PonyExpress

The NFL draft value chart assigns to each draft slot a numerical value, similar to a monetary value, based on the order of finish. If every team adds up the "draft value points" assigned to all of its draft picks in a given draft, each team has a "budget". This budget varies from team to team due to the dramatically sliding scale, especially in the 1st rd. The bad teams have "more money" than the good teams.

Here is the draft value chart: http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/fea...aluechart.html

IMO the dispersion of college players should be conducted more like an auction than a military draft. Each team would get its assigned "points" budget, based on computing draft slots according to the value chart. But then all teams could BID using their "budget" on each player. Highest bid gets the player, and the salaries are roughly fixed, as they are now, but assigned from highest to lowest according to "value points" price instead of draft slot.

Trades as we now know them, involving "draft slots" would become obsolete. However trades involving future value could still be conducted. IOW, If I don't have enough "value points" in my budget to win a bidding war for "Beau Bell" for instance, I could call up another team, and say, "lend me 100 points, I'll give you an IOU for 100 points next year, paying interest". The NFL could assign a standard interest rate on future lending, say 50%, so that 100 points this year equates to 150 points next year.

This would remove the need for clumsy draft trades involving multiple picks; make "trades" easier and more precise; and allow the worst teams in the league to avoid paying outrageous salaries at the top of the draft if they are so inclined, while still giving them a "monetary" advantage.

Any left over "currency" would disappear once the auction is over, encouraging teams to bid what they have.

IMO this would create a much better product for the league, each team, and the fans.

Patsmaniac

Seems like it could be a logistical nightmare. I dont like it....

PonyExpress

I disagree. Instead of each team spending 10 minutes getting pointless trade offers over the phone, those 10 minutes would be occupied by bidding on the floor of the stadium where the draft is being conducted, like a stock exchange. The auctioneer, in this case the commissioner or his representative, would introduce each player for bidding in the estimated order of value based on pre draft projections. This process would be exciting for everyone involved.

patchick

Intriguing concept, but huge potential pitfalls. Here are just a couple:

Extreme scenario A: There is one amazing franchise player in the draft, let's say the best QB prospect in a decade. He's head and shoulders above everybody else. Teams 1 & 2 are both desperate for him, so team 1 is forced to spend its entire allotment of points just to get him. Thus the worst team in the league, the one with the most holes and open jobs, only gets to draft one player.

Extreme scenario B: Take scenario A and assume that the second-best prospect is equally clear, so teams 2 and 3 battle it out and team 2 only gets to draft one player. Repeat straight through team 31...leaving team 32 to take all the remaining prospects for 1 point a piece.

Which brings up the huge overarching problem: how does this system assure a consistent number of draftees, which is a key bargaining point between the league and the union?

ctpatsfan77

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I think this would work. There are two major logistical hurdles I can see:

(1) How would you determine the order in which players are presented for drafting?
(2) More importantly, the current structure normally guarantees that each team has a chance to select ~3 players in the top 100. How would you guarantee that each team gets access to a certain number of good players?

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patchick

Didn't even think about that! Yep, that's a deal-breaker right there.

PonyExpress

10 characters

PonyExpress

The commissioner, the head auctioneer, could introduce the players in pre auction estimated order of value, based on consultations with team and league representatives, and publish the order beforehand to alert all participants. Or he could even present the players by position in pre auction estimated order of value. As long as all the teams are made aware of the order in which players will be presented beforehand, there should be no problem.

Remember, the order in which players are presented for auction does not determine their salary. At the end of the entire auction, the players are ranked by highest to lowest bid. The salaries are then assigned based on that order, according to preexisting agreement with the union, much as salaries are slotted today based on draft order.

As far as the "fairness" of the system... Remember that the system is designed to be unfair. It penalizes the good teams and rewards the bad teams.The SB winner, or team with the lowest budget, going off the current Value chart, would have 1063 points. The 16th team has 1743. The worst team in the league would have 4,041. If we take the current value number assigned to a draft slot as a rough estimate of what the bidding at that point in an auction might be, (for example the 16th most valued player would roughly auction at 1,000 value points) the budgets even out after the 1st 31 players are selected. For example, if the #1 team is forced to bid 3,000 points for Matt Ryan, by the time the 32nd player is auctioned, the #1 and #32 teams have THE SAME BUDGET and an equal chance at the #32 player. This cycle theoretically would repeat itself 3 times before the 100th pick, where the team that begins the day with the lowest budget finds itself with the highest remaining budget several times.

jeffbiologist

The major thing that would screw it up is you would get into bidding wars and spending too much $$ on just a few players you know would help your team. It would be as if there were only say 1-2 rounds of the draft and everyone else is FAs. The way its set up now there is a constant supply and demand--they even have a value for picks system. The players union would never go for it because it would basically COST JOBS. They have tweaked the length,etc...And if the system isnt broke dont fix it.

PonyExpress

This auction system is a free market system, with a money economy, but adjusted to favor the weak by giving them higher budgets. The current "draft" system is the equivalent of a feudal economy where people are bartering with cattle and chickens. It's inefficient, a waste of time and ridiculous.

"The absence of money causes a market economy to be inefficient because it requires a coincidence of wants between traders, and an agreement that these needs are of equal value, before a barter exchange can occur. The use of money is thought to encourage trade". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

How would this auction plan cost jobs? The roster numbers are fixed, the money allotted to rookie players is fixed. The union would prefer to have fewer players "drafted", because that allows free market bidding to decide the fate of the others. It's the owners who want the "draft" longer, so they can count on relatively fixed rookie salaries and limit dollar bidding for UFAs. Due to that fact, the owners will control their in-auction point bidding to reflect their own interests. And the union would embrace this system. The value points that are bid do not equate to actual salary: After the auction is over the entire rookie class is reordered based on which players received the highest bids. Those players are then assigned salaries according to salary slots. Take a look at Patchick's sticky "2007 draft salary" post (2007 1st-round pick contract numbers). The same thing would occur in this system, but it would be fluid throughout the auction day. IOW, in theory you won't know for sure who the highest paid player will be until the end of the auction. A few foolish teams would empty their "value point" vaults on certain players, and then other teams would clean up on supposed mid level prospects who have always become the foundation of playoff teams.

I'm kind of surprised people aren't seeing the benefit of this. It's like trying to argue on behalf of the wheel in a society that uses the octagon. It would be one of the greatest television events in history, combining the attributes of the stock exchange, high stakes poker, auction politics, and a game show. You could even have scantily clad women traipsing around holding up a card with the player's name on it, as they do between boxing rds in Vegas. GMs would be having nervous break downs. Pre draft strategy speculation would generate incredible interest. This would be off-season football heaven. Throw in the fact IMO it's actually better for the game, and it makes even more sense. Bad teams wouldn't be compelled to throw away salary money if they don't want to on overpriced players at the top of the draft. You wouldn't have to worry about "trading out" of the top pick. Good teams could pick their spots and go for the player they truly want, instead of having to wait around for the rd to conclude, wasting everyone's time and interest. The most coveted players would make the most money. The spirit of competiton would rule.