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

[ChronicCowboy]

When does the CBA expire? I’d be surprised if there aren’t major changes once it does. May result in a lockout.

 

[_sturt_]

Micah would get paid the same as the long snapper?

Yes.

Read again. Or for the first time. Explanation already provided. In the OP, but also building on that in the post directly above yours.

You wouldn’t accept this arrangement where you work.

Right. This is the exception, not the rule, and where most of us work, our success is not dictated so explicitly and overtly by the success of the whole. And for most of us, success is not measured in such an explicit and overt way... ie, wins and losses. It's this way with most team sports, but so much more so in football than any other sport. Hopefully, I don't have to explain that. So, yeah, there's an argument for doing something in this vein for any team sport, but especially football.

To deviate from basing pay on the basis of anything other than wins and losses is, in actuality, to deviate from the very foundational premise of why the game is played.

wage cap.

You've misunderstood if you take it that this is a "wage cap."

Nonsense.

This is essentially a base+bonus kind of structure... you and your teammates are getting paid the prevailing wage, and if you prove to be successful at what you do, you're going to be in-line for a series of bonuses.

I think that's really the key... the post season money should be substantially more than it is right now. And why not? That's dollars that, right now, are sunk cost into players paying their agents' commissions, and the owners paying their own attorneys and/or investing their own time into negotiations.

There's no point. As the sport's popularity grows, all teams and their players should benefit, and the more successful teams should especially benefit.

 

[_sturt_]

When does the CBA expire? I’d be surprised if there aren’t major changes once it does. May result in a lockout.

2030, but given this Sunday Ticket issue, it seems there could be some disruption that gets them to the table for some new discussions regardless.

 

[Flamma]

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... ...

It's their league, they can make the rules. But wouldn't the really talented athletes play baseball, or if they're tall enough, basketball instead?

 

[_sturt_]

wouldn't the really talented athletes play baseball, or if they're tall enough, basketball instead?

So, let's think about that...

In your world, you would rather forego the chance at a microscopic shot at $5m+ per year... for a nanometric (eensy-teensy) shot at becoming a $40-$60m athlete.

Okay. I just don't think like that.

 

[OGSixshooter]

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.

What's your proof or reasons for saying this?

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

What's your proof or reasons for saying this?

Why won’t he take actual GM interviews? What’s he afraid of? Accountability?

 

[OGSixshooter]

Why won’t he take actual GM interviews? What’s he afraid of? Accountability?

I think he's among the highest paid - so that's why he won't leave. And hes' very well regarded around the league. It's no accident that our drafts are envied because of him..he mades his bones in scouting. Again...I'm willing to be convinced he's a fraud, but everything I've seen and read says that HE is the reason this team has not drafted like it did from 1994-2003

 

[Rockport]

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 you’re going to pay a punter, who may get 5 plays a game, the same as a QB who plays 40-60 plays? Yeah, thaaaaaats the ticket.

 

[Rockport]

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

He wants to pay punters the same as every other player no matter they only play maybe 5 plays a game vs a Center who plays ~50

 

[Rockport]

Why won’t he take actual GM interviews? What’s he afraid of? Accountability?

Man you hate every body.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Man you hate every body.

Have you ever seen him make a positive post? Like ever?

 

[Flamma]

So, let's think about that...

In your world, you would rather forego the chance at a microscopic shot at $5m+ per year... for a nanometric (eensy-teensy) shot at becoming a $40-$60m athlete.

Okay. I just don't think like that.

I'm just thinking of top athletes. There is a reason we don't have a good soccer team. There is no money in it, and our best athletes go to other sports. You want to limit the best of the best to 5M a year? For most athletes just lucky to be on a roster, that's just fine. I'm talking about top talent.

 

[HungryLion]

doesn’t sound like something the players union would be interested in.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

I think he's among the highest paid - so that's why he won't leave. And hes' very well regarded around the league. It's no accident that our drafts are envied because of him..he mades his bones in scouting. Again...I'm willing to be convinced he's a fraud, but everything I've seen and read says that HE is the reason this team has not drafted like it did from 1994-2003

Highest paid “yes man”.

It’s a good gig if you can get it.

 

[StarOfGlory]

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... ...

Your first sentence is ridiculous at face value. There is absolutely zero incentive to not draft well. How in the hell could anyone come to that conclusion? It is always in the best interest of the team to draft well. I appreciate the work you put into this, but this is not a good idea.

Yes, everyone is on a team, but not all teammates are equal in ability or importance, like it or not. I played LB at Rutgers, 26 games as a starter. I was just an average D1 player. I know in my heart that there is no way that I, as a player, despite the importance of the position back in the day, was as important as the QB when it came to putting wins in the column. If I was told that college players would now get paid, and the QB was earning more than me, I'd be fine with that.

You state that players will get extra income from playing in the post-season. Well, what if you are a great player that kicks *** on the field but your teammates aren't as good, or your coaching staff simply isn't up to the task? Imagine being stuck in a situation with Jason Garrett as your coach. So much for that sweet playoff money. And if your team isn't winning, you probably don't see a lot of sweet endorsement money.

If some of your potential for extra income is tied to the performance of other players, or the ability of coaches to put in proper game plans and make adjustments, how long do you think it would take before people are pointing fingers, blaming others on the team for a lack of success? And under your system, why care? After all, everyone makes the same amount of money.

There is a reason why certain players in every sport earn more than their teammates. The reason? Wait for it...it is because they ARE worth more than others. The problem with some players is that they don't always play up to their contract. Some coaches simply are outcoached game after game.

Human beings are not equal in ability, and some positions are more important than others. It is that way in every team sport, like it or not.

 

[Rockport]

Have you ever seen him make a positive post? Like ever?

Not once.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

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...

This is not true. There is in fact a very strong incentive for teams to draft well. The wage scale that applies to draftees on rookie contracts makes them an absolute bargain. Finding quality young talent in the draft is key to managing the salary cap.

 

[blueblood70]

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.

Yes even for me that post was way too long dude I don't even know what you're trying to say what exact talent have we let go that should have been here tell me all this talent that he scouted that turned into stars that somehow the Jones family didn't sign? Did you fail to make the list I mean I don't know what you're talking about they signed everyone worth signing and sometimes those that shouldn't be like Jalen Smith...


That didn't land man I don't know what you're talking about really..??

 

[blueblood70]

Not once.

But you gotta realize he is Stuart little the sky is always falling lol... But even if it was a negative post he posted nothing in there that says what players are we talking about that we're drafted here homegrown turned into stars and we let go I mean I don't know of any of those.... Unless they were injured or you know how to running with the league or I don't know I have no idea who this homegrown talent is that we've let go that will mcclay somehow should be frustrated because we just keep letting all his people go...who?