Proposition: McClay would be regarded as an NFL Einstein if they'd standardize players' pay

[_sturt_]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the NFL climate as it has stood for all these years seriously dis-incentivizes teams from drafting well, and as much as Will McClay may be appreciated, he would be considered a friggin NFL Einstein probably if he didn't have to watch high performance players he scouted and more often than not personally made the case to draft skip town after all.

You know, we really don't have to do this over and over and over and over every year for player after player after player after player. It's a choice that the owners and the union have made. There are ways to eliminate all that agents get paid and all the hours sunk into negotiations, and just let the best players want to be the best players out of a genuine desire to be the best, to win games and to win titles... with the caveat, that you do have the incentive to get paid for the work you do in post season.

My proposal...

• Total of NFL salaries become tied directly to a specific established percentage share of regular season revenues plus established percentage share of post-season revenues. What negotiating there is to do is that, then. Only that.

• If you're on the roster for a regular season game, you all get paid the same, no matter your position, no matter your place on the depth chart and number of snaps you get. You're part of a team. Why is that a bad idea? It's not, not in this context of competitive professional sports.

• Same for post season. If you're on the roster, you get paid. If your team isn't in post season, that's income you're missing out on... so you'll want to do better next year, right? If your team is in post season, obviously you have incentive to keep winning.

• If you're on the practice squad, you get paid something very much like you already get now per game.

• The commitment that a team makes to its drafted players and its drafted players make to them is 4 years for Day One draftees (1st), 3 years for Day Two draftees (2nd/3rd), and 2 years for Day Three draftees (4th-7th). For all UDFA signees, there is a 1 year commitment.

• Following their initial commitment to each other, the player and the team alternate years in making decisions to continue their working relationship. For instance, a first rounder like CeeDee drafted 4 years ago right now would have made a decision in the off-season whether he wanted to continue playing in Dallas or transfer to another team. Assuming he re-upped with DAL, after this season DAL gets to make the decision whether to commit to him for 2025... and that dance continues through the rest of his career. So, effectively, the player in that situation gets the option every even year, and the team gets the option every odd year.

• Trades cannot be made unless the player is in his current team's year in which his team holds the option. Trades are made more simple by the fact that there is no salary consideration to deal with.

• If you're a star, great. But it's a team game like it was at the beginning of the sport now. Any extra income you're going to make is going to come from either playing post season or from endorsements or from post-career job opportunities that come to stars.

So what would a player make in 2024 under such a framework?

If my math is correct (per Spotrac, $275m 2024 average per team divided by 17 games divided by 53 players)... $305,000 per game in which they're on the roster... or about $5 million for the season.

Then, for post season participants, they currently are receiving either $41,500 (wild-card teams) or $46,500 (division winners) for wild-card games... $46,500 for the divisional round... and $69,000 for conference championships. Kansas City Chiefs players took home $157,000 as a result of winning the Super Bowl. San Francisco 49ers received $82,000.

Under this concept, though, the numbers would likely be seriously increased to correlate with post season income... and that's the part that is key if ever something like this became seriously considered. Owners would be opening up a whole other wing of their vault to players, ostensibly in exchange for the benefit of never having to negotiate another star QB contract (et al) again. Players would be mainly gaining from the new era because the players actually sacrificing would be the top tier earners... and if it came to a vote, of course, the top tier would be far out-numbered.

I'm a capitalist philosophically. Don't take this wrong. But I see reason for this specific economic environment for management and the union to come to agreement on a framework that cuts out the agents, and makes being a fan so much less about business, so much more purely about football and player performance.

So, now, feel free to let those rotten tomatoes fly... ...

 

[big dog cowboy]

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

McClay is just another Jerry's "yes man", but being a Jerry "yes man" is much easier than being a real GM that would have consequences for teams not winning.

He's got a good gig going and that's why he refuses to interview for real GM jobs.

 

[Brax]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the NFL climate as it has stood for all these years seriously dis-incentivizes teams from drafting well, and as much as Will McClay may be appreciated, he would be considered a friggin NFL Einstein probably if he didn't have to watch high performance players he scouted and more often than not personally made the case to draft skip town after all.

You know, we really don't have to do this over and over and over and over every year for player after player after player after player. It's a choice that the owners and the union have made. There are ways to eliminate all that agents get paid and all the hours sunk into negotiations, and just let the best players want to be the best players out of a genuine desire to be the best, to win games and to win titles... with the caveat, that you do have the incentive to get paid for the work you do in post season.

My proposal...

• Total of NFL salaries become tied directly to a specific established percentage share of regular season revenues plus established percentage share of post-season revenues. What negotiating there is to do is that, then. Only that.

• If you're on the roster for a regular season game, you all get paid the same, no matter your position, no matter your place on the depth chart and number of snaps you get. You're part of a team. Why is that a bad idea? It's not, not in this context of competitive professional sports.

• Same for post season. If you're on the roster, you get paid. If your team isn't in post season, that's income you're missing out on... so you'll want to do better next year, right? If your team is in post season, obviously you have incentive to keep winning.

• If you're on the practice squad, you get paid something very much like you already get now per game.

• The commitment that a team makes to its drafted players and its drafted players make to them is 4 years for Day One draftees (1st), 3 years for Day Two draftees (2nd/3rd), and 2 years for Day Three draftees (4th-7th). For all UDFA signees, there is a 1 year commitment.

• Following their initial commitment to each other, the player and the team alternate years in making decisions to continue their working relationship. For instance, a first rounder like CeeDee drafted 4 years ago right now would have made a decision in the off-season whether he wanted to continue playing in Dallas or transfer to another team. Assuming he re-upped with DAL, after this season DAL gets to make the decision whether to commit to him for 2025... and that dance continues through the rest of his career. So, effectively, the player in that situation gets the option every even year, and the team gets the option every odd year.

• Trades cannot be made unless the player is in his current team's year in which his team holds the option. Trades are made more simple by the fact that there is no salary consideration to deal with.

• If you're a star, great. But it's a team game like it was at the beginning of the sport now. Any extra income you're going to make is going to come from either playing post season or from endorsements or from post-career job opportunities that come to stars.

So what would a player make in 2024 under such a framework?

If my math is correct (per Spotrac, $275m 2024 average per team divided by 17 games divided by 53 players)... $305,000 per game in which they're on the roster... or about $5 million for the season.

Then, for post season participants, they currently are receiving either $41,500 (wild-card teams) or $46,500 (division winners) for wild-card games... $46,500 for the divisional round... and $69,000 for conference championships. Kansas City Chiefs players took home $157,000 as a result of winning the Super Bowl. San Francisco 49ers received $82,000.

Under this concept, though, the numbers would likely be seriously increased to correlate with post season income... and that's the part that is key if ever something like this became seriously considered. Owners would be opening up a whole other wing of their vault to players, ostensibly in exchange for the benefit of never having to negotiate another star QB contract (et al) again. Players would be mainly gaining from the new era because the players actually sacrificing would be the top tier earners... and if it came to a vote, of course, the top tier would be far out-numbered.

I'm a capitalist philosophically. Don't take this wrong. But I see reason for this specific economic environment for management and the union to come to agreement on a framework that cuts out the agents, and makes being a fan so much less about business, so much more purely about football and player performance.

So, now, feel free to let those rotten tomatoes fly... ...

WM sucks,

 

[America's Cowboy]

Wow, someone is bored and needs a new hobby.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Wow, someone is bored and needs a new hobby.

Yeah I’m not reading all that what did he say lol?

 

[Whyjerry]

Will M is ok. Nothing special.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Standardized player pay sounds great when it directly benefits the cowboys, but when it doesn’t and you realize you just gave the 49ers and Chiefs a ton of cap space and they never lose talent … then suddenly we need to back to the way it was because that was the only way it was truly fair

 

[BleedSilverandBlue]

The cap is fine and a perfectly reasonable way of doing things. Unfortunately our GM and front office have no idea how to make it work for them.

 

[RS12]

Proposition: McClay would be regarded as an NFL Einstein if they'd standardize players' pay​

,
Yikes. Was Mazi or Taco, or Trysten Hill, McClay picks? Yeah every team misses on picks but those were huge whiffs and the team still pays for it till today.

 

[atlantacowboy]

He's no Einstein or even a Howie Roseman.

 

[Coogiguy03]

 

[_sturt_]

Wow, someone is bored and needs a new hobby.

I confess.

I enjoy the challenge of trying to solve a problem that doesn't seem like it oughta be a problem.

I don't apologize, though. One chooses for him/herself what s/he wants to click on and read.

 

[_sturt_]

Standardized player pay sounds great when it directly benefits the cowboys, but when it doesn’t and you realize you just gave the 49ers and Chiefs a ton of cap space and they never lose talent … then suddenly we need to back to the way it was because that was the only way it was truly fair

Going to call you on that... what is outlined above is "truly fair."

And it's truly fair.

As-is you have advantage based on the position you play. Why? It's a team game. Make the compensation correlate with that fact, and you'll have a better product.

What's more... "never lose talent?"... read again. That's not how this works. In fact, a considerable number of players would opt to switch teams regularly in the pursuit of more playing time.

 

[_sturt_]

Yeah I’m not reading all that what did he say lol?

Thanks for your transparency... all of us were eagerly awaiting the news of whether you would read or not, and finally, we can get some sleep now. ... hehe

 

[coult44]

Yeah I’m not reading all that what did he say lol?

At the risk of stating the obvious, the NFL climate as it has stood for all these years seriously dis-incentivizes teams from drafting well, and as much as Will McClay may be appreciated, he would be considered a friggin NFL Einstein probably if he didn't have to watch high performance players he scouted and more often than not personally made the case to draft skip town after all.

You know, we really don't have to do this over and over and over and over every year for player after player after player after player. It's a choice that the owners and the union have made. There are ways to eliminate all that agents get paid and all the hours sunk into negotiations, and just let the best players want to be the best players out of a genuine desire to be the best, to win games and to win titles... with the caveat, that you do have the incentive to get paid for the work you do in post season.

My proposal...

• Total of NFL salaries become tied directly to a specific established percentage share of regular season revenues plus established percentage share of post-season revenues. What negotiating there is to do is that, then. Only that.

• If you're on the roster for a regular season game, you all get paid the same, no matter your position, no matter your place on the depth chart and number of snaps you get. You're part of a team. Why is that a bad idea? It's not, not in this context of competitive professional sports.

• Same for post season. If you're on the roster, you get paid. If your team isn't in post season, that's income you're missing out on... so you'll want to do better next year, right? If your team is in post season, obviously you have incentive to keep winning.

• If you're on the practice squad, you get paid something very much like you already get now per game.

• The commitment that a team makes to its drafted players and its drafted players make to them is 4 years for Day One draftees (1st), 3 years for Day Two draftees (2nd/3rd), and 2 years for Day Three draftees (4th-7th). For all UDFA signees, there is a 1 year commitment.

• Following their initial commitment to each other, the player and the team alternate years in making decisions to continue their working relationship. For instance, a first rounder like CeeDee drafted 4 years ago right now would have made a decision in the off-season whether he wanted to continue playing in Dallas or transfer to another team. Assuming he re-upped with DAL, after this season DAL gets to make the decision whether to commit to him for 2025... and that dance continues through the rest of his career. So, effectively, the player in that situation gets the option every even year, and the team gets the option every odd year.

• Trades cannot be made unless the player is in his current team's year in which his team holds the option. Trades are made more simple by the fact that there is no salary consideration to deal with.

• If you're a star, great. But it's a team game like it was at the beginning of the sport now. Any extra income you're going to make is going to come from either playing post season or from endorsements or from post-career job opportunities that come to stars.

So what would a player make in 2024 under such a framework?

If my math is correct (per Spotrac, $275m 2024 average per team divided by 17 games divided by 53 players)... $305,000 per game in which they're on the roster... or about $5 million for the season.

Then, for post season participants, they currently are receiving either $41,500 (wild-card teams) or $46,500 (division winners) for wild-card games... $46,500 for the divisional round... and $69,000 for conference championships. Kansas City Chiefs players took home $157,000 as a result of winning the Super Bowl. San Francisco 49ers received $82,000.

Under this concept, though, the numbers would likely be seriously increased to correlate with post season income... and that's the part that is key if ever something like this became seriously considered. Owners would be opening up a whole other wing of their vault to players, ostensibly in exchange for the benefit of never having to negotiate another star QB contract (et al) again. Players would be mainly gaining from the new era because the players actually sacrificing would be the top tier earners... and if it came to a vote, of course, the top tier would be far out-numbered.

I'm a capitalist philosophically. Don't take this wrong. But I see reason for this specific economic environment for management and the union to come to agreement on a framework that cuts out the agents, and makes being a fan so much less about business, so much more purely about football and player performance.

So, now, feel free to let those rotten tomatoes fly... ...

So I’m not gonna bash you, this took a lot of time and thought. But it’s flawed.

I have a ton of questions, too many to get into but I’d start with some basics, , if your top two players went down for the season and it greatly impacted the team making the postseason, your income would be decreased because of someone else’s misfortune??? What if player A was mad at player B and decided not to try hard, because he wanted to make sure player B wouldn’t make more money. His decision would effect the entire team, even though the entire team was working harder than player A ???

The more I think of this, the more it makes me think about half of today’s society. Everyone thinks they deserve the same as those at the top. Workers think they deserve the same income as the owner. Everyone thinks their kids deserve a championship trophy because they participated. To hell with working hard and achieving more as a creative individual. Everyone should share and be the same. It’s maddening.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Thanks for your transparency... all of us were eagerly awaiting the news of whether you would read or not, and finally, we can get some sleep now. ... hehe

Wasn’t newsworthy just was asking for cliff notes.

 

[_sturt_]

So I’m not gonna bash you, this took a lot of time and thought. But it’s flawed.

I have a ton of questions, too many to get into but I’d start with some basics,

(Nor should you bash anyone for just writing something that seems well-intended, of course. But bash away at the actual words and ideas expressed... we're here to disagree after all... and even agree at times.)

I'll say off the top having only read "I have a ton of questions"... there may be devils in the details of this, but that's okay... my inclination isn't to just throw my hands up just because there are devils in details, but rather to look how to reshape things to deal with the details. The basic concept is stout.

if your top two players went down for the season and it greatly impacted the team making the postseason, your income would be decreased because of someone else’s misfortune??? What if player A was mad at player B and decided not to try hard, because he wanted to make sure player B wouldn’t make more money. His decision would effect the entire team, even though the entire team was working harder than player A ???

Last part first, you're making a capitalist argument, and you're just not going to be able to out-capitalist me... I am as Milton Friedman-ite as they come.

But in this case, we have the exception to the rule in which, genuinely, it is by the very design of the game that it is the team that matters, not the individual. That's at the heart of football. Your point is an individualistic one, and while it makes sense in most other contexts, not so here. I mean, that's where I start, but I could also criticize the very idea that people would be so dumb as to cut off their proverbial noses to spite their faces, which is essentially what you propose here.

Your first sentence is more compelling, but how is that any different than it is already? If I'm Dak Prescott and two key O-linemen go down for the season, forcing me to run around and get sacked a lot, and forcing me to make decisions too fast such that I throw too many interceptions... yeah... that can happen, and lack of success is going to translate into lesser income.

The rewards of this plan are immense compared to what we have to deal with now. The only people who should vote "no" are the upper tier stars... and that's only out of utter greed. Everyone else benefits.

Well, not everyone. Agents would have to find some other line of work. We do love our agents, don't we? But I think that's a sacrifice we all can somehow make.

 

[Forneymike]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the NFL climate as it has stood for all these years seriously dis-incentivizes teams from drafting well, and as much as Will McClay may be appreciated, he would be considered a friggin NFL Einstein probably if he didn't have to watch high performance players he scouted and more often than not personally made the case to draft skip town after all.

You know, we really don't have to do this over and over and over and over every year for player after player after player after player. It's a choice that the owners and the union have made. There are ways to eliminate all that agents get paid and all the hours sunk into negotiations, and just let the best players want to be the best players out of a genuine desire to be the best, to win games and to win titles... with the caveat, that you do have the incentive to get paid for the work you do in post season.

My proposal...

• Total of NFL salaries become tied directly to a specific established percentage share of regular season revenues plus established percentage share of post-season revenues. What negotiating there is to do is that, then. Only that.

• If you're on the roster for a regular season game, you all get paid the same, no matter your position, no matter your place on the depth chart and number of snaps you get. You're part of a team. Why is that a bad idea? It's not, not in this context of competitive professional sports.

• Same for post season. If you're on the roster, you get paid. If your team isn't in post season, that's income you're missing out on... so you'll want to do better next year, right? If your team is in post season, obviously you have incentive to keep winning.

• If you're on the practice squad, you get paid something very much like you already get now per game.

• The commitment that a team makes to its drafted players and its drafted players make to them is 4 years for Day One draftees (1st), 3 years for Day Two draftees (2nd/3rd), and 2 years for Day Three draftees (4th-7th). For all UDFA signees, there is a 1 year commitment.

• Following their initial commitment to each other, the player and the team alternate years in making decisions to continue their working relationship. For instance, a first rounder like CeeDee drafted 4 years ago right now would have made a decision in the off-season whether he wanted to continue playing in Dallas or transfer to another team. Assuming he re-upped with DAL, after this season DAL gets to make the decision whether to commit to him for 2025... and that dance continues through the rest of his career. So, effectively, the player in that situation gets the option every even year, and the team gets the option every odd year.

• Trades cannot be made unless the player is in his current team's year in which his team holds the option. Trades are made more simple by the fact that there is no salary consideration to deal with.

• If you're a star, great. But it's a team game like it was at the beginning of the sport now. Any extra income you're going to make is going to come from either playing post season or from endorsements or from post-career job opportunities that come to stars.

So what would a player make in 2024 under such a framework?

If my math is correct (per Spotrac, $275m 2024 average per team divided by 17 games divided by 53 players)... $305,000 per game in which they're on the roster... or about $5 million for the season.

Then, for post season participants, they currently are receiving either $41,500 (wild-card teams) or $46,500 (division winners) for wild-card games... $46,500 for the divisional round... and $69,000 for conference championships. Kansas City Chiefs players took home $157,000 as a result of winning the Super Bowl. San Francisco 49ers received $82,000.

Under this concept, though, the numbers would likely be seriously increased to correlate with post season income... and that's the part that is key if ever something like this became seriously considered. Owners would be opening up a whole other wing of their vault to players, ostensibly in exchange for the benefit of never having to negotiate another star QB contract (et al) again. Players would be mainly gaining from the new era because the players actually sacrificing would be the top tier earners... and if it came to a vote, of course, the top tier would be far out-numbered.

I'm a capitalist philosophically. Don't take this wrong. But I see reason for this specific economic environment for management and the union to come to agreement on a framework that cuts out the agents, and makes being a fan so much less about business, so much more purely about football and player performance.

So, now, feel free to let those rotten tomatoes fly... ...

Just to make sure I’m clear what you are saying because it’s really a long post, Micah would get paid the same as the long snapper? The players would love that deal. lol. No incentive to be great. This is called socialism. Sounds good but doesn’t work. You wouldn’t accept this arrangement where you work. Productive players and valuable positions will be rewarded the players already endure a salary cap, they won’t endure a wage cap.

 

[1time4urMind]

Holy poop.