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

[Forneymike]

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’m not sure why you want to limit someone’s earning power and have a more even distribution of salary. The players would never go for that. They make billions for these owners and some of these guys are way better than others. Players gave in on salary cap but capping them even more would never pass I don’t think. I like the idea of rewarding teams for keeping their own players and get some cap relief through that but we would never put up with that kind of capping in our jobs. If we are more valuable to a company than someone else, we should get paid more. Owners and GMs have to manage the cap. The QB cap is interesting but just need to see how that would work.

 

[charron]

No one is forced to pay 1/5 of the cap to any single player, but they choose to do it. You don't need a rule to prevent this you just need discipline.

 

[roy31]

I’ve always thought that a team should get a percentage of salary cap relief for a player if they drafted that player… so if a player signs let’s say a 100 million dollar contract with a new team he could sing that same contract with the team that drafted him but a lesser hit on the cap than the new team.

 

[Coogiguy03]

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 agree why does a qb make so much more than other players, if I were these other players I'd fight for change.

Next I've said before there needs to be a cap at all positions for the top QBs they should make a certain amount that nobody can go over so mahomes is the top for example make the cap at 30 million, a guy like Dak could make 25-28 million

 

[StarOfGlory]

A cap artificially places a ceiling on what players can earn overall. Now you want to make it worse by limiting the income potential of specific players. This is the owners problem. They started this--let them start pulling back salaries on their own.

 

[plasticman]

A cap artificially places a ceiling on what players can earn overall. Now you want to make it worse by limiting the income potential of specific players. This is the owners problem. They started this--let them start pulling back salaries on their own.

Your argument has merit. However, they may agree as a group to limit salaries for QB's but, without a CBA that has been approved by the NFLPA, wouldn't that be collusion?

Besides, without a written agreement, there will always be at least one maverick owner willing to pay a QB what their original team refused....and so it goes on.

 

[plasticman]

I’m not sure why you want to limit someone’s earning power and have a more even distribution of salary. The players would never go for that. They make billions for these owners and some of these guys are way better than others. Players gave in on salary cap but capping them even more would never pass I don’t think. I like the idea of rewarding teams for keeping their own players and get some cap relief through that but we would never put up with that kind of capping in our jobs. If we are more valuable to a company than someone else, we should get paid more. Owners and GMs have to manage the cap. The QB cap is interesting but just need to see how that would work.

The players would never go for that.

I think that there is only one player on most teams that would oppose it

 

[plasticman]

LOL.

Jerry would still be cheap.

Jerry would pay anything for another championship......anything.

That would grant him the one thing he craves more than anything else in this world. We would be forced to acknowledge that Jerry, as a GM of the Dallas Cowboys, built a championship team.

He would be granted legitimacy. He will have earned credentials.

 

[Sydla]

Jerry would pay anything for another championship......anything.

That would grant him the one thing he craves more than anything else in this world. We would be forced to acknowledge that Jerry, as a GM of the Dallas Cowboys, built a championship team.

He would be granted legitimacy. He will have earned credentials.

Fallacy.

He can pay guys now if they managed the cap the way other teams have. He and his son refuse to do that. They sit out FA every year claiming cap constraints and yet most other teams are able to be active because they work the cap. Jerry has smart people working for him, they know how to make the cap work IF the two Jones' boys wanted to work the cap. They choose not to.

Also remember that Jerry Jones came out and said that dead money to coaches is a problem and he doesn't like it. The most valuable franchise in sports.......... the most profitable franchise in sports and the owner/GM is worried about having to pay a HC to leave while paying his new HC. If you think Jerry would spend whatever it takes to win, you haven't paid attention. He won't pay to get a better HC and just have to pay McCarthy for one season but somehow you think he's pay for players if he didn't have to worry about a cap?

 

[JoeKing]

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.

Good sustained talent is already penalized by making it more expensive to hang on to and maintaining a salary cap that all teams are held accountable.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

And it is designed to do one thing and one thing only: make the NFL owners an insane amount of money.

This is the problem......CBA requires owners to share what 48/49% with the players? So if the owners are making an insane amount of money, guess who are the beneficiaries, you got it. Fans tend to overlook the billions of dollars owners are making coz they were rich anyway. It's hard for some to accept an average kid growing up suddenly ( many w/o degrees ) making $10s of millions of dollars. Do you think it's a coincidence that fans love players on rookie contracts? But oh boy, what happens after they sign the huge deal......

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

If a rule was in place that said: "No player shall account for more than 15% of the salary cap" (or whatever percentage), it would benefit the vast majority of the players. Although that rule is not position specific, it would have the effect of diverting money from the QB's to the rest of the players on the team.

 

[plasticman]

Fallacy.

He can pay guys now if they managed the cap the way other teams have. He and his son refuse to do that. They sit out FA every year claiming cap constraints and yet most other teams are able to be active because they work the cap. Jerry has smart people working for him, they know how to make the cap work IF the two Jones' boys wanted to work the cap. They choose not to.

Also remember that Jerry Jones came out and said that dead money to coaches is a problem and he doesn't like it. The most valuable franchise in sports.......... the most profitable franchise in sports and the owner/GM is worried about having to pay a HC to leave while paying his new HC. If you think Jerry would spend whatever it takes to win, you haven't paid attention. He won't pay to get a better HC and just have to pay McCarthy for one season but somehow you think he's pay for players if he didn't have to worry about a cap?

Better HC's just don't want to work for him because he won't give them the control and means to succeed.

 

[ghst187]

I’ve been saying this for years now that they should cap the qb pay at a % of total cap. I’m shocked the other players haven’t raised the issue via NFLPA as it’s directly taking money out of literally everyone else’s pockets.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

I’ve been saying this for years now that they should cap the qb pay at a % of total cap. I’m shocked the other players haven’t raised the issue via NFLPA as it’s directly taking money out of literally everyone else’s pockets.

I think this is a very bad idea that will only create more separation between the tier 1 and tier two teams. Patrick Mahomes may end up the best QB ever, so he should hit their cap as if he is. Suddenly giving the KC Chiefs 20-30m$ in cap relief isn’t going to create more parity.

Paying or not paying your QB big bucks is a developed strategy for GMs. It is what makes the NFL so interesting and special. “We have no choice but to give Dak Prescott 60m$” is the wrong way to look at it.

 

[kskboys]

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.

And then add in they deliberately turned the NFL into an Offensive league, making the QB position even more valuable.

 

[kskboys]

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.

The bolded is contrary to the market value you are proposing. A long term vet has a lesser market value due to decreased ability. So, if you want the free market, then the aging star will get less as his value is less. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DallasEast]

And then add in they deliberately turned the NFL into an Offensive league, making the QB position even more valuable.

Good point.

 

[Sydla]

Better HC's just don't want to work for him because he won't give them the control and means to succeed.

Regardless he refused to even try because he didn't want to pay McCarthy a few million to not coach in 2024. The thought of paying McCarthy to not coach while he would have to pay a new coach is not something Jerry wanted to do.

I'd love to see what you propose and then watch thousands of Cowboys fans suddenly realize Jerry and his son are way cheaper than you believed.

 

[conner01]

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

Which effectively means no cap and QB salaries soar even higher. No way owners would ever do that