PDA

View Full Version : Fixing the NFL



YoHoChecko
04-05-2006, 02:18 AM
http://www.pigskinheaven.com/gallery/files/7/NFL3.png

With all the labor strife of the past few months following up a season of poor officiating and a fair amount of criticism in general directed towards the league for a decent portion of the year, I decided to come up with a list of things that I think will improve the league. We'll call it practice for when I am named Tagliabue's replacement in July.

This list, with explaination, will be detailed over the course of a series of articles, each one outlining one or two points on my list. However, though they will be revealed only a couple at a time, it must be kept in mind that, individually, these are not all great ideas. The assumption is that ALL of these events should be enacted, as some are beneficial to one faction while others are beneficial to another. Together, a balance can be created and the overall picture of the league should be a much prettier one when all is said and done.

Without further ado, here is the first point in my plan to "fix" the NFL:


1a. Fix the rookie pay scale
How it got broken:
It’s a simple concept, really. Each year, agents shoot for about a 5% increase over the deal signed by the same slot from a year earlier, depending on the salary cap increase. Well, the top picks always got the most money, so when you increase a big number by 5%, the increase is bigger than that of a smaller number. Incidentally, the top picks grew higher and higher, with the gaps between the top picks and the later draft picks growing exponentially.

Why it’s a problem:
The early first round picks have reached that point where a draft bust cripples a team, an unproven rookie is making significantly more than solid veterans, and some rookie contracts rival that of pro bowlers at the same position. This is a system that just doesn’t make sense. It creates great potential for teams who make a wrong pick to remain stuck near the bottom of the league in wins, the top of the draft, and stuck in a terrible financial mess down the road.

Solution:
Create a slotted system where the contract amounts for first-round picks are pre-determined, and have those amounts be significantly reduced from their current status. The percentage between each pick should remain constant, instead of growing each season, creating the exponential contract inflation of the past.


1b. Limit rookie salary length
How it got broken:
Of late, teams have realized that rookies have little to no leverage in contract negotiations. Therefore, they force players to sign 5 and 6-year deals, locking them into rookie contract salaries for a longer period of time and delaying the possibility of hitting free agency. Also, with the increased bonuses and guarantees of the high picks, the teams need to spread the signing bonuses out over longer periods of time to limit salary cap hits. Recent changes have already limited day-2 draft picks to 4-year contracts, but day-one picks do not have that protection.

Why it’s a problem:
Players who hit the league running and become star-quality players within 2 seasons are often stuck for two more seasons as stars with role-player salaries. Also, if item 1a is addressed, top picks will be getting smaller bonuses, smaller salaries, ect. That means that some potential top performers might get stuck in smaller contracts, and also it means that additional years are not really necessary for deferring the gargantuan bonuses anymore.

Solution:
Limit ALL rookie contracts to a 4-season maximum. That allows all rookies the potential to hit unrestricted free agency in their first eligible year (less than 4 years, they are restricted free agents).


Effects of point 1:
Point one is beneficial for the teams and for at least 90% of the players. Giving the teams more money to spend on veterans and later-round picks definitely is good for the players. Letting teams avoid the potential cap hell caused by a missed pick in the draft’s top 15 is a big plus for the teams. Limiting the contract length will be feasible for teams given the smaller payments they are making to the players, while it definitely helps the players, allowing them out of their rookie contracts earlier than under the current system. This helps to avoid hold-outs. Given that rookie contracts are the only deals in which the players have almost no leverage, it is necessary to give them extra layers of protection, and to try to avoid issues that would bring about hold-outs.

Sascha
04-14-2006, 03:41 PM
I can not believe this has only gotten 35 views and no replies! Don't let it get you down YoHo, I'm still very interested in your other points.


I do agree with you, rookie salaries are entirely out of line, and a bust is gonna strangle a team for years to come. Have a pre-determined rookie pay-scale and mandate contracts be 2 or 3 years, and teams may finally regain a little leverage. It's sad to see a team having to trade a top 5 pick because you won't be able to afford paying him.

YoHoChecko
04-14-2006, 04:15 PM
I can not believe this has only gotten 35 views and no replies! Don't let it get you down YoHo, I'm still very interested in your other points.


I do agree with you, rookie salaries are entirely out of line, and a bust is gonna strangle a team for years to come. Have a pre-determined rookie pay-scale and mandate contracts be 2 or 3 years, and teams may finally regain a little leverage. It's sad to see a team having to trade a top 5 pick because you won't be able to afford paying him.
Holy Cow! A reply...

It's been so long I didn't even remember that this thread was for an article I wrote. Thanks for the support, haha.

I was going to post part 2 today, which, I think will be points 2-4, but with the new writing format confusing me a bit AND the lack of response, I figured I could afford to wait a bit... but maybe I'll scoot along. Perhaps no one responded because this point is so obviously necessary... or maybe it's just that the business side of the sport isn't really all that appealling of a topic right now... especially after getting knocked over with it during the labor dispute.

nyGiants4life
04-14-2006, 04:33 PM
Definitely need to fix that. It's ridiculous the contract that Alex Smith got. It just boggles my mind how an unproven rookie, never taken a snap in the NFL is getting paid in the top, what, 15 percentile in the league...???

And about the contract length, another issue. It's not fair to rookies or guys like Gates or Walker who outperform there contracts by alot (Pro Bowl Seasons) then are not rewarded for it..

gotmilk
04-16-2006, 05:10 PM
Definitely need to fix that. It's ridiculous the contract that Alex Smith got. It just boggles my mind how an unproven rookie, never taken a snap in the NFL is getting paid in the top, what, 15 percentile in the league...???

Good point. And with his current playing rate, the 49ers will be crippled for the next 5 years. 5 possibly wasted years.

YoHoChecko
04-16-2006, 05:55 PM
Good point. And with his current playing rate, the 49ers will be crippled for the next 5 years. 5 possibly wasted years.
I think lessened salaries are particularly important for quarterbacks. It used to be that QBs were developed, sometimes over 3-5 years after being selected before they had mastered the playing speed and the basics of playing in the NFL. Some can play sooner, of course, but with a smaller financial burden, there is less pressure to rush a QB into action, and quarterbacks, once again, can be developed if they don't work out right off the bat.

NFL media has complained a lot about the decline in quarterback play lately, with some terrible QBing going on last season. I think that the return to the thought of developing a player at that position may help that problem as well... though simply lowering their salaries won't make that happen completely. It's a step in the right direction, though.

KeithPanther
05-30-2006, 06:16 AM
Very good article. It's something I have wished they would do for a long time. The current system has been in place for so long that the inertia against it will be hard to overcome though. The trick will be convincing the PA that it's not just a trick to reduce player salaries across the board. Also, there is no way to grandfather it which means the first group of draftees to enter such a new system will be extremely unhappy about it. Which in turn could lead to massive holdouts.

Crunked
05-30-2006, 06:32 AM
Very good article. It's something I have wished they would do for a long time. The current system has been in place for so long that the inertia against it will be hard to overcome though. The trick will be convincing the PA that it's not just a trick to reduce player salaries across the board. Also, there is no way to grandfather it which means the first group of draftees to enter such a new system will be extremely unhappy about it. Which in turn could lead to massive holdouts.

Very good point, any change would be nearly impossible to make successful and as much as I agree with YOho's point on the issue I don't see a way to implement any change of consequence that all sides would agree on readily.

YoHoChecko
07-11-2006, 07:02 PM
Very good point, any change would be nearly impossible to make successful and as much as I agree with YOho's point on the issue I don't see a way to implement any change of consequence that all sides would agree on readily.
It would have been really easy to impliment during the CBA negotiations. Just make it the biggest sticking point in agreeing to fork over a larger percentage (which the league eventually did).

Also, because the only beneficiaries of the current system are the top 15-20 picks, the players' union would actually be HELPING most of their members by not allowing teams to spend so much on very few, unproven players

Additionally, now that the top picks are all starting to be signed, perhaps this topic is a bit more current. It could use a bump.