Regardless of the other discussion, I can agree with you here. Both systems have issues - I don't know a free for all auction would really result in anything better than what we have now, though I doubt we'll ever know. The draft itself has become such an event - unlike any other sport - that I cannot see the league ditching it anytime soon. The press it garners the league is beyond anything else that time of year.(Unless it were a live auction, which I would pay to see - GM's with bid signs and a barker. That would be great.)

 

[None_More_Black]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date).

Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

I don't think so. At some point, I think the league has to promise that the teams will be free to pay what they want to the players (particularly if they want to kill the cap). If a team is willing to pay Walker, who is a veteran, they only have themselves to blame if he's a bust and they have wasted their money. Rookies are treated differently because they should be a bigger risk than a veteran player.

The league has to allow for big pay days eventually or else the CFL, the Arena League, or even some new startup league can take away the top talent. I think most college players would be willing to pay their dues for three years before cashing in. More than that, and I think they start looking elsewhere.

The problem is that with rookie contracts there's little room for negotiation. Players expect to get paid more than the previous year's pick and the player's union would raise hell if the owners colluded to lower guaranteed money to rookies. However, the system is broken and is hurting the league. Teams drafting first have to pay outrageous amounts to sign the top player's who most often than not turn out to be complete busts in the NFL.

True to some some degree, but owners don't have to pay up and players don't have to sign. This is not a planned economy. All out free agency would probably drag down salaries for early round picks but increase salaries for later ones. This is a guess because the real world always has a lot more variables, but this is my educated guess. Let's not get too caught up in NFL owners' rhetoric. The city usually pays for the stadium whether the majority of tax payers like it or not. I bet most players would vote the draft down but that is not going to happen any time soon. Owners hold 95% of the cards in the most financially successful league in the world. If you really feel sorry for NFL owners you have a screw loose and will believe any propaganda someone throws at you. Critical thinking is your friend.

 

[reapers nuggets]

June 27, 2008, 15:05

NFL

NFL Commissioner Goodell Wants To Pay Rookies Less

Associated Press via Rocky Mountain News - [Full Article]

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said today. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract - with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...y-rookies-less/

 

[benbadman]

This may be a point that nobody has made yet in this topic. Rather than debate the merits of whether rookies deserve their paydays or not, let's get to the nuts & bolts of the business side for players.

Once the rookie has signed his contract and has a year under their belt, wa la they are actually pretty much full on members of the players union. Looking at the overall picture from the player side, if players are getting paid the big bucks it doesnt really matter if he's fresh out of college or on his 2nd contract--everybody benefits salary-wise. The veteran players and players union actually see their salaries/wages scale upwards because Jake Long is making $30M guaranteed, and other high draft pick examples. The free agent O-lineman can command $X in guarantees & salary structure to keep pace with the relative terms of the deals of other high priced lineman (such as rookie deals of Joe Thomas, Jake Long, heck even Robert Gallery a few years ago). Maybe a free agent lineman wont get Jake Long's deal dollar for dollar, but he will get more money in his contract as a result of Jake Long having inked for his lucrative salary.

Players as a whole want to make as much money as possible. In a perfect world, the players would want the wages redistributed more efficiently based on performance, but there are many obstacles in the way of said utopia. As one poster pointed out, players are paid not solely on past performance but on expectation of future performance, and also paid relative to other players at their position. A true incentive based system would never be politically possible, so the futures-market based conditions that dictate NFL salary structure will continue to be the paradigm.

On the business front, the NFL owners basically pay all or 80%+ of their player salary expenses from the **shared TV revenue**. Whatever profit the owners/teams can turn from ticket sales, PSLs, and other add-ons is money in their pocket. NFL owners are not losing net worth year over year. Even if they were, because an NFL team is a "luxury good", an exclusive club of 32 'owners', the demand by set-for-life wealthy individuals worth hundreds of millions, the value of franchises continues to rise. Wealth in America is created continuously--NFL franchises are created every 5-10 years or so.

What the players & owners are really fighting over is operating profit margins. Right now team owners are keeping pretty much all of those margins in a salary-cap controlled league where shared revenue from tv contracts & merchandising (minus the Cowboys ha!) pays for player salaries. This is classic management versus labor 101. Both sides need each other, and both sides want more than the other is willing to concede.

In conclusion, business wise everyone in the NFL business is making too much money in 2008 & beyond for a strike/lockout to really occur. The MLB and NBA both suffered one in the past 15 years, the NFL has avoided this since the 80s. A missed NFL season would shred mucho brand equity, which at the end of the day is less money for the owners & players when play would resume.

It's fun to debate whether Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Alex Smith, Kijana Carter etc deserved their contracts, or whether future top draft picks are worth the money--but gentlemen lets be realistiic: our debates on a fantasy football message board will have little influence over the financial policies of our favorite sports entertainment business.

 

[None_More_Black]

As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor.

Regardless of the other discussion, I can agree with you here. Both systems have issues - I don't know a free for all auction would really result in anything better than what we have now, though I doubt we'll ever know. The draft itself has become such an event - unlike any other sport - that I cannot see the league ditching it anytime soon. The press it garners the league is beyond anything else that time of year.(Unless it were a live auction, which I would pay to see - GM's with bid signs and a barker. That would be great.)

I love the NFL draft and watch all of the first day and probably half the second. I would probably watch the same amount of the NFL auction. NFL auction would get much better rating then the draf because there would be so much uncertainty. Anybody could get anybody. NFL auction would get better rating then the super bowl imo.

 

[NoFBinLA]

As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor.

Regardless of the other discussion, I can agree with you here. Both systems have issues - I don't know a free for all auction would really result in anything better than what we have now, though I doubt we'll ever know. The draft itself has become such an event - unlike any other sport - that I cannot see the league ditching it anytime soon. The press it garners the league is beyond anything else that time of year.(Unless it were a live auction, which I would pay to see - GM's with bid signs and a barker. That would be great.)

I love the NFL draft and watch all of the first day and probably half the second. I would probably watch the same amount of the NFL auction. NFL auction would get much better rating then the draf because there would be so much uncertainty. Anybody could get anybody. NFL auction would get better rating then the super bowl imo.

The only bad thing would be Jetsfan's head exploding everytime they were outbid.Or maybe that would just be great TV.

 

[None_More_Black]

As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor.

Regardless of the other discussion, I can agree with you here. Both systems have issues - I don't know a free for all auction would really result in anything better than what we have now, though I doubt we'll ever know. The draft itself has become such an event - unlike any other sport - that I cannot see the league ditching it anytime soon. The press it garners the league is beyond anything else that time of year.(Unless it were a live auction, which I would pay to see - GM's with bid signs and a barker. That would be great.)

I love the NFL draft and watch all of the first day and probably half the second. I would probably watch the same amount of the NFL auction. NFL auction would get much better rating then the draf because there would be so much uncertainty. Anybody could get anybody. NFL auction would get better rating then the super bowl imo.

The only bad thing would be Jetsfan's head exploding everytime they were outbid.Or maybe that would just be great TV.

Jets would not be any better at an auction draft then the regular one. I'm from jersey and learned a long time ago not to root for the jets.

 

[NoFBinLA]

As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor.

Regardless of the other discussion, I can agree with you here. Both systems have issues - I don't know a free for all auction would really result in anything better than what we have now, though I doubt we'll ever know. The draft itself has become such an event - unlike any other sport - that I cannot see the league ditching it anytime soon. The press it garners the league is beyond anything else that time of year.(Unless it were a live auction, which I would pay to see - GM's with bid signs and a barker. That would be great.)

I love the NFL draft and watch all of the first day and probably half the second. I would probably watch the same amount of the NFL auction. NFL auction would get much better rating then the draf because there would be so much uncertainty. Anybody could get anybody. NFL auction would get better rating then the super bowl imo.

The only bad thing would be Jetsfan's head exploding everytime they were outbid.Or maybe that would just be great TV.

Jets would not be any better at an auction draft then the regular one. I'm from jersey and learned a long time ago not to root for the jets.

No they would be pretty bad - but entertaining. 'Put 40 million on Justin Forsett - he'll be HUGE!'And this is coming from an ex-Long Islander who still roots for them.I also can't understand why the dog bites me when I try to take food from it, so maybe I'll never learn.

 

[reapers nuggets]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date).

Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

I don't think so. At some point, I think the league has to promise that the teams will be free to pay what they want to the players (particularly if they want to kill the cap). If a team is willing to pay Walker, who is a veteran, they only have themselves to blame if he's a bust and they have wasted their money. Rookies are treated differently because they should be a bigger risk than a veteran player.

The league has to allow for big pay days eventually or else the CFL, the Arena League, or even some new startup league can take away the top talent. I think most college players would be willing to pay their dues for three years before cashing in. More than that, and I think they start looking elsewhere.

The problem is that with rookie contracts there's little room for negotiation. Players expect to get paid more than the previous year's pick and the player's union would raise hell if the owners colluded to lower guaranteed money to rookies. However, the system is broken and is hurting the league. Teams drafting first have to pay outrageous amounts to sign the top player's who most often than not turn out to be complete busts in the NFL.

I would suggest a much lower 1st year amount say $2 million for the 1st pick and then $1.99, $1.98, $1.97, etc. until they reach player minimum. Half up front, after they attend rookie orientation $50,000, and minicamp $50,000 period, If you're drafted, you're money is already determined no negotiations until after your rookie year, everyone shows up for training camp this way and it is totally fair for a bunch of young punks who haven't proven anything at all.History tells us that these nobodies are sucking money from the already proven. History is just littered with these guys who got drafted in the 1st round (T. Couch, L Phillips, B Bosworth, K Carter, R Leaf, C Enis, A Smith, R Mirer, H Shuler, C McNown, A Bruce, C Benson, D Carr and T Marinovich) and who sucked major amounts of money from the system and productive veterans and didn't back it up with production.

We're talking about a bunch of nobodies who just 3 or 4 months earlier lived on less money than most of us. Do them a favor and don't give them too much too quick because it skews reality for them. It hit me a long time ago when Keyshawn Johnson was making more money than Jerry Rice, that should NEVER happen, NEVER under any circumstances.

Canton is filled with more players who were NOT drafted in the 1st round than that were. The system is screwed up when these (at least 1st round) rookies make more money than the elite in the NFL, it's just wrong. ......Reaper

 

[roadkill1292]

Chase's best point is that the advent of the salary cap obviated the need for the draft. The draft has become an artificial and unneccessary method of dividing up the talent when each team has the same amount of funds to spend on payroll.

I'm not sure that I agree with his assertion that salaries will actually go up for high picks in the absence of a draft but I don't really think that it's an important issue. Instead, the free market will determine rookie salaries in the same manner it determines those of free agents and I'm very cool with that premise.

A rookie auction, even with all of its negative "meat market" connotations, would be an outstanding two days of television.

 

[Brownsfan07]

oh hell yes they do need a lower system. overpaying unproven talent is a bunch of bull####.

mike vick, brady quinn(sorry browns fans!), and jake long are examples!

I am not sure but I think Quinn does not fall in this category. Isn't his contract incentive based and contract friendly? How does his contract compare to A. Rodgers?

i may be a browns fan, but 20 millions should be the norm, not 33 million.still, anything 30 millions and up is to damn much shiznit!

 

[waj707]

So let me make sure I have everything straight:

The commissioner complains that rookies get too much money for players that have never played a down in the NFL, but

1.) The NCAA college football system develops ALL the football talent between 18-21 years of age.

2.) The NFL pays nearly nothing for all the available football talent to compete against each other head-to-head each year, providing the NFL with probably the most ideal way to evaulate talent.

3.) Several arguments can be made that for many of the top college players, what they receive in compensation for their respective college is far less than what they earn for the colleges.

4.) The NFL is complict in this arrangement with the NCAA by only allowing those 3 years out of high school elgible for the draft .

5.) By only having one source for they players for the draft (NCAA) and only allowing players entering their athletic primes, they have the most game-ready entry-level workers in any sports league (i.e. no high-school pitchers who don't have to shave or 7 foot centers from China that can workover a folding chair but hasn't played against anybody).

6.) Because of #5 it can be argued that the level of play in the NFL is higher than in any other sport, which in turn makes it the most popular sports league in the US, allowing the NFL to make the billions that it makes.

7.) The one trade-off for this is that 10 teams each year have overpay some players that have never played a down it the NFL.

8.) The trade-off isn't even that bad, because of #3 juniors often stay in school another year to have a chance to be one of the lucky overpaid. This adds another year of tape to review, making it more likely that the overpaid player will pan out.

So considering 1-8, the commissioner of the NFL sits and thinks "ahhh, heck with it, let's see if I can squeeze some more money out of the situation".

One word: HUBRIS

 

[Insomniac]

How many 1st round picks get "outrageous" contracts? Maybe the first 8-10 picks? After the top of the first round the rookie contracts are favorable to the owners. Since it's such a small number of players and the players affected aren't current union members it should surprise no one when the NFLPA sells them out. They won't do it for nothing, the owners will have to give up something.

The top 16 picks can be signed for 6 years which means the teams are buying out 2 years of unrestricted free agency. The 17-32 picks can be signed for 5 years. If the owners agree to 4 year maximum rookie contracts they can pay much lower bonuses but they may lose the player a couple of years earlier.

 

[KellysHeroes]

How many 1st round picks get "outrageous" contracts? Maybe the first 8-10 picks? After the top of the first round the rookie contracts are favorable to the owners. Since it's such a small number of players and the players affected aren't current union members it should surprise no one when the NFLPA sells them out. They won't do it for nothing, the owners will have to give up something. The top 16 picks can be signed for 6 years which means the teams are buying out 2 years of unrestricted free agency. The 17-32 picks can be signed for 5 years. If the owners agree to 4 year maximum rookie contracts they can pay much lower bonuses but they may lose the player a couple of years earlier.

Those top 6 picks get paid too money for nothing... the rest of the draft gets paid about right. If they were able to lower the $$ of those 1st couple of picks; there would be more trading in the top 10 on draft day. Look how much it cost the Bears to cut drunk ### CB... thats crazy. They should cap it at about 3 Mil a yr or 2 yrs. The Kid proves himself, he gets his pay day.

 

[Tyrion]

June 27, 2008, 15:05

NFL

NFL Commissioner Goodell Wants To Pay Rookies Less

Associated Press via Rocky Mountain News - [Full Article]

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said today. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract - with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...y-rookies-less/

I want to change ticket prices. Right now I have to pay far too much for my tickets when I could be spending that extra money on things like food, cars, health care and retirement. It makes very little sense for me to have to spend this much money in order to watch guys run around playing a game. I also do not have a guarantee that the game I am going to watch is going to be a good one. It could be a 42-0 blow out of my team and that would really suck. I think teams that have proven themselves by having a winning record should get more of the money on their home games than those that have a bad winning history. The problem is that there are about 20000 people in these sports cities willing to pay for overpriced tickets and hot dogs and when I offer the sports franchise a fair amount they laugh and sell my ticket to another fan. That is why I cannot spare any tears for billionaire football owners when they are suffering from the same trap that they are taking advantage of to fleece me of hard earned dollars because my dad helped instill a love for football and loyalty to my team.

 

[walkwithme]

I am all in favor of the NFL putting in place a similar rookie pay scale that the NBA uses. Does it benefit the owners yes but it also benefits the team overall. There will be zero holdouts if you have a limit to how much each rookie can make. You will not have a situation like Russell in Oakland where he basically redshirted the season with the long holdout and still was paid near the top of the QB's in the league. The Benson/ Jones situation in Chicago from 2006 probably doesn't end with Jones joining another team with a rookie salary cap. Since teams are signing these rookies to high salaries they have no choice than to make their high salary player earn the money. Each year the top rookies are given too much money on signing bonuses for the most part based off what the previous year players earned.

 

[Jimmy James]

I am all in favor of the NFL putting in place a similar rookie pay scale that the NBA uses. Does it benefit the owners yes but it also benefits the team overall. There will be zero holdouts if you have a limit to how much each rookie can make. You will not have a situation like Russell in Oakland where he basically redshirted the season with the long holdout and still was paid near the top of the QB's in the league. The Benson/ Jones situation in Chicago from 2006 probably doesn't end with Jones joining another team with a rookie salary cap. Since teams are signing these rookies to high salaries they have no choice than to make their high salary player earn the money. Each year the top rookies are given too much money on signing bonuses for the most part based off what the previous year players earned.

I'm not sure this would end holdouts. Some players are just frankly lazy and might actually hold out as long as they do to shorten camp. We know veterans do it. Why should we dismiss the idea that rookies do it?

 

[Donnybrook]

Is it a concern that NFL teams could lose potential players to MLB?

I mean some of the biggest NFL stars were two sport athletes. Bo Jackson, Deon Sanders, John Elway and others could have played baseball. I am not sure how much money had to do with their decision to play football (for at least part of the time).

 

[crush304]

I thinks it's pretty simple

The owners just opted out of their deal with the players, the players currently get something like 60% and the owners want a piece of that, by cutting rookie salaries the owners would be able to get back a percent of the total revenue without cutting the active players current share. The current veterans are kidding themselves if they think that the money currently going to rookies is going to end up in their pocket.

I'll be curious to see if it works out for the owners

 

[AnonymousBob]

What would happen if a team was prepared to lose their #1 pick? What would happen if one team drafted player A and said "We're only going to pay you 20 million dollars for x number of years. Take it or leave it."

How much would a player's value drop if they sat out an entire year?

 

[None_More_Black]

What would happen if a team was prepared to lose their #1 pick? What would happen if one team drafted player A and said "We're only going to pay you 20 million dollars for x number of years. Take it or leave it."How much would a player's value drop if they sat out an entire year?

That almost happened to Russell. The player would go back in the NFL draft the next year unless he is traded. I think the player would be hurt because he would get a "tough to sign" label not because he is older. More leverage for owners. Goodell is just throwing out propaganda that at first glance to the average fan seems right when in fact most of the cards are stacked against labor in the NFL.

 

[Doug Drinen]

What would happen if a team was prepared to lose their #1 pick? What would happen if one team drafted player A and said "We're only going to pay you 20 million dollars for x number of years. Take it or leave it."

One thing that always confuses me in these discussions is that about 99% of the fans seem to agree with Goodell that the salaries of the top picks are ridiculous, they're not worth the money, etc.But when I ask, "if the Dolphins didn't think Jake Long is worth the money he'll get, why didn't they just forfeit the pick or trade it, straight up, for a lower one?", the answer I get is that it would be terrible PR and the fans would revolt.Huh? Where are these fans that would be ticked off? Judging from the message boards and blogs I see, the fans would be hailing a skipped pick as a shark move.

 

[OldMilwaukee]

So let me make sure I have everything straight:The commissioner complains that rookies get too much money for players that have never played a down in the NFL, but 1.) The NCAA college football system develops ALL the football talent between 18-21 years of age.2.) The NFL pays nearly nothing for all the available football talent to compete against each other head-to-head each year, providing the NFL with probably the most ideal way to evaulate talent.3.) Several arguments can be made that for many of the top college players, what they receive in compensation for their respective college is far less than what they earn for the colleges.4.) The NFL is complict in this arrangement with the NCAA by only allowing those 3 years out of high school elgible for the draft .5.) By only having one source for they players for the draft (NCAA) and only allowing players entering their athletic primes, they have the most game-ready entry-level workers in any sports league (i.e. no high-school pitchers who don't have to shave or 7 foot centers from China that can workover a folding chair but hasn't played against anybody).6.) Because of #5 it can be argued that the level of play in the NFL is higher than in any other sport, which in turn makes it the most popular sports league in the US, allowing the NFL to make the billions that it makes. 7.) The one trade-off for this is that 10 teams each year have overpay some players that have never played a down it the NFL.8.) The trade-off isn't even that bad, because of #3 juniors often stay in school another year to have a chance to be one of the lucky overpaid. This adds another year of tape to review, making it more likely that the overpaid player will pan out.So considering 1-8, the commissioner of the NFL sits and thinks "ahhh, heck with it, let's see if I can squeeze some more money out of the situation".One word: HUBRIS

 

[treat88]

One word: HUBRIS

The players need the owners far more than the owners need the players.The player who thinks otherwise is the only one guilty of hubris in this scenario.Love Chase's idea of an auction vs. a draft. Capitalism is far superior to socialism. Let the market work.When and if the time comes Atlas will shrug.

 

[scoobygang]

The problem is that with rookie contracts there's little room for negotiation. Players expect to get paid more than the previous year's pick and the player's union would raise hell if the owners colluded to lower guaranteed money to rookies. However, the system is broken and is hurting the league. Teams drafting first have to pay outrageous amounts to sign the top player's who most often than not turn out to be complete busts in the NFL.

This is hardly a given. The NBA veterans approved a rookie cap. Rookies aren't represented by the NFLPA, and the union is under no obligation to negotiate with their interests in mind. Several players, like Chris Cooley have complained about rookie salaries. It's true that Upshaw and the union leadership is against a rookie cap. They rightly point out that JaMarcus Russell's contract helps Peyton Manning when he negotiates his next contract. But not every player is Peyton Manning. The union also represents players who are squeezed out of the league because superstars and high draft picks exert so much pressure on a team's cap that remaining spots go to unproven, but cheap lower draft picks instead of proven vets. It's not impossible that the players would throw the rookies under the bus when the rubber hits the road. Especially with the owners opting out of the CBA.

 

[scoobygang]

What would happen if a team was prepared to lose their #1 pick? What would happen if one team drafted player A and said "We're only going to pay you 20 million dollars for x number of years. Take it or leave it."

One thing that always confuses me in these discussions is that about 99% of the fans seem to agree with Goodell that the salaries of the top picks are ridiculous, they're not worth the money, etc.But when I ask, "if the Dolphins didn't think Jake Long is worth the money he'll get, why didn't they just forfeit the pick or trade it, straight up, for a lower one?", the answer I get is that it would be terrible PR and the fans would revolt.Huh? Where are these fans that would be ticked off? Judging from the message boards and blogs I see, the fans would be hailing a skipped pick as a shark move.

I actually wrote a paper about all these issues this spring. I argued that more teams should pass their picks (I also proposed something like Chase's auction system).But I do think a team that did it would be risking serious fan backlash. Fans aren't rational. They're perfectly capable of thinking that rookies are overpaid while still thinking the owner who refuses to pay the going rate for rookies is a cheapskate.

 

[twr]

the more rookies make, the more ticket prices go up, the more jersey prices go up, the more the beer you buy at the stadiums go up.. everything relates to another... trust me, most of the owners wont pay the price increases out of their pocket, we pay it.

i favor a salary cap due to the bust rate of players.... and for those that argue about those later round gems getting paid pennies are totally wrong. once they break out, you better believe if they WANT a new contract, they GET a new contract. but most are backups skill wise anyways..

 

[Tyrion]

the more rookies make, the more ticket prices go up, the more jersey prices go up, the more the beer you buy at the stadiums go up.. everything relates to another... trust me, most of the owners wont pay the price increases out of their pocket, we pay it.

i favor a salary cap due to the bust rate of players.... and for those that argue about those later round gems getting paid pennies are totally wrong. once they break out, you better believe if they WANT a new contract, they GET a new contract. but most are backups skill wise anyways..

Actually that is a logical and common way of thinking that is actually false and in fact works in reverse.

While I agree that owners will not operate at a loss, player salaries are not why ticket prices keep going up. The salary cap is based on revenue so in simplistic terms every dollar that is brought in raises player salaries. Tickets, beer, jersey's, stadium parking etc. are expensive because that is what the market will bear. If people would only pay $20 for a ticket then that is what the ticket would cost. If all owners would not pay more than $1million for a rookie then that is how much the rookie would make. However just like there is a fan out there willing to pay $100 for a ticket there are owners willing to give $75 million to a rookie player.

If the owners really wanted to do this thing all that would have to happen is that the team with the first pick would need to find a player in the first round who would sign for less. Say 10% less than the previous number one. If all of the other owners based their salaries off of that first pick, which they primarily used to do anyway, (WTF were you thinking Atlanta?!) they could lower the rookie pay. Each year the 1st team could lower it by about 10%. It would have to be an amount that was small enough for that one player to make it more worth their while to sign than to take the chance and wait out the season(losing the income and interest from that income for that season which could never be recouped) and risk going in the draft the next year. Parcells tried to lead them to the right path but owners are a bunch of greedy me first type people.

 

[twr]

the more rookies make, the more ticket prices go up, the more jersey prices go up, the more the beer you buy at the stadiums go up.. everything relates to another... trust me, most of the owners wont pay the price increases out of their pocket, we pay it.

i favor a salary cap due to the bust rate of players.... and for those that argue about those later round gems getting paid pennies are totally wrong. once they break out, you better believe if they WANT a new contract, they GET a new contract. but most are backups skill wise anyways..

Actually that is a logical and common way of thinking that is actually false and in fact works in reverse.

While I agree that owners will not operate at a loss, player salaries are not why ticket prices keep going up. The salary cap is based on revenue so in simplistic terms every dollar that is brought in raises player salaries. Tickets, beer, jersey's, stadium parking etc. are expensive because that is what the market will bear. If people would only pay $20 for a ticket then that is what the ticket would cost. If all owners would not pay more than $1million for a rookie then that is how much the rookie would make. However just like there is a fan out there willing to pay $100 for a ticket there are owners willing to give $75 million to a rookie player.

If the owners really wanted to do this thing all that would have to happen is that the team with the first pick would need to find a player in the first round who would sign for less. Say 10% less than the previous number one. If all of the other owners based their salaries off of that first pick, which they primarily used to do anyway, (WTF were you thinking Atlanta?!) they could lower the rookie pay. Each year the 1st team could lower it by about 10%. It would have to be an amount that was small enough for that one player to make it more worth their while to sign than to take the chance and wait out the season(losing the income and interest from that income for that season which could never be recouped) and risk going in the draft the next year. Parcells tried to lead them to the right path but owners are a bunch of greedy me first type people.

a players salary for that year would be calculated as a fixed cost. if a fixed cost goes up, selling price goes up. player salary's as well as the cost of a hotdog bun, gas, a keg of beer, ect... all have a impact on selling price of certain items. if the item is important, we will pay whatever the price is. for a NFL franchise... their first round pick is a "important item". a NFL game is a item that we as fans purchase to watch... people have no choice but to pay the prices that are given to them, or not buy things... the only things that ever decrease prices are a recession(supply and demand..aka: the market), new technology, or a new item.

you're speaking of supply and demand, which also has a significant impact on prices, but it isn't the only factor.

why do we pay the high gas prices that we have today? because we either walk..bike it..or pay the price.. some things you cant do without and other things you dont want to do without... with your logic (which is correct) we could stop paying for gas and the price would go down... but do you ever think that will happen, unless a different form of fuel comes out thats cheaper... or we use a form of new technology?

price is affected by many things, not just the market.

 

[Tyrion]

the more rookies make, the more ticket prices go up, the more jersey prices go up, the more the beer you buy at the stadiums go up.. everything relates to another... trust me, most of the owners wont pay the price increases out of their pocket, we pay it.

i favor a salary cap due to the bust rate of players.... and for those that argue about those later round gems getting paid pennies are totally wrong. once they break out, you better believe if they WANT a new contract, they GET a new contract. but most are backups skill wise anyways..

Actually that is a logical and common way of thinking that is actually false and in fact works in reverse.

While I agree that owners will not operate at a loss, player salaries are not why ticket prices keep going up. The salary cap is based on revenue so in simplistic terms every dollar that is brought in raises player salaries. Tickets, beer, jersey's, stadium parking etc. are expensive because that is what the market will bear. If people would only pay $20 for a ticket then that is what the ticket would cost. If all owners would not pay more than $1million for a rookie then that is how much the rookie would make. However just like there is a fan out there willing to pay $100 for a ticket there are owners willing to give $75 million to a rookie player.

If the owners really wanted to do this thing all that would have to happen is that the team with the first pick would need to find a player in the first round who would sign for less. Say 10% less than the previous number one. If all of the other owners based their salaries off of that first pick, which they primarily used to do anyway, (WTF were you thinking Atlanta?!) they could lower the rookie pay. Each year the 1st team could lower it by about 10%. It would have to be an amount that was small enough for that one player to make it more worth their while to sign than to take the chance and wait out the season(losing the income and interest from that income for that season which could never be recouped) and risk going in the draft the next year. Parcells tried to lead them to the right path but owners are a bunch of greedy me first type people.

a players salary for that year would be calculated as a fixed cost. if a fixed cost goes up, selling price goes up. player salary's as well as the cost of a hotdog bun, gas, a keg of beer, ect... all have a impact on selling price of certain items. if the item is important, we will pay whatever the price is. for a NFL franchise... their first round pick is a "important item". a NFL game is a item that we as fans purchase to watch... people have no choice but to pay the prices that are given to them, or not buy things... the only things that ever decrease prices are a recession(supply and demand..aka: the market), new technology, or a new item.

you're speaking of supply and demand, which also has a significant impact on prices, but it isn't the only factor.

why do we pay the high gas prices that we have today? because we either walk..bike it..or pay the price.. some things you cant do without and other things you dont want to do without... with your logic (which is correct) we could stop paying for gas and the price would go down... but do you ever think that will happen, unless a different form of fuel comes out thats cheaper... or we use a form of new technology?

price is affected by many things, not just the market.

Interesting but I don't think you realize how the NFL Salary cap works. You can find out more information on it by going to http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

In a nutshell(I might be off by a percentage point here but I am not a numbers cruncher) I believe that the cap is 57% of the NFL's projected total revenue. Each team is required to pay out a minium of 84% of the the Salary cap number per season. So in essence it is a reversal of how you are looking at it. Player salaries are this high because the NFL is able sell their product (name their product of your choice) for such an expensive markup. Even if the percentage used were to go down you would still be charged the same price for your ticket and hot dog but instead of the player getting the money the owner would pocket the difference.

Now if you are saying that the players are making too high a percentage then ok but it is hard to argue that when the value of nfl franchises continues to increase. If an owner cannot afford to continue to run his franchise then maybe it is time to sell. (For a huge profit I might add.) That is what life long fans have had to do when they can no longer afford to pay for their season tickets or when they have to pay for new seat licenses that can cost as much as a house.

 

[Chairshot]

There is very little, if any, direct link between player salaries and ticket prices (or beer prices, hot dog prices, etc). The bottom line is that an NFL team will charge whatever people are willing to pay for those products, regardless of what level their team salaries are.

If I make widgets for a living and my market research shows me that people are willing to pay $29.99 for a widget, that's what I'm going to charge. It doesn't matter if it costs me $10 or $0.10 to make the widget, I'm charging what the market will bare.

Even the quality of the on field NFL product has very little to do with how much a ticket costs. Income levels for your fan base have more to do with things then quality of the product, in most cases. If a team believes that they will still sell out every home game by charging an average of $50 a ticket, what incentive do they have to only charge $25?

That said, I've also been a proponent of scrapping the draft, like some others here. In my opinion, rookies should enter the league as free agents, like any other player. The market will determine what that player is worth and teams won't have to feel the pressure to sign high draft picks to big money contracts for fear of losing face with their fans.

Still, assuming the draft is sticking around, I really don't see what the major problem is. There are maybe 15 players a year that get very large contracts. Some of them live up to their contracts, so there really should be no problem there. The discussion surrounds making major changes to the system because of a few busts every year, which seems kinda silly to me. If teams don't want to pay for the contract they are well aware they will have to pay at their draft slot, then just trade the pick.

I don't really buy the "unproven player" argument, either. "Proven" vets have crappy years all the time. There are good and bad contracts all across the board, from rookies to 15 year vets and from franchise QBs to backup kickers. People act like a "proven" player is somehow more likely to live up to his contract, which just isn't the case at all. There are busts at every level. Players that appear "proven" somehow end up riding the pine. I'm not saying experience means nothing, I'm just saying that calling a player "proven" is like saying that you *know* the next hamburger you eat will be delicious because all of your hamburger experiences so far have been wonderful. Past performance is not always indicative of future performance.

Personally, I think this whole thing is a negotiating ploy by the NFL. They are trying to put some pressure on the Player's Union by throwing a polarizing issue out there. I think the NFL believes that the PU is the weakest it's been in a very long time. They don't have a leader that everyone stands behind. The PU just isn't that unified at the moment. I think the NFL might actually believe that they can further weaken the PU if they keep spinning issues that will further divide players.

 

[Yenrub]

Is there already a rookie cap?

What is the rookie salary pool for?

 

[Tyrion]

There is very little, if any, direct link between player salaries and ticket prices (or beer prices, hot dog prices, etc). The bottom line is that an NFL team will charge whatever people are willing to pay for those products, regardless of what level their team salaries are.

If I make widgets for a living and my market research shows me that people are willing to pay $29.99 for a widget, that's what I'm going to charge. It doesn't matter if it costs me $10 or $0.10 to make the widget, I'm charging what the market will bare.

Even the quality of the on field NFL product has very little to do with how much a ticket costs. Income levels for your fan base have more to do with things then quality of the product, in most cases. If a team believes that they will still sell out every home game by charging an average of $50 a ticket, what incentive do they have to only charge $25?

That said, I've also been a proponent of scrapping the draft, like some others here. In my opinion, rookies should enter the league as free agents, like any other player. The market will determine what that player is worth and teams won't have to feel the pressure to sign high draft picks to big money contracts for fear of losing face with their fans.

Still, assuming the draft is sticking around, I really don't see what the major problem is. There are maybe 15 players a year that get very large contracts. Some of them live up to their contracts, so there really should be no problem there. The discussion surrounds making major changes to the system because of a few busts every year, which seems kinda silly to me. If teams don't want to pay for the contract they are well aware they will have to pay at their draft slot, then just trade the pick.

I don't really buy the "unproven player" argument, either. "Proven" vets have crappy years all the time. There are good and bad contracts all across the board, from rookies to 15 year vets and from franchise QBs to backup kickers. People act like a "proven" player is somehow more likely to live up to his contract, which just isn't the case at all. There are busts at every level. Players that appear "proven" somehow end up riding the pine. I'm not saying experience means nothing, I'm just saying that calling a player "proven" is like saying that you *know* the next hamburger you eat will be delicious because all of your hamburger experiences so far have been wonderful. Past performance is not always indicative of future performance.

Personally, I think this whole thing is a negotiating ploy by the NFL. They are trying to put some pressure on the Player's Union by throwing a polarizing issue out there. I think the NFL believes that the PU is the weakest it's been in a very long time. They don't have a leader that everyone stands behind. The PU just isn't that unified at the moment. I think the NFL might actually believe that they can further weaken the PU if they keep spinning issues that will further divide players.

Excellent points. What is the saying? "You can't build a team through free agency?" Ask Danniel Snyder how safe it is to sign proven players. When a lower round rookie outperforms their contract they usually get the line "We don't renegotiate contracts with 2 or more years left in the deal."

Personally if a Team with the number 1 pick can't afford the pick they should trade it (Don't give me the line that they are not getting enough value for the pick. Value is what the market says it is. You can't feed me Fair Market Value all the time and say it doesn't apply when it hurts you.) or draft a lower valued player with that pick who will take less money because they know they were not going in the top 10 of the draft otherwise. You still get a 1st round talent and the salary is something you can afford. I would love a 3000sqft house but I can only afford a 2000sqft house. My fans (my wife and son) are a little disappointed but hey whatcha going to do? Or of course they can do a work stoppage and see if they can kill their golden goose.