Abolish the Draft

[iceberg]

The same teams dominating year after year is just flat out boring and bad for the league as a whole.

parity sucks.

 

[Alexander]

Horrible idea.

Agreed.

The NFL is about parity.

While I loathe parity where you don't have what came about in the 1970s and 1980s (no more dynasties), I have to agree. It is in the league's best interest for teams to remain competitive.

It's good for the league to try and have all 32 teams competitive. I don't care what you say about money and this and that. If the NFL adopted this policy there would be several USC's, Oklahoma's and Florida's but a lot more Pitt's and Syracuse who will celebrate a major signing here and there but can not compete on the same level.

Geographics would also come back into play. I have a feeling quite a few college players would not want to leave home if they didn't have to. I understand that some people think economics will drive it, but remember, these are kids.

And I don't like the idea that even more of them can be led by the nose by agents who might be after the money, not the player's best interest. Not all of them are smart enough to go where they have the best shot at playing.

If this is even a thought, I hope it stops at simply shortening the draft again to three rounds or something.

 

[Eddie]

Geographics would also come back into play. I have a feeling quite a few college players would not want to leave home if they didn't have to. I understand that some people think economics will drive it, but remember, these are kids.

True ... and cold weather teams like Buffalo, GB, Chicago, Minny, NE, Seattle, Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. would have trouble recruiting players cause no one wants to play in the cold. Everyone would be in Miami.

 

[iceberg]

True ... and cold weather teams like Buffalo, GB, Chicago, Minny, NE, Seattle, Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. would have trouble recruiting players cause no one wants to play in the cold. Everyone would be in Miami.

miami would have to want them as well. it would also force teams to make themselves more attractive to the fans and players as well.

i'm not a fan of parity and if a team doesn't wanna step up and compete, they should fall down and go out of business.

 

[jobberone]

The same teams dominating year after year is just flat out boring and bad for the league as a whole.

Why? We used to dominate. We went to 10 NFC/NFL CC games in 13 years once. People loved/hated it but they watched.

Actually it does have a chance. If they keep some sort of cap and put a cap on rookie salaries. The problem is rookie salaries would have to be higher than the NFL owners want. If rookie salaries are fairly low even at the top then there would be no problem with signing multiple high picks. Then the problem is keeping your vets.

It could work. Teams like Dallas, NYG, SF, Wash would get top heavy at first but then it would start to even out over time.

I think its too controversial to be put in motion anytime soon though. Why should the owners tamper with a product that is making them billionaires?

 

[masomenos]

Actually it does have a chance. If they keep some sort of cap and put a cap on rookie salaries. The problem is rookie salaries would have to be higher than the NFL owners want. If rookie salaries are fairly low even at the top then there would be no problem with signing multiple high picks. Then the problem is keeping your vets.

I was thinking about having some kind of cap in place but I was leaning towards a total rookie salary cap, rather than a cap on individual players. So, teams would be able to spend up to 15% of the total cap (or something) on rookie salaries. This would give an advantage to teams that had cap space, but that's how it should be and that's exactly how FA works already. How you used your cap would be up to you, if you wanted to spend all 15% on two players, that's fine. If you wanted to spend it on 10 lesser prospects, that'd be fine too.

The top teams wouldn't always be able to sign the top prospects because, at some point, it would become fiscally prohibitive. We already hear talk about teams not wanting to be picking in the top 5, because the salaries are so ridiculous. Teams just can't afford to take on that many huge salaries and still be able to resign their own players and be players in free agency.

Rookie salaries wouldn't be higher than owners wanted, because the owners would be able to decide what kind of salary they were willing to take on.

 

[masomenos]

One of the worst arguments for doing it was about the contracts. You have Stafford landing a 6 year 78 million dollar deal which 41.7 million of it was guaranteed.

How much more out of hand does it need to get?

It's not good for the league now and needs changed, the last thing we need is rookies creating a bidding war and driving contracts up to the point where the league prices itself out of the main stream.

Well, think about it like this...

Do you think the Lions wanted to give Stafford $41.7 million in guaranteed money? Of course they didn't, the terms of the contract were, largely, set by last years top pick. Know, do you think that any team would have wanted to pay Stafford that much? I have my doubts. The problem with the current system is that negotiations take place between only two parties, the contract values are largely preset, and teams have already invested in the player by using a pick, so they will almost always be the side that budges in negotiations.

Stafford wouldn't get a huge contract unless teams thought that he really deserved it. The teams who likes him would then be able to set the price through competition, not precedent.

 

[Big Dakota]

Sorry, never will happen.

 

[viman96]

Terrible idea regardless if the league is about parody.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think his idea would better encourage parity than the draft, at least until some sort of rookie salary cap is instituted that will prevent teams from being hogtied by a bust QB or something for years.

It would be more like recruiting...but then again what if everyone wanted to play for New England? There would be no parity whatsoever. So I see your point, Home.

There is no way that this would encourage parity. Places like NY, Dallas and Miami would get tons of players because of the appeal of the city while teams like Buffalo and GB would get nobody. Its a bad idea if you want to have fairness int ehs prot.

 

[DallasEast]

parity sucks.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[casmith07]

Terrible idea regardless if the league is about parody.

Parody? LoL I guess you're right, with your Al Davis avatar:laugh1:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Truer words have never been spoken.

It sucks for Dallas and SF fans but I actually enjoy watching all the games on Sundays which before the cap I would not.

 

[masomenos]

Its a bad idea if you want to have fairness int ehs prot.

What??

:laugh2:

 

[viman96]

Parody? LoL I guess you're right, with your Al Davis avatar:laugh1:

LOL good catch :laugh2: I meant parity!

 

[jobberone]

I was thinking about having some kind of cap in place but I was leaning towards a total rookie salary cap, rather than a cap on individual players. So, teams would be able to spend up to 15% of the total cap (or something) on rookie salaries. This would give an advantage to teams that had cap space, but that's how it should be and that's exactly how FA works already. How you used your cap would be up to you, if you wanted to spend all 15% on two players, that's fine. If you wanted to spend it on 10 lesser prospects, that'd be fine too.

The top teams wouldn't always be able to sign the top prospects because, at some point, it would become fiscally prohibitive. We already hear talk about teams not wanting to be picking in the top 5, because the salaries are so ridiculous. Teams just can't afford to take on that many huge salaries and still be able to resign their own players and be players in free agency.

Rookie salaries wouldn't be higher than owners wanted, because the owners would be able to decide what kind of salary they were willing to take on.

I suppose it could work either with just a rookie cap or with a more generous overall cap and a rookie cap. I don't think they would ever go for a totally uncapped advantage. Teams like Pittsburg, Greenbay, and MN would not be able to compete fairly. Teams with huge TV and radio contracts would dominate IMO.

I do like the % of total cap being towards rookies. That's a good idea. And you would allow for paying only the top draft prospects. I don't see most teams wanting to draft 7-8 draftees per year. That would cause a glut of undrafted FAs. Not sure that's a good idea for the game but I haven't given much thought to it.

 

[sonnyboy]

I love the draft. Always have. I used to stay home from school to watch on espn way back when it used to be held Monday.

However, I do like change.

Here's an interesting compromise that I think is a completely original idea.

How about each team is given ONE rookie FA pre-draft signing.
Every team can sign just one player to whatever deal they want.
You could call it Rookie FA week. Start it on Monday morning and have it end that Saturday before the now 6 round college draft starts.

What I like about this is you reward lousy teams less. They don't get to monopolize the very best players.
You also keep the glamor franchises from getting all the great players.

 

[jobberone]

I love the draft. Always have. I used to stay home from school to watch on espn way back when it used to be held Monday.

However, I do like change.

Here's an interesting compromise.

How about each team is given ONE rookie FA pre-draft signing.
Every team is can to sign just one player to whatever deal they want.
You could call it Rookie FA week. Start it on Monday morning and have it end that Saturday before the now 6 round college draft starts.

What I like about this is you reward lousy teams less. They don't get to monopolize the very best players.
You also keep the glamor franchises from getting all the great players.

That's interesting. Maybe kinda like a franchise tag. A predraft tag.

I also think there needs to be a formula for excluding some players on each team. Teams should be able to keep some of their better vets if they can reach a deal with them. ES and TD should never have played somewhere else.

 

[Temo]

It's a great idea that will never get enacted. But then again, it'd be a better idea if there weren't 32 teams in the league (which is way too many).

But I'll never win that fight.

 

[Hoofbite]

What??

:laugh2:

yeah, I was looking at that too. Looks like he put those three words into a blender.