OT-My plan to help the NFL

Submitted by Ziff72 on December 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Since we are at the time of year where work amounts to screwing off on long lunches, I thought I'd unveil my rough sketch of a plan to save the NFL from itself. I'd always thought if this plan was instituted everyone from fans, players, coaches and owners would enjoy it more. With the NFL lockout looming it becomes more relevant. I think it is a semi-realistic plan. I think the plan would work incredible, I say semi realistic because no labor groups ever seem to work together for the betterment of all and I'm sure you guys will be able to punch enough holes in it to make it seem idiotic by the time the thread ends, but I'm curious your thoughts. Here we go.

Current System-Currently the NFL works under a salary cap that is the same for all 32 teams. There are a million rules in place to formulate which money counts against each year(much like trying to figure out the size of our recruiting class). The amount of the cap is tied to the NFL's revenue number which is driven for the most part by their enomous tv contracts that allow the owners and players to make an absurd amount of money. The current system gives us this. Matthew Stafford was the highest paid player in the NFL this year..enough said.

My System- Keep the available money in the pool to the players the same(whatever that number is they can negotiate it up or down it is irrelevant for my proposal), but allocate it differently. My proposal would be much like Salesmen earn their money. Each teams salary cap would be reduced dramatically and everyone in the entire league would earn the same base salary. The remaining money would go to the bonus/commision pool. That money would be passed out based on your teams performance. In my system the team that won the Super Bowl would have the highest cap number and the MVP of that team would make the most money on the team. For instance if the Colts won the SB, Manning would earn the 40 million this year and be the highest paid player, not Stafford, in the game for being the best player this year. This scale would scroll thru all 32 teams so that the best player on the worst team in the league might only make the same as the 20th best player on the Colts(no magic to that 20th number just an example how I'd like to see it slide way down to be on a shit team everyone will have their own prefernce).

To distribute the money it would be a set scale that was slotted for each player on the team. The rankings would be determined by combining 3 differnt votes(a kind a BCS) where the players vote amongst themsleves, their coaches have a vote and independent scouts would vote. This would prevent collusion amongst teammates or bribes to get more votes and each player is paid upon his worth to the team. Example would be

Colts
Manning 25 mil
Wayne 20 Mil
Freeney 18 mil
Clark 17 mil
etc...

Lions
Calvin 5 mil
Delmas 4 mil
um I need some help who would be the Lions next best player??
you get the point

This helps on many levels.

1. Attitude problems get cleared up real quick in-house. If T.O. is costing the other 52 guys on the roster cash with his act it'll get solved or he'll be out.

2. Fans will know their team hasn't packed it in when they move out of the playoff hunt as every win will matter.

3. Everyones goals will be the same, now you have player x trying to win and player y trying to get paid, player z trying not to get hurt. This is all eliminated because winning=money.

4. It's a team orientated goal so it's not like any players will sacrifice the team goals for their own stats.

5. This rewards the best players, not Charles Rodgers, so the players should be for it. If you bust your ass you deserve the cash.

6. Encourages great teams to stay together, which I think makes a better league. It's depressing watching great teams win a Super Bowl then have to figure out who they can keep 5 days later.

7. No BS.. players earn their roster spot, it's not a game based on potential or cap ramifications or age or 2 years from now. Teams are free to operate without being hamstrung by horrible contracts that hinder them for several years.

8. We don't have to watch idiot x threaten to sit out the season on Sportscenter every 3 days. Get your ass to camp.

These are some of the benefits I see. Obviously there are a ton of other things to consider like FA rules, owner revenue sharing and injury compensation, but I think it in general it could work and everyone would enjoy the league more creating more cash for the league and more enjoyment for us.

Give me your thoughts and tips to improve and I'll get a powerpoint over to Rog.

Happy Holidays.

Comments

CleverMichigan…

December 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^

According to Forbes, I found:

1. Man U (1,870 mil)
2. Dallas Cowboys (1,650 mil)
3. Washington Redskins (1,550 mil)
4. NY Yankees (1,500 mil)
5. NE Patriots (1,361 mil)
6. Real Madrid (1,353 mil)
7. Arsenal (1,200 mil)
8. NY Giants (1,183 mil)

These are all current value.

Also, the second highest valued baseball team is the Mets at 912 mil, which is between #25 and #26 for the NFL (Rams and Bills).

Links:

Forbes NFL Valuations

Forbes MLB Valuations

Forbes Soccer Valuations

MichIOE01

December 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^

All the good players would go to 1 team or a couple of good teams. All of the other teams would have no chance.

What about when a player gets injured? What do they get paid?

Ziff72

December 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^

I had a whole tiered list thing made out so that the top teams could not sign a player that had been a top 10 player on another team in the past 3 years and I've gone back and forth on the length of "contract" you could sign that would be guaranteed in case of injury, but that is way to complex to cover on a post and you could easily slide it one way or another. Without the contracts you need something for the lawyers to do, but basically I want to keep good teams together but allow players some freedom to move out of bad situations.

As for the guys talking about money. I probably had a bad headline there. The NFL needs no help in making money, I was thinking mostly from fans coaches and players points of view. Veteran players have to get frustrated with the pay structure, fans don't want to hear millionaire cry and this allows coaches to have more control and instill some discipline.

Tacopants

December 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^

In this example, all free agents can still converge on a mediocre team that just barely misses the playoffs, let's say whoever doesn't make the playoffs of the Cowboys/Giants/Eagles. There's nothing stopping this new team from becoming a powerhouse next year, and for the forseeable future. Repeat this cycle every year, with players able to sign on middle of the line teams in big markets/nice climates.

If the Giants don't make the playoffs under your system, here are the free agents they can add to their roster:

Ronnie Brown RB
Pierre Thomas RB
Brandom Marshall WR
Braylon Edwards WR
Steve Breaston WR (S)
Alge Crumpler TE
Ben Watson TE
10 decent OL

Elvis Dumervil DE
Jon Jolly DE
Vince Wilfork DT
Shawne Merriman LB
Carlos Rogers CB
Leigh Bodden CB
Nick Collins S
Roman Harper S

Your system screws over Detroit and Cleveland permanently. They're awful teams in crappy climates and a mid level market. Why would anybody be paid the same to try and turn them around when they could take the same money and go to a better situation (Green Bay), a major market (New York), a nicer climate (Miami), or a combination of these factors (Atlanta, Arizona, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Tennessee). I mean, if the best player on the Lions makes as much as the 20th best player on the Superbowl champion Steelers... if you're a good (not great) player and choosing between a starting position in Detroit or a backup/ST player for Pittsburgh, wouldn't it make more sense to play for Pittsburgh?

Ziff72

December 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^

This is a plan I thought of long ago and I actually wasted a lot of time figuring all the potential shortcomings that you point out. I think I had a cap on the number of FA you could sign in a particular year and the top teams were basically blocked from signing more than a guy here or there for top end talent. Obviously the bottom end teams like Detroit would have a hard time acquiring top talent so they would rely heavily on the draft. much like they had to in the 50's 60's 70's.