CFZ It's Time To Upgrade the NFL's Method of Free Agency and Salary Caps

[plasticman]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

 

[DogFace]

What about a separate cap for QB’s or that QB’s aren’t part of the cap at all?

 

[T-RO]

Huge Props, plasticman. Some of these suggestions might not be workable, but I like the direction of your thinking, and I applaud the mental plasticity and courage (on this forum) to propose them.

 

[fivetwos]

Installing a way to circumvent the cap with a penalty of money only is in effect, removing the cap. The owners would never go for that.

If teams were allowed to buy cap space by forfeiting draft picks, that could get interesting, but the players Union would never go for that. It lessens the need for restructuring large signing bonuses….players getting their cash up front.

I don’t think either side sees the system as broken, so I wouldn’t expect change. The only potential problem I can see is within the union itself….how some members are taking too much of the pie and it’s squeezing some out entirely…but I don’t consider that to be likely at all.

 

[jazzcat22]

A janitor can't expect CEO money.
Some players will always be at league minimum. Many fans would take that pay to play, then wait their chance. If not, they still make good money.

All young players will accept that structure, and will not turn down that contract. Even many vet players would not turn a lower offer. Though some do over evaluate themselves at that point. But that is not this issue.

Yes a more structured cap could be done. But what if you have an average QB but it is a few players on defense, and a dynamic WR and / or RB that is what really makes things go. Should they get paid less just because it is not the QB position.

Case in point, name any SF QB, once Deebo and / or CMC was injured, look how the offense struggled . And when both were out. They dropped 3 in a row.

 

[Streifenkarl]

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with the system itself. It's in the owners hands not to pay QBs these ridiculous amounts of money. It's in the GMs hands to find players that will contribute to the salary structure more evenly. Look at the RB position. The market made it's decision on that once highly sought after roster spot.

People say there are very few top notch QBs. Well, atm even mediocre QBs get these high salaries. Owners seem to suffer from the FOMO syndrome. That's their problem. Personally I don't care what Dak ears. Never did. But he sucks in the play offs so no matter what his salary is, I want him replaced. Same goes for all suckers on the team. Whether they are on league minimum or highly payed.

 

[Brax]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

I am shocked the NFLPA allows this no player should make more than 7-8 % of the cap. It’s a great disservice to the majority of players especially the players who have short careers. I have no idea why the players allow this as for most it is costing them money.

 

[Adreme]

I think you do not understand that what you are describing as "not the intent" was absolutely the intent. It is entirely designed to promote parity and make it harder to have sustained success for 10-15 years.

Lets break down the way it works, and specifically this is how they want it to work. First a team is bad so they draft highly and with those high picks on average they get great players. They also have the cap space to sign great players because they do not have much talent. With the great talent they have drafted and the players they have signed they are now a good team so they are drafting in a worse position. In a few years it is now time to sign the great players they drafted and unfortunately the newly drafted players are going to be inferior, on average, because they were drafted 10-20 spots lower. This makes your team get worse and a few years later you become bad again and the cycle repeats. This is what the NFL WANTS. The fact that having Micah on a rookie deal or Purdy on a rookie deal is a significant advantage over having Watt or Lamar on veteran deals is quite literally by design and is what the NFL wants.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters.

I'm in favor of this. Pick a number to start with then lower it 2% a year until the desired amount is reached. For example, start at 20% then next year it's 18% and so on. In 5 years the goal is reached. This would have a dramatic effect on the way players are paid.

 

[Bobhaze]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

Great post PM. This makes perfect sense.

I especially like the idea of teams getting a break when they resign their own players. The NBA gives their teams incentives to keep the players they drafted. In that sense, the NBA’s salary cap is a softer, more pliable cap designed to be better for fans while still ensuring the owners make a good profit.

The NFL employs the hardest, least flexible cap in professional sports. And it is designed to do one thing and one thing only: make the NFL owners an insane amount of money.

 

[doomsday9084]

The NBA has a player salary cap and its actually a bad thing if you don't have one of the top players. The general result is that all of the good players have about the same salary so if you have one of the top ones, your team is at a significant advantage over a team that is paying a lesser player the same amount.

Overall, the NFL salary cap is working as intended. It makes teams jump up and then fold on themselves. The richest don't win. In general, the teams with the best coaching and management win.

Its frustrating as a Cowboys fan since we generally don't have the best coaching and management.

 

[speedkilz88]

The nfl owners are not going to do anything that would cost them more money.

 

[Flamma]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

Excellent ideas, but let me get the first one out of the way. The draft among non playoffs teams should be either totally random, or slightly slanted towards the worse teams. Put tanking to rest completely. As far as the playoff teams go, reverse the draft. Super bowl winner picks 19th.

The great idea is counting drafted players less against the cap. Two reasons this will never happen. The NFLPA won't allow it as they'll think it would hurt free agents. They'll want something in return, and the NFL won't do that. The second reason is the NFL. They're not going to implement a system that can make them potentially spend more money. For the same reason, I don't believe they'd ever agree to a softer cap that allows them to spend more with a penalty. Because teams that don't intend to spend more would be put at a disadvantage.

The 10% cap limit shouldn't be a problem for either the NFLPA, or the NFL. But what real positive impact would that have? The same 5-8 teams in the league will take advantage of it the way they take advantage of the current cap. The only real difference is that there won't be as much money pushed forward.

 

[Flamma]

What about a separate cap for QB’s or that QB’s aren’t part of the cap at all?

They won't do this because it will cost the owners more money. The cap money +QB.

 

[Ranching]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

You pay more for a Lamborghini than you do for a Kia. It's all good if you get what you pay for, but sometimes a solid running Kia gets you more than a Lamborghini that keeps running out of gas.
A pay grade system would go a long way in saving owners from themselves. Spread the wealth.

 

[DallasEast]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Great post but I do believe both the owners and players' union foresaw exactly what is happening now as when the first collective bargaining agreement of the current form was ratified in 1994. However, I do think both groups did not believe quarterback demand would dictate as much of the salary cap and free agency as quickly and radically as it has.

Why? Because some outsiders, like myself, clearly saw the potential of it happening when the initial deal was done. It is not realistic greed will be voluntarily constrained within a rigid structure without codifying how much anyone will be paid according to that structure.

I talked about what was going to happen back in the 90's on The Site That Shalt Not Be Named on CowboysZone before this site was created. I talked about it ad nauseam during the early years of this site. Anyone can ignore or not understand the economics driving outlandish player salary demands but it was 100% guaranteed to happen eventually.

The only actual surprise is any degree of shock from anyone thinking any owner will not pay a chunk of their franchise salary cap if they determine the player is worth the value of his demand. These contract amounts have zero to do with what every pundit believes a player's abilities equal how much money they should be paid. Actually, it means less than zero. It means 100% what an owner is willing to pay.

What drives the explosion of disproportionate salary cap distribution within the salary cap is not financial. It is economics.

That is the foundational problem. It has always been the central problem from the very beginning thirty years ago. No one should expect a genie to stay inside an open bottle.

 

[Mcsports]

The bottom of the bottom line is that owners are filthy rich with the current deals as are the upper elite players, so no one will change.
I do like the ideas though and think the league would be improved without such a huge disparity in players salary

 

[CWR]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

Yeah FA kind of sucks. It's exciting and all, but the old grudge matches aren't the same. Teams use to hate each other and that passion played out on the field.

The new buddy buddy, jersey swapping super team system has its down sides. As fans we love/hate the laundry but it's ironic to love a player one year and disown him entirely the following season.

I don't know a luxury tax is a good system either. Maybe it is? I certainly don't possess the knowledge to understand the NBA cap, bird rights and mid level exemptions but maybe it's better? Either way the game has grown to the point these guys are all business men making business decisions. We can't go back.

 

[Creeper]

I don't disagree that the CAP as it is right now can at times be a nuisance for fans. Personally, I would prefer no CAP at all. Let there be a free market. But of course, we have to deal with reality. The truth is some owners would skimp on players and field horrible teams. Some would overspend and field all-star teams. The leagues doe not want this because it could make some teams less popular and that in the long run hurts the NFL. This is why, even with a CAP, there is a minimum teams have to spend on players.

I also think there will always be players who are just so much better than other players and they should get paid 50 times more. That's just the way it is. The more rare something is, the more in demand it is, the more it is worth. The best players, or competent QBs are both rare and in demand. That's why they get paid more - and should. Again free market.

I hate the CAP, but I especially hate it when a veteran player who has played for 1 team his entire career has to leave and go to another team because his salary is too much for his original team to pay. Players like Emmitt Smith, DeMarcus Ware, and Tyron Smith should be allowed to finish their careers with the team that drafted them. They should come up with a way to exclude their CAP or part of it. It seems to me a 10 year vet is on the downside of his career and excluding him from the CAP is not go to swing the balance of talent that much if they exclude those vets from the CAP.

But the question is really about QBs. I'd favor any change that reduces the overall impact of QB salaries on the CAP, whether they count only 75% of the compensation against the CAP or whatever percentage or some other relief for QBs I think it would be good for the players and the league. I don't think capping QB salaries or having a max % they can be against the CAP would work.

We just have to accept that the NFL looks at the league as a single business entity, and the NFL only cares about how the league as a whole is performing - and by performing I mean making money. Whether teams are struggling to get under the CAP or not is not a big concern for the NFL as long as squeezing players under the CAP does not hurt the business.

 

[Sydla]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

LOL.

Jerry would still be cheap.